[EM] Settle for how much less?

[Anthony Simmons]

>> From: Alex Small <asmall at physics.ucsb.edu>
>> Subject: Re:[EM] Settle for how much less?

[...]

>> The IRV initiative dilemma:  If it loses many people will
>> conclude that the public doesn't want election reform.  If
>> it passes we'll be stuck with a second-rate reform (or a
>> step backwards, depending on one's view) and little chance
>> for improvement.  Where's King Solomon when you need him?

[...]

>> Question:  Does anybody know if Australia's third parties
>> try a centrist strategy (some of each side, like the party
>> I envision) or if they are extreme (being more liberal
>> than the liberal major party, or more conservative than
>> the conservative major party)?  I realize that they have
>> only two parties in power, but there must be aspiring
>> contenders there, just as we have aspiring contenders.
>> The answer would go a long way toward solidifying my
>> position on whether IRV is a tiny step forward or a big
>> step backward.

Here's my impression of Australia's parties, subject to
confirmation from someone who is more familiar with the
situation that I.

Naturally, since the main parties are so similar and are
huddled together in the center that they mutually define,
third parties can only be more extreme, and are found on the
left (Greens) and right (One Nation), with a sprinkling of
others.

Regarding the perception that there is little interest in
election reform if IRV initiatives fail, they've had
something similar to that happen in Australia too.  There's
no doubt that the public is in favor of a republic
(essentially, dumping the symbolic monarchy -- the country is
already a de facto republic), and yet the recent referendum
(Nov 1999) failed.  The monarchists' approach was to convince
republicans that even if they wanted a republic, it shouldn't
be *this* republic.  So, even though polls show that
Australians are overwhelmingly in favor of the republic, they
voted it down.  I think this is generally understood, and not
cited as evidence that Australians are mostly monarchists.
On the other hand, the republican movement has dropped from
public view, so the referendum didn't just eliminate one
particular plan, but stifled the whole movement, at least for
now.

It's a conundrum.  Perhaps the best approach is to force
other methods into the foreground so that if IRV is forced
into ignominious and humiliating defeat, the final perception
will be that the people may be in favor of election reform,
but just haven't yet settled on a modality.

And back at the ranch, we just had a referendum this week, to
decide on a new form of county government.  One of the main
points of contention was whether to elect commissioners (the
county legislature) by district or at large (though not PR).
The final proposal went with election by district.  The new
charter was defeated, 55-45.

I get the impression voters are very wary of any change in
the way they vote.  This may be useful to advocates of
Approval.  It's much more natural than IRV to an electorate
weaned on First-Past-The-Post.  Though I do balk at taking
advantage of public naivete that way.