I'm sorry I didn't read JQs note in full. I hope you'll listen to him. But I still believe that PR needs to be pushed harder than Rob Richie puts it in his editorial so I'll be crafting a letter that focuses on this and I hope to get some feedback from you all on it.
dlw On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 8:19 PM, < [email protected]> wrote: > Send Election-Methods mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Election-Methods digest..." > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Election-Methods Digest, Vol 92, Issue 55 (David L Wetzell) > 2. NYT/Richie voting reform "debate" next Sunday; write in. > (Jameson Quinn) > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: David L Wetzell <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: > Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 19:49:36 -0600 > Subject: Re: [EM] Election-Methods Digest, Vol 92, Issue 55 > >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Kevin Venzke <[email protected]> >> To: election-methods <[email protected]> >> Cc: >> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 22:37:56 +0000 (GMT) >> Subject: Re: [EM] Kevin V >> Hi David, >> >> >> *De :* David L Wetzell <[email protected]> >> *À :* [email protected]; EM <[email protected]> >> *Envoyé le :* Mardi 7 février 2012 16h17 >> *Objet :* Re: Kevin V >> >> dlw: I argue that the strength of the US presidency and regular >> presidential elections has the effect of building up our two-party system. >> This is why I take as a given that there tend to be 2 bigger major >> parties and not as many serious candidates in "single-winner elections". >> This in turn tends to >> reduce the import of the diffs among the wide variety of single-winner >> elections. >> >> >> I think it works like this: >> President isn't responsible to or chosen by Congress -> >> There is not that much prize for having a majority of a house -> >> Weak party discipline (because of less focus on party: a candidate can >> get reelected even if his peers are unhappy) -> >> If you are a viable candidate, there is no need for you to carve out a >> new party. There is only room for two contenders per >> race (under FPP), and there are two parties that will take you as long >> as you can win for them. >> >> dlw: Aye, but the prez election itself and its potential for coat-tails >> and the reward from capturing one or both of the US legislatures >> does build up the parties who can afford to run a serious prez election >> race. I think some of the weak party discipline is also due to the >> restrictions on donations to parties in the 1974 FEC act. >> Our system wd function better if there was more intra-party discipline >> and the donations flowed thru the relatively transparent venue of the >> party. >> >> >> >> Personally I prefer weak party discipline. I like candidates to have >> independence, with the decision-making power >> less concentrated. And I'm suspicious of what party policies designed at >> the national level would look like. >> > > dlw: Well, intra-party discipline is needed one way or the other to get > things done. Our system right now is characterized as full of political > entrepreneurship, which makes bills a lot more complicated than they need > to be and things take longer and too much of politicians' time gets spent > fund-raising... > >> >> >> >> KV: I think we could have three "parties" (if not a much greater variety >> of viewpoints) with the right method. I wouldn't care >> if they are actually parties or just a higher number of real choices, on >> average, in a race. >> >> dlw:Would it make a diff if our two major parties became two different >> major parties, bridging the gap between the de facto center and the true >> center? >> If American forms of PR were adopted so that there'd still be 2 major >> parties per area, they wouldn't be the same 2 parties for all regions, >> which would then enable minor parties >> to contest the duopoly. And if this got complemented by a host of >> LTPs(with coalitions) that specialized in contesting "more local" >> elections and voting strategically together in "less local" elections, >> along with other acts that hold elected officials accountable to their >> promises then we'd have better quality choices, even if the quantity is >> less than we'd prefer. >> >> >> Yes, I think it would be useful if we could increase the incentive to >> stand at the median, even if two "parties" maintained >> their grip on things. >> >> I don't find PR very interesting personally. It can be its own goal, but >> it doesn't seem useful for the things I'm concerned >> about. >> > > dlw: For more local electyions that are rarely competitive, it's the only > way to make them not DINOs. We used quasi-proportional elections for IL > from 1870-1980 and it kept either major party from dominating the state's > politics, so other states that are/were economically dependent on IL could > afford to be more politically independent than if one party had been able > to leverage their domination of IL's politics... It's a neglected part of > our history!!! > > dlw > >> >> Kevin >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Kevin Venzke <[email protected]> >> To: election-methods <[email protected]> >> Cc: >> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 22:53:34 +0000 (GMT) >> Subject: Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet >> Hi Robert, >> >> I would +1 to Bryan Mills' post. >> >> >in the two-candidate case, you would have to assume unequal treatment >> for voters >> >> Yes, utility inherently does this. It's trying to maximize "happiness" >> which is a different ideal from giving >> everyone equal weight (e.g. even people who don't have a strong opinion). >> >> >but when Clay says that Score or Approval is better at picking the >> Condorcet winner than is a >> >Condorcet-compliant method, *that* is no tautology is obviously >> controversial, since it says that there is >> >a number closer to 3 than the number 3 itself. >> >> What Clay means is that score/Approval are better at picking the >> *sincere* Condorcet winner. Yes, that's >> obviously controversial. It could be true if it so happens that nobody >> wants to vote truthfully under >> Condorcet methods, while Approval in practice never has any bad >> outcomes, etc. >> >> >if it isn't 0 (for when you don't get who you voted for) and 1 (for when >> your candidate is elected), then >> >some voter is diluting their utilities and i think it's pretty useless >> and in bad taste to ask voters to do that >> >explicitly with a Score ballot. >> >> "Utilities" refers to what voters actually "feel," not what they are >> putting on the ballot. >> >> Kevin >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Election-Methods mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com >> >> > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Jameson Quinn <[email protected]> > To: EM <[email protected]>, electionsciencefoundation > <[email protected]> > Cc: > Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 20:18:52 -0600 > Subject: [EM] NYT/Richie voting reform "debate" next Sunday; write in. > Invitation to a Dialogue: A Better Way to Elect? Published: February 7, > 2012 > > - RECOMMEND > - TWITTER > - LINKEDIN > - E-MAIL > - > PRINT<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/opinion/invitation-to-a-dialogue-a-better-way-to-elect.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&pagewanted=print> > > <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/opinion/invitation-to-a-dialogue-a-better-way-to-elect.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&pagewanted=all> > - > REPRINTS<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/opinion/invitation-to-a-dialogue-a-better-way-to-elect.html?_r=1&ref=opinion#> > - > SHARE<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/opinion/invitation-to-a-dialogue-a-better-way-to-elect.html?_r=1&ref=opinion#> > > > <http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/opinion&pos=Frame4A&sn2=f8475720/9aad5d74&sn1=82e89b96/89090ad2&camp=FSL2012_ArticleTools_120x60_1787503b_nyt5&ad=TreeofLife_January27_120x60&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ecom%2Fthetreeoflife> > > *To the Editor:* > Enlarge This Image > Hieronymus > > Every four years a handful of the same old states effectively pick party > nominees for president, voting earlier and earlier with campaign spending > mattering more and more. > > The parties should winnow their field with what is known as the American > Plan <http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=965>, a nomination schedule that > rewards retail campaigning and gives late-entering candidates a better > chance. Ten biweekly rounds of voting would be held, starting in small > states. Delegates would beallocated > proportionally<http://www.fairvote.org/delegate-allocation-rules-in-2012-gop#.TzFko1Zjc4T> > rather > than by winner take all. > > Up to three candidates for each party would earn a place in a national > primary, held in June in conjunction with Congressional primaries. > > Ranked-choice voting — a proven system used in national elections in > Australia and mayoral elections in a dozen American cities, in which voters > rank candidates in order of preference — would ensure that winners earn > majority support in an “instant > runoff<http://www.instantrunoff.com/the-basics> > .” > > For general elections, the nominees of major parties should face more > competition from third-party and independent candidates by having fairer > ballot access, inclusive debates, ranked-choice voting and, eventually, a > national > popular vote <http://nationalpopularvote.com/> for president. > > For Congressional elections, creating larger districts with several seats > and a proportional voting system to allow more voters to elect a preferred > candidate would better represent the left, the right and the center. > > With these changes, all Americans could be engaged in our presidential > elections, not just the favored few of Iowa, New Hampshire and the other > early primary and caucus states. And we just might regularly end up with > better presidents and members of Congress. > > ROB RICHIE > Takoma Park, Md., Feb. 6, 2012 > > *The writer is executive director of FairVote, which promotes election > reform.* > > *Editors’ Note: **We invite readers to respond to this letter for our > Sunday Dialogue. We plan to publish responses and Mr. Richie’s rejoinder in > the Sunday Review. E-mail:[email protected]* > > > --------------- > > Jameson here... I think we should definitely take this opportunity to > promote reform in general. I'd advise a "yes, and" approach to Richie. As I > see it, it is definitely not worth trying to talk about the flaws in IRV. > Richie will get his rejoinder; it's impossible to pre-rebut all of the > various half-truths or worse that he could come up with, so it's better not > to try. Also, remember, we want the average reader to go away thinking that > all the experts agree that election reform is a great idea, not feeling > that it's a minefield of debate. So say your piece, but be nice to Richie, > no matter what you think he deserves. > > Personally, I'd love it if the Center for Election Science could have an > official response. Similarly for all the people with credentials - > votefair, etc. > > A similar idea: statement signers, do you think we could agree on a > response in time to get published on Sunday? > > Jameson > > _______________________________________________ > Election-Methods mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com > >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
