CV&D position?

[Steve Eppley]

Ed Still wrote:
>You began by accusing CV&D of "myopically focussing on the
>parliamentary form (with prop rep) as the 'only' way to get rid 
>of the two party system...."
>I responded:
>  If you mean that CV&D is supporting the parliamentary system to
>  replace Congress, you are wrong.  CV&D has taken no position on
>  that.
>Now you have changed your attack to saying that CV&D is de facto
>supporting "the parliamentary form" because it concentrates "so
>heavily on prop rep for legislatures."  Once again, let me point
>out that a parliamentary form of government is not synonymous with
>proportional representation.  See for example, Great Britain,
>Canada, and (until the election this month) New Zealand.

I'm well aware that prop rep isn't the parliamentary system, and
I've pointed out this distinction to others on many occasions. 
I think you misunderstand my point.  (I enthusiastically advocate
prop rep for legislatures, and I have a mixed opinion of the
merits of the parliamentary form.)

I haven't changed my position.  In your quote, you snipped part of 
my statement:  CV&D "seems to be myopically ..."
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^ 
By neglecting this phrase you're changing my meaning, mixing up the
topics of official CV&D policy and my perception of the effects of
CV&D spokespeople's activities.

Granted, I've heard and read only a fraction of CV&D members' output
(mostly from Rob and Steve Hill).  But I've noticed that discussion
of prop rep tends to be the be-all and end-all even when the 
discussion's context was the undemocratic Presidential elections.  
If prop rep is presented as an answer to the Presidential question,
then implicitly this must mean a parliamentary form of prop rep.  

If prop rep advocates don't think single-winner reform is important,
then either they think Presidential, Senatorial, Gubernatorial, and
other executive elections aren't important in our society or they
expect to do away with those elections using a parliamentary form of
government (after a very long battle to amend the Constitution). 
Which is it?  Official opinion or otherwise... :-) 

If you want to quibble that I should be accusing some outspoken PR
advocates, rather than CV&D, of myopia, then fine.  CV&D can stick
its head in the sand, if you wish, rather than face the fact that in
the U.S. it will be extremely hard to win a Constitutional amendment
to abolish the Senate and eliminate the popular election of the
President.  And it will also be hard to persuade a two-party
dominated Congress to amend the Voting Rights Act to enable states
to elect their House representatives by PR--we've seen how easily 
Congress brushed off a powerful national movement for term limits.
But it won't take a U.S. amendment or act of Congress to change the
voting method used to elect the President and Congress, and one of
the effects will be to shrink the two big parties and elect multi-
party legislatures which will be more sympathetic to PR.  CV&D
has no policy on this?  Why the #%&#@&%^@ not? 

---Steve     (Steve Eppley    seppley at alumni.caltech.edu)