Re: [EM] Fwd: how goes American PR?

[Ted Stern]

On 05 Dec 2011 12:46:41 -0800, Ted Stern wrote:
>
> The simplest PR system:  open list Approval Transferable Vote.
>
> ATF for multiwinner elections:

Correction, ATV.  Blame it on Monday ...

-- Ted

>
> Quota ("easy"):  Q = (Nballots + 1)/(Nseats + 1)
>
> A voter may approve any number of candidates.
>
> Each ballot is initially weighted as 1.0.
>
> Count weighted approval totals.  At same time, count weighted
> approvals coming from truncated ballots (only one standing candidate
> remaining on the ballot).
>
> In each round, seat the candidate with the highest weighted approval
> total (T).  The truncated approval total for that candidate is denoted
> by L.
>
> The amount of vote used up on each ballot that votes for that
> candidate is
>
>U =  max(Q - L, 0.0) / max(max(T,Q) - L, eps),
> where eps is a small number > 0, say 1.e-9.
>
> This is just (Q - L) / (T - L), restricted to lie between 0.0 and 1.0.
>
> Since truncated ballots will lose their vote completely (and thus the
> U factor is irrelevant for those ballots), the truncation factor
> adjustment lets untruncated ballots transfer more of their strength.
>
> The rescale factor on each ballot voting for the last seated candidate
> is thus
>
>F = 1.0 - U
>
> Advantages:
>
> ATF is monotonic and Droop-proportional.
>
> Approval ballot is the simplest format.
>
> With multiple winners, Approval strategy for the approval cutoff is
> less important.  Voters can simply approve of all candidates that they
> feel best represent their positions.
>
> Each round is summable (though the overall election is not), and there
> are only Nseats rounds, unlike STV.
>
> The Truncation sum, L, reduces the vote loss that is usually
> associated with STV.  In fact, the truncation transfer factor
> adjustment could be applied to any quota-based PR method that is
> subject to truncated ballot vote loss.
>
> ATF may not be the most ideal PR , but it would be the simplest to
> implement quickly.
>
> Ted
>
> On 03 Dec 2011 14:31:16 -0800, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>>
>> I left out one of the most important advantages of PAL voting: that it's dead
>> simple for voters. Though you can vote a more-expressive ballot if you want 
>> to,
>> a simple bullet vote is enough to give good, proportional but not
>> party-centric, results.
>>
>> Jameson
>>
>> 2011/12/3 Jameson Quinn 
>>
>> Does "American PR" have a specific meaning yet? I'm sure I'll be in favor
>> of it, whatever PR variant it is; but while I'm still ignorant, let me
>> guess a little.
>>
>> I doubt it's a mixed-member system. They're good, but the US, despite (or
>> perhaps because of) being one of the most partisan countries around, has
>> too much suspicion of "party machines" for that to catch on.
>>
>> So that leaves ... I guess the most-probable options are global STV or 
>> STV
>> in small multimember districts (3-5 members).
>>
>> Again, these are both quite good systems I'd support. But if it's not too
>> late to offer a suggestion... I'd strongly encourage you to consider
>> something like PAL representation. It's certainly not the simplest system
>> there is, but then no PR system is really simple. And as advantages you
>> get:
>> -- High potential for 100% continuity (if the statewide gerrymander was
>> fairly proportional, and if third parties don't pick up any seats). This 
>> is
>> a HUGE advantage when selling to incumbents. I mean, seriously, 
>> tremendous.
>> -- Voters and/or peers have the real power to remove even the most
>> well-encrusted incumbent if they sour on him or her. That is, it's
>> voter-centric, not party-centric
>> -- Almost every voter gets their own local representative WHOM THEY VOTED
>> FOR. This is absolutely something that would resonate with US voters,
>> raised on tales of "No taxation without representation".??
>>
>> Check it out.
>>
>> (And yes, I think that we can work together over PR, even if we don't see
>> eye-to-eye on single winner systems.)
>>
>> Jameson
>> 2011/12/3 David L Wetzell 
>>
>> American PR is a coming. ??You must decide if you want to keep
>> quibbling over the best single-winner election rule or push hard for 
>> a
>> better mix of multi and single-winner election rules in the US.
>>
>> dlw
>> -- Forwarded message --
>> From: Rob Richie 
>> Date: Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 11:05 AM
>> Subject: Re: how goes American PR?
>> To: David L Wetzell 
>>
>> A little slow in getting our American PR-like plans drawn, but we'll
>> have them done for hte whole country in early 2012 and heat up in our
>> outreach... getting some related opeds.
>>
>> Next year should be a good one for the idea -- ??lots of chances to
>> talk about it.
>> Rob
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 30, 20

Re: [EM] Fwd: how goes American PR?

[Ted Stern]

The simplest PR system:  open list Approval Transferable Vote.

ATF for multiwinner elections:

Quota ("easy"):  Q = (Nballots + 1)/(Nseats + 1)

A voter may approve any number of candidates.

Each ballot is initially weighted as 1.0.

Count weighted approval totals.  At same time, count weighted
approvals coming from truncated ballots (only one standing candidate
remaining on the ballot).

In each round, seat the candidate with the highest weighted approval
total (T).  The truncated approval total for that candidate is denoted
by L.

The amount of vote used up on each ballot that votes for that
candidate is

   U =  max(Q - L, 0.0) / max(max(T,Q) - L, eps),
where eps is a small number > 0, say 1.e-9.

This is just (Q - L) / (T - L), restricted to lie between 0.0 and 1.0.

Since truncated ballots will lose their vote completely (and thus the
U factor is irrelevant for those ballots), the truncation factor
adjustment lets untruncated ballots transfer more of their strength.

The rescale factor on each ballot voting for the last seated candidate
is thus

   F = 1.0 - U

Advantages:

ATF is monotonic and Droop-proportional.

Approval ballot is the simplest format.

With multiple winners, Approval strategy for the approval cutoff is
less important.  Voters can simply approve of all candidates that they
feel best represent their positions.

Each round is summable (though the overall election is not), and there
are only Nseats rounds, unlike STV.

The Truncation sum, L, reduces the vote loss that is usually
associated with STV.  In fact, the truncation transfer factor
adjustment could be applied to any quota-based PR method that is
subject to truncated ballot vote loss.

ATF may not be the most ideal PR , but it would be the simplest to
implement quickly.

Ted

On 03 Dec 2011 14:31:16 -0800, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>
> I left out one of the most important advantages of PAL voting: that it's dead
> simple for voters. Though you can vote a more-expressive ballot if you want 
> to,
> a simple bullet vote is enough to give good, proportional but not
> party-centric, results.
>
> Jameson
>
> 2011/12/3 Jameson Quinn 
>
> Does "American PR" have a specific meaning yet? I'm sure I'll be in favor
> of it, whatever PR variant it is; but while I'm still ignorant, let me
> guess a little.
>
> I doubt it's a mixed-member system. They're good, but the US, despite (or
> perhaps because of) being one of the most partisan countries around, has
> too much suspicion of "party machines" for that to catch on.
>
> So that leaves ... I guess the most-probable options are global STV or STV
> in small multimember districts (3-5 members).
>
> Again, these are both quite good systems I'd support. But if it's not too
> late to offer a suggestion... I'd strongly encourage you to consider
> something like PAL representation. It's certainly not the simplest system
> there is, but then no PR system is really simple. And as advantages you
> get:
> -- High potential for 100% continuity (if the statewide gerrymander was
> fairly proportional, and if third parties don't pick up any seats). This 
> is
> a HUGE advantage when selling to incumbents. I mean, seriously, 
> tremendous.
> -- Voters and/or peers have the real power to remove even the most
> well-encrusted incumbent if they sour on him or her. That is, it's
> voter-centric, not party-centric
> -- Almost every voter gets their own local representative WHOM THEY VOTED
> FOR. This is absolutely something that would resonate with US voters,
> raised on tales of "No taxation without representation".??
>
> Check it out.
>
> (And yes, I think that we can work together over PR, even if we don't see
> eye-to-eye on single winner systems.)
>
> Jameson
> 2011/12/3 David L Wetzell 
>
> American PR is a coming. ??You must decide if you want to keep
> quibbling over the best single-winner election rule or push hard for a
> better mix of multi and single-winner election rules in the US.
>
> dlw
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Rob Richie 
> Date: Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 11:05 AM
> Subject: Re: how goes American PR?
> To: David L Wetzell 
>
> A little slow in getting our American PR-like plans drawn, but we'll
> have them done for hte whole country in early 2012 and heat up in our
> outreach... getting some related opeds.
>
> Next year should be a good one for the idea -- ??lots of chances to
> talk about it.
> Rob
>
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:26 PM, David L Wetzell 
> wrote:
>
> I wonder if tea-partiers unhappy w. the Republican party might get
> in on it?
>
> dlw
>
> --
> ~
> "Respect for Ev

Re: [EM] Fwd: how goes American PR?

[robert bristow-johnson]

so Jan, i heard that you were for "keeping plurality voting over IRV in 
Fort Collins".  is that true?  do you continue to feel the same way 
about FPTP vs. IRV?


On 12/3/11 3:37 PM, Jan Kok wrote:

The US President's power is huge. He can veto bills passed by
Congress, and he can start wars. And now, de facto, can even order
assassinations of US citizens.
this is more of an issue of (constitutionally) how much power a 
president or other nation's head-of-state should have.  whether a 
single-seat office holder has a lot (or too much) power or not, doesn't 
change the notion of how that person should be elected in a democracy 
and, particularly, a democracy that makes room for more than two viable 
parties and for independent candidates.



So, it's important that we have good single-winner election methods to
make the best possible choices of winners for single-winner offices.
it is regardless of how much power that single winner gets.  even for 
the official Town Clown, why award the office to the loser?  or the 
2nd-place winner?



IRV/RCV is a poor method. It can make poor choices of winners, such as
in the 2009 Burlington, VT mayor's race, and is more complicated than
other methods.
it *has* made poor choices.  doesn't mean that it always had.  IRV 
doesn't do too bad when it elects the CW (and all the CW needs to attain 
is a place in the final round, then the CW is also the IRVW).  but the 
same argument can be used for the Electoral College vs. the popular 
vote.  it doesn't make much sense to keep the E.C. because most of the 
time it elects the winner of the popular vote which is deemed the 
measure of how well it works.  if that's the case, why not ditch the 
E.C. and just elect the popular vote winner?  same for IRV vs. Condorcet.



  The complexity makes it difficult to sell to voters,
some of whom are _extremely_ resistant to change.
yeah, but tax laws are complex too.  and we continue to pay taxes with 
complexity in the code (and some are _extremely_ resistant to that 
also).  some people tell me that Condorcet is more complicated than 
IRV.  i disagree but in any case reject the notion of adopting "simple" 
laws that are unfair eschewing those that have more subtlety but are 
naturally fairer.



  The complexity also
makes it more expensive to count the votes,
not really.  the scan/count machines can do fine with the ranked ballot, 
whether it's IRV or not.


IRV is harder to hand count.  but Condorcet would be even more laborious 
to hand count, i think.



  and makes IRV elections more vulnerable to fraud.
all elections are vulnerable to fraud if there is corruption in official 
places and the rule-of-law is diminished.  the only manner that IRV is 
*more* vulnerable w.r.t. other methods is that it is not precinct 
summable.  it's harder to fix an election that covers many voting places 
if the results from the individual polling places cannot be tabulated 
and reported independently from each place.  now you can still do that 
with IRV (the media gets a copy of the same thumb drive that the 
precinct clerk takes to the central counting place), but the auditors in 
the media might not be able to easily check the overall results unless 
the method is precinct summable.



  And when IRV gets rejected or repealed, as
it has in several places, it poisons the well, making it harder to
introduce other, better voting methods.


and that, i fully agree with.


So, as long as there are people pushing IRV, let the quibbling (about
single-winner methods) continue!


i agree with that, too.

--

r b-j  r...@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."




Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] Fwd: how goes American PR?

[Jameson Quinn]

I left out one of the most important advantages of PAL voting: that it's
dead simple for voters. Though you can vote a more-expressive ballot if you
want to, a simple bullet vote is enough to give good, proportional but not
party-centric, results.

Jameson

2011/12/3 Jameson Quinn 

> Does "American PR" have a specific meaning yet? I'm sure I'll be in favor
> of it, whatever PR variant it is; but while I'm still ignorant, let me
> guess a little.
>
> I doubt it's a mixed-member system. They're good, but the US, despite (or
> perhaps because of) being one of the most partisan countries around, has
> too much suspicion of "party machines" for that to catch on.
>
> So that leaves ... I guess the most-probable options are global STV or STV
> in small multimember districts (3-5 members).
>
> Again, these are both quite good systems I'd support. But if it's not too
> late to offer a suggestion... I'd strongly encourage you to consider
> something like PAL 
> representation.
> It's certainly not the simplest system there is, but then no PR system is
> really simple. And as advantages you get:
> -- High potential for 100% continuity (if the statewide gerrymander was
> fairly proportional, and if third parties don't pick up any seats). This is
> a HUGE advantage when selling to incumbents. I mean, seriously, tremendous.
> -- Voters and/or peers have the real power to remove even the most
> well-encrusted incumbent if they sour on him or her. That is, it's
> voter-centric, not party-centric
> -- Almost every voter gets their own local representative WHOM THEY VOTED
> FOR. This is absolutely something that would resonate with US voters,
> raised on tales of "No taxation without representation".
>
> Check it out.
>
> (And yes, I think that we can work together over PR, even if we don't see
> eye-to-eye on single winner systems.)
>
> Jameson
> 2011/12/3 David L Wetzell 
>
>>
>> American PR is a coming.  You must decide if you want to keep quibbling
>> over the best single-winner election rule or push hard for a better mix of
>> multi and single-winner election rules in the US.
>>
>> dlw
>> -- Forwarded message --
>> From: Rob Richie 
>> Date: Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 11:05 AM
>> Subject: Re: how goes American PR?
>> To: David L Wetzell 
>>
>>
>> A little slow in getting our American PR-like plans drawn, but we'll have
>> them done for hte whole country in early 2012 and heat up in our
>> outreach... getting some related opeds.
>>
>> Next year should be a good one for the idea --  lots of chances to talk
>> about it.
>> Rob
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:26 PM, David L Wetzell wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I wonder if tea-partiers unhappy w. the Republican party might get in on
>>> it?
>>>
>>> dlw
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ~
>> "Respect for Every Vote and Every Voice"
>>
>> Rob Richie
>> Executive Director
>>
>> FairVote
>> 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
>> Takoma Park, MD 20912
>> www.fairvote.org   r...@fairvote.org
>> (301) 270-4616
>>
>> Please support FairVote through action and tax-deductible donations --
>> see http://fairvote.org/donate. For federal employees, please consider
>> a gift to us through the Combined Federal Campaign (FairVote's  CFC number
>> is 10132.) Thank you!
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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] Fwd: how goes American PR?

[Jameson Quinn]

Does "American PR" have a specific meaning yet? I'm sure I'll be in favor
of it, whatever PR variant it is; but while I'm still ignorant, let me
guess a little.

I doubt it's a mixed-member system. They're good, but the US, despite (or
perhaps because of) being one of the most partisan countries around, has
too much suspicion of "party machines" for that to catch on.

So that leaves ... I guess the most-probable options are global STV or STV
in small multimember districts (3-5 members).

Again, these are both quite good systems I'd support. But if it's not too
late to offer a suggestion... I'd strongly encourage you to consider
something like PAL
representation.
It's certainly not the simplest system there is, but then no PR system is
really simple. And as advantages you get:
-- High potential for 100% continuity (if the statewide gerrymander was
fairly proportional, and if third parties don't pick up any seats). This is
a HUGE advantage when selling to incumbents. I mean, seriously, tremendous.
-- Voters and/or peers have the real power to remove even the most
well-encrusted incumbent if they sour on him or her. That is, it's
voter-centric, not party-centric
-- Almost every voter gets their own local representative WHOM THEY VOTED
FOR. This is absolutely something that would resonate with US voters,
raised on tales of "No taxation without representation".

Check it out.

(And yes, I think that we can work together over PR, even if we don't see
eye-to-eye on single winner systems.)

Jameson
2011/12/3 David L Wetzell 

>
> American PR is a coming.  You must decide if you want to keep quibbling
> over the best single-winner election rule or push hard for a better mix of
> multi and single-winner election rules in the US.
>
> dlw
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Rob Richie 
> Date: Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 11:05 AM
> Subject: Re: how goes American PR?
> To: David L Wetzell 
>
>
> A little slow in getting our American PR-like plans drawn, but we'll have
> them done for hte whole country in early 2012 and heat up in our
> outreach... getting some related opeds.
>
> Next year should be a good one for the idea --  lots of chances to talk
> about it.
> Rob
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:26 PM, David L Wetzell wrote:
>
>>
>> I wonder if tea-partiers unhappy w. the Republican party might get in on
>> it?
>>
>> dlw
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ~
> "Respect for Every Vote and Every Voice"
>
> Rob Richie
> Executive Director
>
> FairVote
> 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
> Takoma Park, MD 20912
> www.fairvote.org   r...@fairvote.org
> (301) 270-4616
>
> Please support FairVote through action and tax-deductible donations -- see
> http://fairvote.org/donate. For federal employees, please consider  a
> gift to us through the Combined Federal Campaign (FairVote's  CFC number is
> 10132.) Thank you!
>
>
>
> 
> 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] Fwd: how goes American PR?

[David L Wetzell]

On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Jan Kok  wrote:

> If Richie/FairVote wants to focus their energy on pushing proportional
> representation, that's wonderful! I personally won't "quibble" about
> PR methods, and will support and vote for pretty much any PR method.
>
> However, there will always be a need for single-winner methods, for
> single-winner offices such as president, governor and mayor.
>

Aye, but when we're fighting against $peech, we gotta pick our battles and
it makes sense to focus more on areas of agreement.

>
> The US President's power is huge. He can veto bills passed by
> Congress, and he can start wars. And now, de facto, can even order
> assassinations of US citizens.
>

Yes, it's big, but a lot of the problems in the US stem more from the
tendency of our system to tilt to effective single-party rule.
This makes it hard for the president to be more presidential, since (s)he
gets dragged into party-politics that are not amenable to compromise.

>
> So, it's important that we have good single-winner election methods to
> make the best possible choices of winners for single-winner offices.
>

dlw: It's hard enuf right not to get a National Popular Vote.  Do you
really think that replacing FPTP for the Prez election is anywhere near
feasible?  It's not good activism not to prioritize the lower hanging
fruits, even if there's a really luscious one way up there.

>
> IRV/RCV is a poor method. It can make poor choices of winners, such as
> in the 2009 Burlington, VT mayor's race,


That is contested.


> and is more complicated than
> other methods.


That is contested.  Condorcet is more complicated if you gotta deal with
when there's no CW, which is more likely when folks don't rank all of the
candidates, leading to very many ties.

> The complexity makes it difficult to sell to voters,
> some of whom are _extremely_ resistant to change. The complexity also
> makes it more expensive to count the votes, and makes IRV elections
> more vulnerable to fraud. And when IRV gets rejected or repealed, as
> it has in several places, it poisons the well, making it harder to
> introduce other, better voting methods.
>

dlw: If we used a 2-stage approach, what I've been calling IRV3/AV3, we
could simplify it quite a bit and solve other problems.  So I see IRV as
quite fixable.

>
> So, as long as there are people pushing IRV, let the quibbling (about
> single-winner methods) continue!
>

dlw: as you wish.

dlw

>
> - Jan
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 10:09 AM, David L Wetzell 
> wrote:
> >
> > American PR is a coming.  You must decide if you want to keep quibbling
> over
> > the best single-winner election rule or push hard for a better mix of
> multi
> > and single-winner election rules in the US.
> >
> > dlw
> > -- Forwarded message --
> > From: Rob Richie 
> > Date: Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 11:05 AM
> > Subject: Re: how goes American PR?
> > To: David L Wetzell 
> >
> >
> > A little slow in getting our American PR-like plans drawn, but we'll have
> > them done for hte whole country in early 2012 and heat up in our
> outreach...
> > getting some related opeds.
> >
> > Next year should be a good one for the idea --  lots of chances to talk
> > about it.
> > Rob
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:26 PM, David L Wetzell 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I wonder if tea-partiers unhappy w. the Republican party might get in on
> >> it?
> >>
> >> dlw
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ~
> > "Respect for Every Vote and Every Voice"
> >
> > Rob Richie
> > Executive Director
> >
> > FairVote
> > 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
> > Takoma Park, MD 20912
> > www.fairvote.org  r...@fairvote.org
> > (301) 270-4616
> >
> > Please support FairVote through action and tax-deductible donations --
> see
> > http://fairvote.org/donate. For federal employees, please consider  a
> gift
> > to us through the Combined Federal Campaign (FairVote's  CFC number is
> > 10132.) Thank you!
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> > 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] Fwd: how goes American PR?

[robert bristow-johnson]

thank you, Jan.  well put.  i would prefer to be on the same side as Rob 
Ritchie and FairVote, but i just cannot abide with the IRV happy talk.  
it was a mistake to bundle and sell the Hare/STV method of tabulation 
along with the ranked-ballot.  and, unfortunately in Burlington, both 
were rejected together as a bundle.  the ranked ballot was rejected 
along with IRV and the pathologies associated with it.


--

r b-j  r...@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."




On 12/3/11 3:37 PM, Jan Kok wrote:

If Richie/FairVote wants to focus their energy on pushing proportional
representation, that's wonderful! I personally won't "quibble" about
PR methods, and will support and vote for pretty much any PR method.

However, there will always be a need for single-winner methods, for
single-winner offices such as president, governor and mayor.

The US President's power is huge. He can veto bills passed by
Congress, and he can start wars. And now, de facto, can even order
assassinations of US citizens.

So, it's important that we have good single-winner election methods to
make the best possible choices of winners for single-winner offices.

IRV/RCV is a poor method. It can make poor choices of winners, such as
in the 2009 Burlington, VT mayor's race, and is more complicated than
other methods. The complexity makes it difficult to sell to voters,
some of whom are _extremely_ resistant to change. The complexity also
makes it more expensive to count the votes, and makes IRV elections
more vulnerable to fraud. And when IRV gets rejected or repealed, as
it has in several places, it poisons the well, making it harder to
introduce other, better voting methods.

So, as long as there are people pushing IRV, let the quibbling (about
single-winner methods) continue!

- Jan


On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 10:09 AM, David L Wetzell  wrote:

American PR is a coming.  You must decide if you want to keep quibbling over
the best single-winner election rule or push hard for a better mix of multi
and single-winner election rules in the US.

dlw
-- Forwarded message --
From: Rob Richie
Date: Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: how goes American PR?
To: David L Wetzell


A little slow in getting our American PR-like plans drawn, but we'll have
them done for hte whole country in early 2012 and heat up in our outreach...
getting some related opeds.

Next year should be a good one for the idea --  lots of chances to talk
about it.
Rob


On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:26 PM, David L Wetzell
wrote:


I wonder if tea-partiers unhappy w. the Republican party might get in on
it?

dlw




--
~
"Respect for Every Vote and Every Voice"

Rob Richie
Executive Director

FairVote
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
Takoma Park, MD 20912
www.fairvote.org  r...@fairvote.org
(301) 270-4616

Please support FairVote through action and tax-deductible donations -- see
http://fairvote.org/donate. For federal employees, please consider  a gift
to us through the Combined Federal Campaign (FairVote's  CFC number is
10132.) Thank you!




Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info



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] Fwd: how goes American PR?

[Jan Kok]

If Richie/FairVote wants to focus their energy on pushing proportional
representation, that's wonderful! I personally won't "quibble" about
PR methods, and will support and vote for pretty much any PR method.

However, there will always be a need for single-winner methods, for
single-winner offices such as president, governor and mayor.

The US President's power is huge. He can veto bills passed by
Congress, and he can start wars. And now, de facto, can even order
assassinations of US citizens.

So, it's important that we have good single-winner election methods to
make the best possible choices of winners for single-winner offices.

IRV/RCV is a poor method. It can make poor choices of winners, such as
in the 2009 Burlington, VT mayor's race, and is more complicated than
other methods. The complexity makes it difficult to sell to voters,
some of whom are _extremely_ resistant to change. The complexity also
makes it more expensive to count the votes, and makes IRV elections
more vulnerable to fraud. And when IRV gets rejected or repealed, as
it has in several places, it poisons the well, making it harder to
introduce other, better voting methods.

So, as long as there are people pushing IRV, let the quibbling (about
single-winner methods) continue!

- Jan


On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 10:09 AM, David L Wetzell  wrote:
>
> American PR is a coming.  You must decide if you want to keep quibbling over
> the best single-winner election rule or push hard for a better mix of multi
> and single-winner election rules in the US.
>
> dlw
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Rob Richie 
> Date: Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 11:05 AM
> Subject: Re: how goes American PR?
> To: David L Wetzell 
>
>
> A little slow in getting our American PR-like plans drawn, but we'll have
> them done for hte whole country in early 2012 and heat up in our outreach...
> getting some related opeds.
>
> Next year should be a good one for the idea --  lots of chances to talk
> about it.
> Rob
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:26 PM, David L Wetzell 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I wonder if tea-partiers unhappy w. the Republican party might get in on
>> it?
>>
>> dlw
>
>
>
>
> --
> ~
> "Respect for Every Vote and Every Voice"
>
> Rob Richie
> Executive Director
>
> FairVote
> 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
> Takoma Park, MD 20912
> www.fairvote.org  r...@fairvote.org
> (301) 270-4616
>
> Please support FairVote through action and tax-deductible donations -- see
> http://fairvote.org/donate. For federal employees, please consider  a gift
> to us through the Combined Federal Campaign (FairVote's  CFC number is
> 10132.) Thank you!
>
>
>
> 
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>

Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info