Re:[EM] Action

[Alex Small]

Demorep wrote in part:

>D- Election law reform is not especially *politically sexy* UNLESS *Hell*
>is raised about something like the indirect minority rule existing in the
>U.S.A. Congress, every State legislature and many local governments in the
>U.S.A. due to single member district gerrymanders.

I agree that it isn't a very sexy topic normally.  However, we stand at a
rare moment when words like "election reform" and "campaign reform" do
appear in newspapers.  Part of it is from John McCain's efforts (agree or
disagree with him, he's put those words out there).  Part is that the
Florida fiasco is still part of recent history.

I know that there are bills in Congress to reform voting machines, and in
CA we had two ballot initiatives guaranteeing the right for votes to be
counted, and funding new equipment.  Although Approval isn't strictly in
the same category as either CFR or new voting machines it's still a change
in the way elections will be run.  We can co-opt the words "election
reform" and use them to generate buzz.

Approval won't fix the single-member district gerrymander problem.  It
will, however, bring additional options into the fold.  With 3 or more
competitive parties the flaws of gerrymander become more obvious and harder
to ignore.  Then we can raise the issue of PR.  The  big question is, what
is the easiest way to BEGIN breaking up the duopoly, and I think Approval
is the answer.

I think raising the issue of the "spoiler problem" is worthwhile because it
touches on the issue of minority rule and also generates sympathy within
the two parties.

Alex