[EM] Caveats for people working on alternative election methods

[Alex Small]

I liked electionmethods.org when I first came across it.  I learned a lot from the site.  I have recommended it to people over the last few years.
 
I could think of various places where I might disagree with one or both of the relevant people on off-topic matters, as well as places where I might even share a few wacky beliefs with one or both of the relevant people.  I might even disagree with one or both of them on a few election-related (and non-partisan) matters.  I'm sure that one or both of the people in the present dispute could argue that the other person is a total loon and any sort of respectful collaboration on matters of common interest is impossible.  Maybe one of them is right and the other is a total loon.  Or maybe both are total loons.  Or maybe neither is crazy.  Whatever.
 
I think this illustrates some difficulties that election methods afficionados should pay careful attention to in any sort of collaboration.  Election methods afficionados tend to have a number of traits in common:
 
1)  We obviously care a lot about politics.  If we didn't care so much about the issues, we probably wouldn't care so much about elections and how they're conducted.
 
2)  We aren't afraid to buck the conventional wisdom.  Most Americans are taught that ours is the greatest system on earth and that it needs no improvement.  The first part of that statement may or may not be true, but all of us would take issue with the part about "needs no improvement".  Otherwise we wouldn't want to change our election systems.
 
3)  We tend to be smart people who strongly believe that we are right.
 
Now, I think it's clear that the two parties to this dispute have some strong political opinions.  And both of them in this dispute seem to sympathize with (I won't say agree, just sympathize) opinions that many people might find, um, unorthodox.

I won't comment on which of them might be responsible for the souring of the relationship because I simply don't know enough to say (nor do I care to know enough, so please, gentleman, don't bother trying to persuade me).  I do think, however, that it illustrates the importance of avoiding unrelated issues when discussing election methods, and being careful when entering into collaborations.
 
It also illustrates the care that one should take when writing op-ed pieces about election methods.  When looking at various commentary pieces on alternative election methods (including some written by members of this list), I frequently notice that some of the essays include language that is frequently associated with one or another political stance.  Sometimes the language is distinctly conservative, other times distinctly liberal, and still other times distinctly populist, libertarian, or some other stance.
 
Deliberately pitching an op-ed to a designated target audience is certainly a prudent communication strategy at times.  However, be careful about your assumptions.  If you want to target your essay then by all means do so.  But don't use the preferred language of your political affiliation just because "well, dammit, that's the truth and I won't back down from it!"
 
For instance, many liberals believe, or at least sympathize with, the theory that many aspects of our elections are designed to disenfranchise certain minorities.  However true that might be, it is not a universally accepted notion, so don't incorporate it into an essay targeted at a general audience.  And before the liberals think I'm only gunning for them, I'll go after my own tribe, the libertarians (especially the more conservative ones):  While the difference between pure democracy and a constitutionally limited federal republic is frequently discussed among libertarians, to many other people such notions evoke a response of "Um, what are you talking about?"  Don't discuss that in an op-ed targeted at a general audience.  Save the jargon for your letter to _Reason_ magazine about Approval Voting.
 
If the dispute being aired on this list reminds us to be careful about dragging unrelated notions into discussions of election methods, then it will have served a valuable purpose.
 
 

Alex Small

		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20050117/564a4b9a/attachment-0002.htm>