Re:[EM] Action

[Alex Small]

Josh wrote:

>2. I really like the name "VOTER CHOICE". Could we vote on it? :)

Substitute "failed to give voters more meaningful choices" with "failed to
break the duopoly" and I think we have a better way to approach Australia.

>4. I WOULD think, without any clear reason, that we want to avoid parallels
>with Eastern Europe

One natural question people will have is "Nice idea, but has anybody
actually tried this?"  Admittedly, I don't want to say "Why, yes.  In <name
of country> the Communist, Fascist, and Isolationist parties were all
competitive in the 1999 elections, and all won offices just prior to the
coup."  However, I wouldn't mind saying "Several Eastern European countries
have seen multiple competitive parties in single-winner races."

>5. RE: Australia's IRV and "Breaking the duopoly"... I don't like the
>Duopoly, you don't like it, but the goal is not to break it.  The goal is
>to enhance voter choice.

True, but there's no reason to abandon plurality unless you want more than
2 _competitive_ options.  I'm up for massaging the wording, saying "voter
choice" instead of "more parties."  We shouldn't explicitly condemen the
Republicrats, but we can't escape the fact that we're advocating the
potential downfall of the duopoly.  We can say "In other countries voters
have a wide range of choices, but in places where you only get one vote
only two choices are usually competitive."

>6. I think a good paper will include lots of historical stuff in one two
>page section. I may just have an over-fondness for this topic. I do think
>the "Hamilton's Math Sucked" and the "National Academy of Sciences answered
>all doubts" aspects of the Apportionment story are relevant. I also think
>they are interesting, which is a much more personal assessment.

I'm proposing a project focused on implementing Approval Voting.  I have my
own list of pet topics of discussion, but I want the "report" to be a case
specifically for our reform, not an intersting historical survey of
election methods.  A hyper-focused report on a specific reform has a much
better chance of garnering press attention.

>7. I can't endorse Hager.

I admit that I really want to couple this Approval publicity drive with an
endorsement of the only candidate (I know of) who favors our reform.  There
may be ways to work around this, mentioning Hager in the press release but
not the report (assuming you contribute to it).  The idea of the report is
to try and get a newspaper story that begins "According to a new study..."
since papers seem to like those.

It may be possible to say "A group of scientists has released a report
documenting the advantages of a proposed voting reform..."  and "Some of
the authors have banded together to support the candidacy of like-minded
reformer Paul Hager..."

If you don't mind answering, when you say "can't" do you have a government
job that bars endorsing candidates (I've heard of such jobs) or do you
oppose Hager's stances?  I won't try to talk you into going against your
conscience and/or employment contract.  I'll only say that some list
members who donated probably don't agree with all of his stances, but he's
running for a single-duty office on a single-issue platform.  In that
context people from different ideologies can often work together without
violating their consciences.

Feel free to ignore that intrusive question.

>8. I think we should not emphasize the way this method would have changed
>races in ANY ANY ANY recent races. We should have the data on hand, but we
>should not say "See, look, Gore would have won"

I wouldn't say "Plurality stuck us with that idiot W!"  I would say,
however, that "In x% of state and federal races in 2000 a third party
candidate likely tipped the balance.  With approval voting, however..."

Have I assuaged your concerns?

Alex