[EM] City of Davis, California considers Measure L: Using multimember STV for localelections

[James Gilmour]

> Scott Ritchie> Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 11:46 PM
> The title pretty much sums it up, but this coming November 
> elections my local town may very well become the next US city 
> to adopt PR for local elections.
> 
> In the next few days, the local campaign will need to submit 
> an argument in favor of the measure that will appear in the 
> voter guide mailed out to every resident.  Suggestions for 
> what to include are appreciated.

Where to begin?!!!!!!

The best advice I can offer (from more than 40 years of campaigning for STV-PR) is that the arguments must be context specific, ie
they must address the issues as they present for THIS election within the area covered by THIS electorate.

There are lots of generic arguments in favour of STV-PR, but maybe only a few of them are relevant in your city, to your electors.
And those arguments that are locally relevant must be presented in a locally relevant way.  That will decide the arguments you
feature and the priority order in which you present them.

It could be lack of competition, or even uncontested seats.
It could be "a forgone conclusion" so very few bother to vote.
It could be party distortion.
It could be lack of balance within parties.
It could be "unrepresented" voters despite party balance.
It could be severe swings in party distortion, with resultant unrepresentative swings in policy.
It could be lack of direct representation for smaller but significant groups.
It could be all of these things.

Local activists should know best what will play best with local electors.  There is a lot of STV-PR campaign literature around the
world  -  don't hesitate to steal the ideas that are locally relevant.

James Gilmour