IRV wins big in SF and Vermont
Joe Weinstein
jweins123 at hotmail.com
Thu Mar 7 22:15:30 PST 2002
I want to add my vote of 'approval' (as well as for Approval) to all the
recent comments by Forest and Alex.
About 500 days ago I first subscribed to this list. Thanks mainly (though
not only) to Forest, there has been considerable creative thinking in the
interim.
Isn't it amazing how credible proxy voting becomes when we associate it with
a not-yet-fully-discredited concept - legislatures - rather than with a
totally discredited one - the electoral college.
A few days ago on our local Long Beach civic reform e-list I found myself
responding to an otherwise savvy Green who was so proud of her party's pure
principled stance in California's just-held 'modified closed' primary. The
Dems and Reps and some other parties permitted a non-partisan ('decline to
state') voter to cross into their primaries, but the Greens insisted on
Green-voter-only purity.
I could not help noting an interesting fact about the totally open 1998
primary, which permitted any voter to cross over to any party for any
office. In that primary there was a statewide office for which only one
party presented any contest at all for nominee: namely, Sec of State, and
the Green party. Other voters had nothing to lose by voting in the Green
primary for that office, rather than skipping the non-contest within their
own party. Nevertheless, no more Green votes were cast for that office than
for other offices. In other words, despite nothing to lose, non-Green
voters did not bother to cross over and sully the Green primary.
At that point, I was on a roll and got carried away. I noted that rather
than uphold partisan purity, maybe it was time to join Madison and others
who took issue with 'factionalism', i.e. parties at all. I think Madison's
case is far stronger today than in his own time.
Parties serve two main functions, neither of which are either necessary or
sufficient to the needs of today. First, parties provide a summary labeling
scheme, for voters too lazy or too incapacitated to heed even a ten-word
descriptive summary, printable on a ballot, of a candidate's individual
program and orientation. Second, if you dislike a given incumbent, you can
punish his party's future nominees. To call this sufficient or genuine (let
alone timely) 'accountability' is a delusion. As we continue to find to our
sorrow here in Long Beach, real accountability requires a genuine
investigative press, plus power to bring real-time suits against truly
misbehaving officeholders.
Instead of focusing on political purity, I suggested that political
activists get interested in 'election methods', as we on this list
understand the phrase. Or, and here is my other alternative, perhaps it's
time for real campaign finance reform, achieved by taking money out of
electioneering, achieved in turn by reducing the role of elections. First,
let's increase direct town-hall democracy. Of course, if we go too far just
with that, the result would be too erratic and too time-consuming for most
of us, but to complement it we could also do something else: choose
legislators not by election but by lot, just as we do potential jurors.
Joe Weinstein
Long Beach CA USA
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list