[EM] Critics and Advocates

[Alex Small]

John B. Hodges said:
> It is a wonderful thing to be a critic. One's moral purity and social
> superiority are assured, without ever having to get out of one's
> armchair.

You're making a point that I've been making lately on a libertarian
discussion board (under a pseudonym).  Apparently a prerequisite for
wanting smaller government is passing purity tests so stringent that
Thomas Jefferson (the guy who said "that government which governs least
governs best") would probably be rated in the same category as Stalin.

Of course, it isn't a great surprise that a third party movement would be
like that.  In our plurality system, third parties are, by definition, for
people who reject the two primary choices as being unsatisfactory.  Sure,
some of us are pragmatists who want to build a third choice from the
ground up, starting with local victories.  Our goal is a third option that
is genuinely distinct from (and better than) the two main options, but
practical enough to still be electable.

But for every pragmatist there's a purist, whose main goal is building a
movement where he can safely reside among fellow purists, unhindered by
the baggage of reality.  They see no difference between a small step in
the right direction and a step (of any size) in the wrong direction.

Although I don't see the people on the list in such stark terms, I
wouldn't be surprised if there are plenty of election reform advocates out
there who fit into the purist category that I just described.  Most of the
people who advocate alternative election methods are fans of third
parties, and third parties have a disproportionate number of purists.

Maybe this list is moderated by its academic nature.  It's already
understood that much of what we discuss is of an academic nature (we're
just as interested in a deep understanding of theory as we are in
practical election methods).  If somebody discusses a property of a
particular method we're likely to suppress our inner purist urge to scream
"That method isn't perfect!" because we understand that the person
discussing it isn't necessarily saying we should implement it.  He's just
using it as the starting point for a line of inquiry.

Of course, I have noticed that postings on PR are better-received if I add
the disclaimer "When referring to various factions in the electorate I use
the word 'party' only for convenience, recognizing that organized parties
are only one of many types of factions that might exist in the electorate
and deserve proportional representation.  The purpose of using that
convenient label is to identify the factions in the electorate and see
whether a particular PR method fairly represents that group."

So maybe this list isn't immune to that, but I haven't noticed a huge
problem with the purity police.  Then again, posting on a libertarian
forum exposes you to purists so extreme that even the Taliban seem
tolerant of dissent by comparison.  So maybe my perception is warped.



Alex