Re: [EM] Statement by this list (was Remember toby Nixon)
On May 30, 2011, at 1:21 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: OK, it seems that there are no objections to using this list to organize a statement. I think this would explain the connection to this list, but explicitly disclaim being an "official position" of any persons or organizations besides its signatories. Sounds like serious work. Pick a meaningful subject - yet make that short Here's the general points I'd like it to make: Problems with plurality -For voters -Voter can NEED to back multiple candidates, AND not want to give equal backing to all of those. -Yet bullet voting can express voter desire, and should be acceptable - (while agreeing enthusiastically that it is time to leave plurality, some methods impose complications that may please method designers and annoy voters when they can do fine with bullet voting). -tactical dilemma -A tactical vote is insincere -A sincere vote is not decisive -often no recourse -foregone conclusions -"corrupt vs. evil" elections -overemphasis on which candidates are "relevant" makes campaigns too expensive -democracy for sale -For the majority party -More vulnerable to vote splitting / spoilers than the minority. -For the minority major party -Non-proportional results and disproportionate swings -For issue-based activists -Often even popular positions are out-of-the-mainstream in either party, and thus shut out of the public debate -For officeholders -Security in office often depends more on demographics than on the quality of your work -Two-way races favor negative ads -For third parties -A total disaster -Both third parties and minor ideas NEED a way for voters to express interest to show how great the interest is, whether or not approaching ability to win. Solutions exist Although no system is perfect, plurality is almost perfectly bad. That is, there are systems which are superior in every important way. -But watch out - we can certainly do worse than plurality if we get careless. -Myth: "Non-plurality systems lead to divided government." -Things like "hung parliaments" and frequent shifts in party control are a factor of a parliamentary system. The US three-branch system is never going to be like Italy. -Myth: "Voting reform only matters for third-party supporters" -See advantages above for the first and second parties and for officeholders -Myth: "It's all about campaign finance." -Election system reform and campaign finance reform would support each other. Without election system reform, campaign finance reform cannot solve the problem. -Myth: "One man one vote" or "keep voting simple" mean that plurality is the only way. -While these systems are less-familiar than plurality, they are just as democratic and accessible to all voters. Many are direct elaborations of clear principles. All can be explained in a few clear sentences. List solutions -Link to poll. This is why I think that a non-secret-ballot poll with a few dozen votes would have value in and of itself, not just as a way of choosing which methods to list. -Careful - drafting questions for such can get biased - look at the polls politicians write. -List of solutions - a short description each, one or two strengths for each system. Not more than one system described within each "class" (ie, Condorcet, Median-based), although mentions of a couple of others are OK. -Separate lists for single-winner and PR solutions -Certainly want both, but desirable if voter chores can be kept similar. -Mention, without too much detail, of other worthy non-partisan reforms (anti-gerrymandering, limit supermajority requirements, grassroots asset-voting, voting security, easy registration. The latter two are not incompatible.) Solutions considered -IRV, Borda -Some of the undersigned feel that these would be improvements over plurality; others feel that their problems are as great as or greater than those of plurality. -This statement takes no position on these systems. -Just listing the above two is implied backing: -We know enough of IRV that it should get lost unless with much competition. -I apologize for not being ready to comment on Borda. -I see Condorcet as important, and that range and asset need considering - at least those three need to be on such a list - but asset is too complex to live alone. Pledge of solidarity -The undersigned agree that all the systems mentioned above would be improvements over plurality, and important reforms to US democracy. -Although we may have preferences between the systems offered, we will all support any of them. -Any arguments we make about which specific system is better, or about the weaknesses of a given system, should not be construed to negate our support for reforming plurality. Obviously, that's not a statemen
Re: [EM] Statement by this list (was Remember toby Nixon)
OK, it seems that there are no objections to using this list to organize a statement. I think this would explain the connection to this list, but explicitly disclaim being an "official position" of any persons or organizations besides its signatories. Here's the general points I'd like it to make: Problems with plurality -For voters -tactical dilemma -A tactical vote is insincere -A sincere vote is not decisive -often no recourse -foregone conclusions -"corrupt vs. evil" elections -overemphasis on which candidates are "relevant" makes campaigns too expensive -democracy for sale -For the majority party -More vulnerable to vote splitting / spoilers than the minority. -For the minority major party -Non-proportional results and disproportionate swings -For issue-based activists -Often even popular positions are out-of-the-mainstream in either party, and thus shut out of the public debate -For officeholders -Security in office often depends more on demographics than on the quality of your work -Two-way races favor negative ads -For third parties -A total disaster Solutions exist Although no system is perfect, plurality is almost perfectly bad. That is, there are systems which are superior in every important way. -Myth: "Non-plurality systems lead to divided government." -Things like "hung parliaments" and frequent shifts in party control are a factor of a parliamentary system. The US three-branch system is never going to be like Italy. -Myth: "Voting reform only matters for third-party supporters" -See advantages above for the first and second parties and for officeholders -Myth: "It's all about campaign finance." -Election system reform and campaign finance reform would support each other. Without election system reform, campaign finance reform cannot solve the problem. -Myth: "One man one vote" or "keep voting simple" mean that plurality is the only way. -While these systems are less-familiar than plurality, they are just as democratic and accessible to all voters. Many are direct elaborations of clear principles. All can be explained in a few clear sentences. List solutions -Link to poll. This is why I think that a non-secret-ballot poll with a few dozen votes would have value in and of itself, not just as a way of choosing which methods to list. -List of solutions - a short description each, one or two strengths for each system. Not more than one system described within each "class" (ie, Condorcet, Median-based), although mentions of a couple of others are OK. -Separate lists for single-winner and PR solutions -Mention, without too much detail, of other worthy non-partisan reforms (anti-gerrymandering, limit supermajority requirements, grassroots asset-voting, voting security, easy registration. The latter two are not incompatible.) Solutions considered -IRV, Borda -Some of the undersigned feel that these would be improvements over plurality; others feel that their problems are as great as or greater than those of plurality. -This statement takes no position on these systems. Pledge of solidarity -The undersigned agree that all the systems mentioned above would be improvements over plurality, and important reforms to US democracy. -Although we may have preferences between the systems offered, we will all support any of them. -Any arguments we make about which specific system is better, or about the weaknesses of a given system, should not be construed to negate our support for reforming plurality. Obviously, that's not a statement, just a rough first-draft of an outline. Comments and changes are welcome. Jameson 2011/5/30 Andy Jennings > I think an official statement by this list is a great idea. > > Andy > > > On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:01 AM, Jameson Quinn > wrote: > >> This thread, like this list, has two purposes - practical advocacy and >> mathematical exploration. >> >> On the practical advocacy front, I'd propose a process: >> 0. We discuss get some degree of informal consensus on this process itself >> - I imagine it will take about a week, so say, before Sunday June 5th. >> 1. We draw up a statement which details the serious problems with >> plurality in the US context, and states that there are solutions. Leave a >> blank space for a list of acceptable solutions. This statement, when >> finished (after step 3) would be "signable" by any members of this list, >> completely at their own option. >> 2. We take a vote on what options to list. We can use betterpolls.com, >> remembering that the scores there are -10 to 10, and negative/positive is >> mapped to approval/disapproval. >> 3. We list the options and the winner(s) in the statement and sign it. >> 4. When we have a good number of signatures, we put out a "press" release >> to some bloggers who've shown an interest in the issue (e.g. Andrew >> Sullivan) >> >> My hope is that, despite the varied opinions, we cou
Re: [EM] Statement by this list (was Remember toby Nixon)
I think an official statement by this list is a great idea. Andy On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:01 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote: > This thread, like this list, has two purposes - practical advocacy and > mathematical exploration. > > On the practical advocacy front, I'd propose a process: > 0. We discuss get some degree of informal consensus on this process itself > - I imagine it will take about a week, so say, before Sunday June 5th. > 1. We draw up a statement which details the serious problems with plurality > in the US context, and states that there are solutions. Leave a blank space > for a list of acceptable solutions. This statement, when finished (after > step 3) would be "signable" by any members of this list, completely at their > own option. > 2. We take a vote on what options to list. We can use betterpolls.com, > remembering that the scores there are -10 to 10, and negative/positive is > mapped to approval/disapproval. > 3. We list the options and the winner(s) in the statement and sign it. > 4. When we have a good number of signatures, we put out a "press" release > to some bloggers who've shown an interest in the issue (e.g. Andrew > Sullivan) > > My hope is that, despite the varied opinions, we could say something > clearly and strongly enough to have an impact. > > JQ > > > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info > > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Statement by this list (was Remember toby Nixon)
On 29.5.2011, at 2.09, James Gilmour wrote: >>> On 27.5.2011, at 10.01, Jameson Quinn wrote: >>> 1. We draw up a statement which details the serious problems >>> with plurality in the US context, and states that there are >>> solutions. > >> Juho Laatu Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 9:43 PM >> Good approach. I have one comment on the target statement. >> Expression "problems with plurality in the US context" >> contains the assumption that the traditional two-party system >> in not the correct solution for the US. > > I would respectfully suggest that this statement is not correct. I don't > think JQ's statement says or implies anything about "the > traditional two-party system". But even if the electors and voters in the > USA wanted and voted only for "the traditional two-party > system", there could be, and probably would be, problems with plurality, even > in the US context. Plurality frequently distorts the > voters' wishes, is inherently unstable, and even when it delivers acceptably > balanced representation overall there are often > "electoral deserts" where one party or the other has almost no representation > despite having significant voting support there, even > when there are only two parties. > > And I think you need to distinguish between the two types of election that > occur in the US context: election to a single-office > (city mayor, state governor, etc); and election to a "representative > assembly" (city council, state legislature with upper and lower > houses, federal legislature with upper and lower houses). These two types of > election present different opportunities for securing > representation of the voters within a system of "representative democracy". > These are more fundamental issues that I would suggest > you need to address, and they are quite independent of any consideration of > the number of parties (or the number of effective > parties) that might come later. > > JG Ok, I agree that plurality may have problems also within an otherwise well working two-party system. And a two-party country might well have single winner elections that are not partisan and contain several candidates that are not associated with the two parties. Or maybe we want to have a method that allows both parties to nominate more than one candidate. In all these cases we might need also improved methods. Juho Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Statement by this list (was Remember toby Nixon)
> > On 27.5.2011, at 10.01, Jameson Quinn wrote: > > 1. We draw up a statement which details the serious problems > > with plurality in the US context, and states that there are > > solutions. > Juho Laatu Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 9:43 PM > Good approach. I have one comment on the target statement. > Expression "problems with plurality in the US context" > contains the assumption that the traditional two-party system > in not the correct solution for the US. I would respectfully suggest that this statement is not correct. I don't think JQ's statement says or implies anything about "the traditional two-party system". But even if the electors and voters in the USA wanted and voted only for "the traditional two-party system", there could be, and probably would be, problems with plurality, even in the US context. Plurality frequently distorts the voters' wishes, is inherently unstable, and even when it delivers acceptably balanced representation overall there are often "electoral deserts" where one party or the other has almost no representation despite having significant voting support there, even when there are only two parties. And I think you need to distinguish between the two types of election that occur in the US context: election to a single-office (city mayor, state governor, etc); and election to a "representative assembly" (city council, state legislature with upper and lower houses, federal legislature with upper and lower houses). These two types of election present different opportunities for securing representation of the voters within a system of "representative democracy". These are more fundamental issues that I would suggest you need to address, and they are quite independent of any consideration of the number of parties (or the number of effective parties) that might come later. JG Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Statement by this list (was Remember toby Nixon)
On 27.5.2011, at 10.01, Jameson Quinn wrote: > This thread, like this list, has two purposes - practical advocacy and > mathematical exploration. One could divide the field also further by making a difference between 1) practical advocacy, 2) practical exploration of real life examples, 3) practical method exploration in general, and 4) mathematical (theoretical) exploration. These could mean respectively e.g. 1) active participation in politics, 2) using the current status of some country / election as a basis for the work, 3) general recommendations for presidential elections, and 4) delegation of one's vote to an intelligent computer in a future dystopia, or maybe just plain mathematical properties of some methods. > > On the practical advocacy front, I'd propose a process: > 0. We discuss get some degree of informal consensus on this process itself - > I imagine it will take about a week, so say, before Sunday June 5th. > 1. We draw up a statement which details the serious problems with plurality > in the US context, and states that there are solutions. Leave a blank space > for a list of acceptable solutions. This statement, when finished (after step > 3) would be "signable" by any members of this list, completely at their own > option. Good approach. I have one comment on the target statement. Expression "problems with plurality in the US context" contains the assumption that the traditional two-party system in not the correct solution for the US. Expression "and states that there are solutions" refers to possible solutions at some general and neutral level. This latter formulation is a theoretical statement that does not yet say what the US should do. This is interesting from the point of view that US citizens might want to say what the US should do in this question while the non-US-citizens might be happy with stating the theoretical facts and possible options only. There could thus be two levels. One for practical advocation and political activism within some country and one for general opinions, coming from neutral experts (maybe unwilling to take position on the internal matters of that country). That is, category 1) vs. categories 2) and 3) in my list above. > 2. We take a vote on what options to list. We can use betterpolls.com, > remembering that the scores there are -10 to 10, and negative/positive is > mapped to approval/disapproval. Voting could be a more difficult process than collecting the list of options using sone "informal consensus" as in point 0. In general I tend to rely on some single person (or few) taking a leading role in creating such a paper that it can be agreed my some critical mass. One can also produce serially multiple versions of the list and paper to find the best combination (that the creators and as large group of supporters as needed are happy to sign). > 3. We list the options and the winner(s) in the statement and sign it. > 4. When we have a good number of signatures, we put out a "press" release to > some bloggers who've shown an interest in the issue (e.g. Andrew Sullivan) Would "we" be the list of supporters? That sounds easier than using the name of this list. > > My hope is that, despite the varied opinions, we could say something clearly > and strongly enough to have an impact. I'm sure there are many points where most (or at least many credible) experts agree and that would bring useful information to politicians, practical reformers and regular voters. Maybe it would take some strong individual(s) dedicated to this kind of practical matters to extract those opinions out from the rest of the experts. I'd be happy to see some general statements with wide consensus among experts on how the voting practices could be improved allover the world (i.e. also practical facts that can support real life decisions in addition to personal opinions and mathematical facts). Juho > > JQ > > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[EM] Statement by this list (was Remember toby Nixon)
This thread, like this list, has two purposes - practical advocacy and mathematical exploration. On the practical advocacy front, I'd propose a process: 0. We discuss get some degree of informal consensus on this process itself - I imagine it will take about a week, so say, before Sunday June 5th. 1. We draw up a statement which details the serious problems with plurality in the US context, and states that there are solutions. Leave a blank space for a list of acceptable solutions. This statement, when finished (after step 3) would be "signable" by any members of this list, completely at their own option. 2. We take a vote on what options to list. We can use betterpolls.com, remembering that the scores there are -10 to 10, and negative/positive is mapped to approval/disapproval. 3. We list the options and the winner(s) in the statement and sign it. 4. When we have a good number of signatures, we put out a "press" release to some bloggers who've shown an interest in the issue (e.g. Andrew Sullivan) My hope is that, despite the varied opinions, we could say something clearly and strongly enough to have an impact. JQ Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
