[EM] [SW] Hitler-Stalin-Middle Example Again

[Steve Eppley]

/* 
In this message I'm trying out the keyword categorization syntax I
described yesterday.  I hope this practice will make it a breeze to
assemble a document later.  Let me know if you think I/we should
continue it, or can improve it.  It may take awhile for you to get 
used to the syntax--see the examples at the end of the process faq.

We'll need to be careful to use identical keyphrases, though, so
we've a process problem which needs to be ironed out.  I'm posting
another message, a faq on process, which contains a preliminary list
of keyphrases.
*/

Rob Lanphier wrote:

>No, it forces a new election.  The second election could be even
>worse.  It could be used as a tool to drain the resources of small
>parties who can't afford an extended race of two, three, or four
>elections.  I think it is misguided to assume that the grass is
>greener on the other side.

con {{Affordability {{Disapproval {{NOTB {{expensive re-election
con {{UnLeverage Money {{Disapproval {{NOTB {{expensive re-election

>>>Holding second and third elections doesn't make a lot of sense to
>>>me.  If the voters are undecided the first time, there isn't much
>>>that will change their mind.
>> 
>> New candidates?
>
>The problem is that while a second or third or whatever election 
>is held, the incumbent stays in power, who could be totally
>unacceptable as well. 

con {{Decisiveness {{Disapproval {{NOTB {{lame duck

The incumbent remains in power for some time anyway in many of the 
existing systems.  Time enough for at least one re-election?

con {{Decisiveness {{Election/Inauguration Gap {{lame duck
pro {{False Mandate {{Disapproval {{NOTB {{Election/Inauguration Gap

>Having one ballot and one ballot only encourages everyone,
>candidates and voters, to really think about what they are doing. 
>Having NOTB only gives people an excuse to write off the field, and
>hope a hero will come along and save them.

con {{Voter Deliberation {{Disapproval {{NOTB

I'll add these two unrelated points, without fleshing them out:
pro {{Voter Deliberation {{Condorcet {{MPV {{ranked ballot
con {{Voter Deliberation {{Plurality {{Runoff {{vote-for-one

>Now, if a candidate who loses only to NOTB wins the election, I
>might be in favor of limiting their term.  

pro {{False Mandate {{Disapproval {{NOTB {{Term Truncation
con {{False Mandate {{Plurality 

>But I really think a second balloting should be discouraged when
>people are given a perfectly adequate way of expressing themselves
>with one ballot. 

con {{False Mandate {{Plurality {{vote-for-one {{expression suppression

Good points.  A very strong argument against unlimited series of 
re-elections.  Other points are affected by campaign finance 
problems, since money=speech.  Reforming campaign cost and finance
would offset your first point and enhance your others.

The incentives on campaign fund donors are also worth thinking about,
until financing is reformed.  Are they less likely to try to
leverage their $$ for access if an irate electorate is in a mood to
reject the two-party "bums"?  (We'd still have a strong two-party
system if the legislature remains SMD, right?  Or would Condorcet 
SMDs bust up the two parties?) 

pro {{UnLeverage Money {{Disapproval {{NOTB 
       {{specialinterest $ wasted on losers

--Steve