[EM] Re: IRV wins big in SF and Vermont

[Bart Ingles]

It's almost been sickening to watch from the sidelines, and not have
time to even try to get the word out.   But at least I can write a
check.

I don't know how Hager will make out in the LP convention -- apparently
the Indiana LP doesn't participate in that state's primary elections. 
Checking out the LP website, Indiana has two candidates for statewide
office -- both running for Sec State.

But I will say that he has Demorep's example beat:
  http://www.hager2002.org/


On item (3), I'd say local conditions probably count more than size
(i.e. is there anyone receptive in a position of influence, or does the
county conduct runoff elections in the most expensive way possible, the
way SF does?)

On item (4), rather than a white paper, how about a series of two or
more pamphlets geared toward various audiences (third parties, county
governments, and other interested organizations).

The third-party version might concentrate on the fact that Approval gets
around the glass ceiling put up by Plurality, Runoff, and Hare(IRV).

The county government version might focus on simplicity, and the fact
that it avoids some of the obvious conflicts & inconsistencies possible
with ranked ballots.  And also on the fact that there's no capital
outlay for Approval, and that a pilot program is feasible at any scale
(you could start with one minor elective office, for example).

The version for voter organizations might concentrate on which methods
foster the most voter choice (Plurality, Runoff, and Hare don't cope
with large candidate fields, and in fact discourage candidates from
running).

You get the idea -- the reader will only have so much time & interest to
devote, so you need to hit the important stuff first.  It's hard to keep
the word count down unless you focus on one or two main points.

Bart



Alex Small wrote:
> 
> I must have missed the original post in the thread, but all I've seen is
> reaction to it.  I get the digest version, but I frequently read
> groups.yahoo.com/group/election-methods-list, and I've seen replies to my
> posts appear before my posts.
> 
> Those of us who conclude that Approval Voting is far superior to IRV need
> to act.  I have a few ideas:
> 
> 1) I know of a Libertarian candidate for Sec. of State in Indiana (Paul
> Hager, www.hager2002.org) who is running on an AV platform, but who knows
> if he really stands a chance?
> 
> If we could identify some serious candidates who support AV, maybe we could
> have a pledge drive/fundraiser for them.  Call it $2002 for 2002, or
> something.  Nobody pays unless we get enough pledges to make a substantial
> donation (why spend our $ unless we can make a real impact?).
> 
> 2)  AV needs a good popular book.  Brams and Fishburn wrote a superb book,
> but we need the sort of book that Barnes and Noble displays in front, the
> sort that gets reviewed in major newspapers, not just voting reform and
> third-party newsletters.  It would have to be provocative, otherwise it
> won't be read.  Since AV is a direct assault on the two-party monopoly the
> book should be as political as it is technical.
> 
> Of course, who will write it?  I don't know.  I just know that it would be
> good if it happened, and that there are a lot of smart people on this list.
> 
> 3)  Start a ballot initiative in a small county.  I'd sure pitch in a
> little cash for that.  If I had some collaborators in Santa Barbara County
> I'd beat the pavement to get signatures.
> 
> 4)  If nobody has time to write a book, maybe we as a group could at least
> collaborate on a "white paper."  Submit it to the major third parties with
> a simple proposal:  Declare a truce in certain states, so that in each
> state legislative district and in each Sec. of State race there's only one
> third party candidate.  Each party to the truce simply agrees to make AV a
> major focus of the campaign.  I'm a quasi-libertarian, but I'd vote for a
> socialist if he made AV the focus of his campaign, at least in the Sec. of
> State race.
> 
> Other ideas?