[EM] voting methods praxis, value of spoilers

[James Green-Armytage]

	Some people have said that it will be good if Nader spoils and Bush wins
again, because it will help bring awareness to the flaws in our voting
system. Some people consider this to be a valid justification for Nader's
running for President, or a valid justification for voting for Nader in a
swing state even though you prefer Kerry over Bush. I'd like to respond to
this idea. Basically this post is more about praxis than theory, but
dammit, praxis is important too.
	I will preface this by saying that yes, I support Kerry. And it's not
just because I hate Bush, it's also because I respect Kerry. If Lieberman
or Clark had won the nomination, would I be supporting them in the same
way? No, I wouldn't.

	So. Yes, spoilers can call attention to the fact that plurality doesn't
enable people to vote their sincere early preferences while still
impacting the primary contest. But if Nader spoils Kerry and Bush wins,
what makes anyone so sure that enough people will get this point to make a
change? Nader is hardly the first spoiler in a US presidential election.
Perot in 1992 was arguably a much bigger spoiler, in that he got a much
larger portion of the vote. Nobody really knows, I guess, but a lot of
Republicans think that HW would have won without Perot in the race. But
did the Republicans spend the next 8 years of the Clinton administration
single-mindedly campaigning for alternative voting methods? Hell no.
	The thing is, if you want to change the electoral system, I think that
simply running a spoiler campaign is a crude and destructive way to go
about it. Because there is really no guarantee, if you successfully spoil,
there's no reason to assume that enough people will interpret it as a
failure the electoral system. I mean, people who didn't get the point
after the 2000 election, why would they suddenly get the point after a
repeat in 2004? Most likely they won't. They'll blame Nader, they'll blame
Kerry and his campaign strategists, they'll blame Jeb for rigging the
votes in Florida... but I think most of the people who are liable to think
about it closely enough to blame the plurality system, already get it.
	You also get into the question of timing. Is the alternative election
methods movement really READY to actually change the system for electing
the president? While I'd like to say yes, I think that the true answer is
no. For a number of reasons. 
	One, people in this country just aren't used to thinking about voting
systems at all. Hence a national campaign to change the presidential
system would be very likely to fail. Most people, initially knowing almost
nothing about the issue, would suddenly be flooded with arguments from
both sides... and you have to expect that the contra-change side would be
much better-funded and well-supported in the corridors of power than the
pro-change side. So what we need to do is to start on smaller levels. Get
people interested in the principles, let people bring them into play in
smaller organizations, on local levels, to see how they work. And if
people have a positive experience, if enough people around the country
have a positive experience with alternative voting methods, only then
would a national movement to change the presidential system be possible.
	Two, there isn't a consensus on what we would change the system to. What
would it be? IRV? Approval? Condorcet's method? Something else? Voting
methods people are rather heavily divided between these choices. If voting
methods became a national issue due to another spoiler by Nader, I think
it would be very likely that the issue would implode due to squabbling
amongst people who wanted a change. My own preference would be to move to
Condorcet's method, but I don't think that we're ready for Condorcet's
method yet, in that first we need to try it more on smaller scales. The
same can be said about approval; even though it's a pretty simple system,
I think that it should be tried in local and state elections before anyone
takes it seriously for the presidential election. IRV is a bit different,
because it's used in other countries, and because it is starting to be
used a bit more over here. But I think that the same argument basically
applies... people in this country need to see IRV work for themselves
before they'll be willing to demand it for the presidential election.
	My idea at this point is to actually bypass the election methods question
for the time being, and move straight to a non-binding direct democracy
system. But so far, the only person who actively supports that idea is me.
So it's hardly ready to sweep the nation.
	Anyway, I look at it this way. If you want a successful spoiler in order
to grow election methods awareness, you are basically making a trade-off.
You are "buying" the rise in awareness with four more years of terrible
Bush policy. And I don't think it's worth it, not even close. Because I
think that there are probably cheaper, more peaceful ways to "buy" the
same growth in awareness. Basically by just getting the voting methods
campaign off the ground on a grassroots level, teaching people to use
alternative methods in situations where the barriers to change aren't so
huge. And actually, the kind of nonprofit dollars that you would need to
do that are likely to be more available in a Bush-free nation, because the
economy will (arguably) be stronger, and (more directly) because less
nonprofit money will be diverted to fighting all the ridiculously hideous
stuff that Bush happens to be up to. That is, more resources can go
towards progress rather than just defending against things getting much
worse.

	Nader... I think he's blowing it. He's in a really interesting position,
and he's blowing it, maybe because of some kind of strange pride or folly
or lack of imagination or something. Here's what I think that people in
his position should do. They should establish and hold onto a base of
supporters, i.e. progressives. Then, they should bargain with the
Democratic candidate, dangle a carrot and brandish a stick. Lay out a
series of reasonable concessions for the Democrat to make in exchange for
support. That is, if the Democrat makes the concessions, the
Naderoid/Green will endorse the Democrat. If the Democrat refuses, the
Naderoid/Green will make the refusal as public as possible, and call for
the progressives who find those concession issues to be vitally important
to vote not for the Democrat, but for the Naderoid/Green, in protest. The
point, though, is to strike a balance, such that the concession issues are
just reasonable enough to be accepted, reasonable enough so that the
progressive voters are willing to withhold support if the conditions are
not met... and yet such that the concession issues represent a substantial
victory for whatever good causes are involved. And there's no reason why
alternative voting methods wouldn't be one of these issues, given an
appropriate proposal at an opportune time.
	This way, the Naderoids/Greens would be able to gain the trust of a
decent-sized voter base, their confidence that the Naderoids/Greens would
only defect if the Democrats were being really crooked and stubborn. And
having the loyalty of that voter base would make the Naderoids a
significant political force, a group that the Democrats would often feel
compelled to bargain with in a close election.
	Anyway, that's what I would do if I was Nader. That's the strategy I
think that the Green party should follow in the next ten years. But just
running a brute spoiler campaign, I really doubt that the benefits of this
are ever likely to outweigh the harms, whether in the short term or the
long term. 
	
>
best,
James