On 4/25/2013 8:20 AM, Jonathan Denn wrote:
> ...
> My thoughts on the matter are that the citizen's commission choose
the experts with the goal of hearing ALL sides, inside or outside the
box ideas. With guidance from a diverse panel of intelligentsia.
Consider that Congress is, itself, supposed to function somewhat like a
"citizen's commission." And if they were candid they might claim that
lobbyists function like "a diverse panel of intelligentsia."
O O
\__/
Recall the Congressional Congress 2.0 through which you and I met
online. It too was supposed to be like a "citizen's commission." It
officially adopted a very-unfair voting method for the intended
deliberations (that never happened because the organizer tried to
control the outcome).
Forum question: Speaking of that awful voting method, is there a name
for the idea of each voter getting a specific number of points (such as
100 per voter) and then distributing those points among the choices and
then assuming that the choices with the most points are the most popular?
I admit I'm cynical about choosing any group of people to do the
choosing, especially of an election method, especially after what I
learned from the Ontario Canada example.
Instead I favor improving elections directly, by opening up people's
minds to the idea that single-mark ballots allow money to control
politics and that better alternatives are available to try in any (and
every) voting situation.
I very much like your idea of advocating better ballots (and counting
methods) for use in Presidential primary elections. And it makes sense
to suggest Approval ballots because anything else would be blocked by
each state's election rules (because other ballot types would require
using different ballot-counting hardware).
Thank you for helping to promote the idea of better ballots and better
counting methods!
Richard Fobes
On 4/25/2013 8:20 AM, Jonathan Denn wrote:
Hi Richard,
It's always a pleasure to hear from you.
Comments below...
On Apr 24, 2013, at 10:46 PM, Richard Fobes wrote:
On 4/22/2013 7:30 AM, Jonathan Denn wrote:
...
My conclusion to the IVN piece is likely going to be to immediately
advocate for "Approval" voting nationwide.
"Nationwide" is both ambiguous and ambitious. If you express the reform that
way, I'd suggest clarifying what you mean. Personally I'd suggest more of a ramping-up
approach.
I should have been clearer: In the Presidential election. With "Approval" the
third parties should do well enough to get matching funds in future elections therefore
greatly improving the quality of the next debates.
And after voters get used to
the change to then have an independent commission study which method is
best for the ranking of candidates.
A strong "no" on the idea of an independent commission study!
Well, this really is the crux of the matter—epistemic democracy versus participative. I
see the "establishment" always trying to censor the reformer voice. In
economics, a recent National Issues Forum study guide on the deficit completely left out
Modern Monetary Theory from UMKC. MMT, IMO, is Ockham's Razor. In electoral reform all
you hear about in the media is Citizen's United which is mostly a minor issue compared to
the legal extortion and bribery of elected officials, the revolving door, term limits,
gerrymandering, and the abridging of free speech and rights to assemble.
My thoughts on the matter are that the citizen's commission choose the experts
with the goal of hearing ALL sides, inside or outside the box ideas. With
guidance from a diverse panel of intelligentsia.
Ontario Canada created a citizen's committee to study voting methods and they (under the influence of a biased
"expert") came up with the "closed-list" form of PR (proportional representation). It allows the
people in power to stay in power, which is the opposite of what voters want. I and others then worked to defeat that
choice when it came up on the ballot. In the Declaration Of Election-Method Reform Advocates we specifically denounce
the "closed-list" approach by recommending the "open-list" approach instead (if PR is used).
How do you run open-list and assure the information is actually disseminated to
the voters? With attention spans of 7 seconds, how does the average citizen
digest hundreds of hours of deliberation? Most Americans don't have time to
prepare a healthy meal at the end of the day, share it with family, or visit
with friends. Parsing out complex electoral reform is competing for eyeballs
with American Idol, sports events, school recitals, etc. etc. etc...
E.g. When I'm in discussion groups about the economy, almost no one even
understands the difference between fiscal and monetary policy, let alone that
the US government has a monopoly issuing US currency. My point being, the
public is long on virtue, but someone has to do the scholarship and figure out
how to disseminate it.
Let different cities and states use different methods -- preferably with
guidance from the information in the Declaration. There is no need to converge
on a single common approach. In fact, even though I advocate the
Condorcet-Kemeny method, even I would recommend having used Approval voting in
the recall election that Arnold Swartzeneger (sp?) won to become California's
governor because there were 135 candidates competing for that single seat, and
Approval voting is less confusing to the voters when there are that many
candidates.
I'm certainly open to ideas about how a free and fair hearing of evidence is
assured.
I agree on local rule. I was just referring to a single approach for POTUS.
Thanks for this. My mind remains open, and I do want to feature DEMRA. I invite
more input, and I'm now thinking this is a series of columns.
Cheers,
Jon
...
So, would anyone like to send me a quote, or be interviewed, or want to
dissuade me from my conclusion? I'm a sucker for a greater argument. I
can't guarantee your input will make it into the article, but as you
know I'm a big fan of DEMRA's work.
You can regard this as either an attempt to influence what you say, or as a
quote, or a series of quotes (your choice):
"The most important part of advocating better ballots and better counting
methods is to educate voters as to why election results so often yield winners who
most of the voters dislike. We know that money has an excessive influence on
election results, but not enough people understand that it happens because we use
single-mark ballots. Single-mark ballots are only intended to handle choosing
between two choices. We need to use ballots and counting methods that handle three
or more choices. This need is especially important in primary elections because
that is where the biggest campaign contributors take advantage of vote splitting if
a reform-minded candidate dares to run against a money-backed candidate. Remember
that the biggest campaign contributors control both the Republican and Democratic
parties, and by controlling the primary elections of both parties they don't have to
care whether the Republican or Democrat wins the general election. Most voters, and
politic
ians, are too distracted by the left-versus-right debate to notice where the real
control of power occurs, and why it is so easy for moneyed interests to control both
parties. The biggest potential for reform is for third parties to adopt better
ballots and better counting methods in their primary elections. That change,
besides attracting lots of voters to those third parties, will educate mainstream
voters that there are alternatives. Approval voting is the logical place to start
because the existing ballot-counting hardware can be used, and it just involves
allowing more than one mark per race. Yet any use of any kind of better ballot --
in any kind of decision-making situation -- will quickly educate lots of voters
about the unfairness of the single-mark ballots we now use."
"Education is the key!"
Richard Fobes
Author of "Ending The Hidden Unfairness In U.S. Elections"
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
