[EM] Pseudo-election reform in California

[Dr. Ernie Prabhakar]

On Jun 1, 2004, at 8:38 AM, Brian Olson wrote:
>
> On May 31, 2004, at 6:47 PM, Dr.Ernie Prabhakar wrote:
>>  The justification for multiple rounds, I suspect, is that primary  
>> campaigns will still tend to be lower-profile, and more sectarian,  
>> compared to the fall general election.
>> At any rate, it is far from ideal, but still sounds like a huge step  
>> forward.
>
> I'd say 'tiny' rather than 'huge'.

One small step for improved electoral efficiency, but a giant step in  
willingness to confront the dysfunctional, polarized politics of the  
California legislature.

>  I should add best-two-runoff to my sims to check that. I bet it's  
> worse than IRV. It's probably analytically provably worse than IRV.

But, I suspect you are using idealized consistent voters, and a  
relatively uniform electorate.   Given the size and diversity of  
California, an open final election would likely have very different  
financial and political dynamics than an open primary.   I suspect it  
costs a lot more money and organizational skill to try to appeal to a  
general electorate rather than a well-defined core constituency, which  
perversely plays -into- the hands of the dominant parties (as we more  
or less saw during the Recall).

I don't know of a good way to model that effect, but I don't think its  
fair to completely ignore it.


>> If they *were* willing to consider rank-order voting of some kind,  
>> what would be the optimal method to use for selecting the top-two for  
>> a runoff?
>
> Eh? I still think one of our Advanced Election Methods selling points  
> is that of the single balloting. No expensive, wasteful re-balloting  
> runoffs. That's probably also a conceit the IRV advocates use "You  
> understand what a runoff is, but those are expensive. Now you can have  
> (ta dah!) Instant Runoff!"

I personally agree with you.  But, that's a very large psychological  
barrier, and I believe in incremental steps to help people start  
learning what the real issues are.    As has been pointed out on this  
very list (score one for James!), many 'ordinary' people would feel  
more comfortable voting sincerely in the first round knowing there was  
a final runoff later.

If California's moving in this direction -already-, I think the best  
thing would be if we could introduce some form of rank-order voting in  
the open primary.  Then, after a few years if it became clear that the  
top winner of the primary was always elected, consolidation would be a  
no-brainer.

Here's a few more links to the current effort for an open primary (vs.  
the original one, which was declared unconstitutional).

California Voters To Consider Open Primary
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2004/03/29/ 
california_voters_to_consider_open_primary.html

Open primary plan qualifies for ballot
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/ca/story/9184050p-10109616c.html

Initiative to make primary nonpartisan on state ballot
http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=4209

Interesting, I also found a link from Louisiana on their experience,  
where the pressure is in the opposite direction:

Will California go the Louisiana way?
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/index.ssf?/base/news-A1000/ 
108374555382430.xml

>  True partisans are frustrated by Louisiana's non-partisan,  
> entrepreneurial brand of electioneering. They believe that people of  
> shared political values should be able to put forward their chosen  
> candidate without participation or interference from the rival major  
> party, or independents, Libertarians, Greens, Socialist Workers and  
> come what may.
>
>  Not me. Nor most Louisiana voters, as a statewide poll conducted last  
> year by the LSU Political Science Department showed 63 percent favored  
> keeping the open primary.

I personally don't think open primaries the ideal solution, but if  
that's the train that's moving I think its best to get it on as good a  
track as possible.

-- Ernie P.
-----------
Ernest N. Prabhakar, Ph.D. <DrErnie at RadicalCentrism.org>
RadicalCentrism.org is an anti-partisan think tank near Sacramento,  
California, dedicated to developing and promoting the ideals of  
Reality, Character, Community and Humility as expressed in our Radical  
Centrist Manifesto: Ground Rules of Civil Society  
<http://RadicalCentrism.org/manifesto.html>