[EM] voting reform effort in DENVER - PLEASE HELP

raphfrk at netscape.net raphfrk at netscape.net
Sun Jun 11 05:24:16 PDT 2006

Jan Kok <jan.kok.5y at gmail.com> wrote:

>I think a victory for IRV in Denver would be a step SIDEways for
>voting reform in general. Yes, IRV is better than Plurality + delayed
>top-two runoff. Yes, a victory for IRV would get the issue of voting
>reform a little more into the public consciousness; certainly CVD
>would use its resources to publicize it.

It is a pretty general problem.  Even if everyone agrees there
is a problem, they might not be able to decide on a solution.

What about suggesting something like letting the voters decide on
a district by district basis.

Every election the voters would be asked what voting method they
want to use for the next election.

You are sorta back to where you started as you need to find a way
to decide on the voting system to use for the vote system vote.
However, plurity would not be quite so bad as a method to choose
the voting method as long as all that is being voted on is the
voting method.  Also, one of the options would have to be be "no

I think AV supporters would vote for IRV if it was one of the
top 2 methods as at the next vote choice vote, AV and IRV
could be the top 2 methods.

Separating out the choice of voting method from the choice of
government allows people to make a better choice for the voting
method and thus a better choice for government.

Districts which want to be part of PR-STV would be merged (though
still count as separate for choosing the voting method) and
Districts that want to be single seat staying as a single seat

As an alternative, Mike Ossipoff made a suggestion for how to
handle a vote when you can't agree on voting procedure:


However, that is likely not necessary as any voting system should
work reasonably here.  Also, there might be specific tactical
effects of such a hybrid voting system.

>The problem is that it could
>entrench IRV even more firmly as the only alternative voting method
>that anyone ever talks about or seriously considers as a replacement
>for existing Plurality elections. US Rep Jesse Jackson's IRV bill
>might get passed, and it might be impossible to change after that.

Right.  However, the real problem is that it is hard to change the 
system as the current winners are exactly the people who do best under
the current (no matter which) system.

The is an arguement that Labour (UK) are waiting until they are going
to lose an upcomming election before they change the voting system.  
they benefit from the modified one.  (It is currently plurity in the
UK).  I am not sure how true that is, but I can imagine it being

>1. Proportional Representation. Rob Richie prefers it, several others
>favor it, I fully support it (though I haven't studied it in any
>depth), Gary Swing (a Coloradoan who has some expertise in PR)
>supports it... Where there's a will, there's a way... By the way,
>resistance to change from incumbent council members could be reduced
>by merging districts into one common PR district when the incumbent
>doesn't run for re-election, or loses an election.

That is a really good idea about the incumbents.  Maybe when allowing
the voters to choose the voting system, make a rule so that changes
only take effect when the current incumbent loses/resigns/retires.

(or say 50% of the incumbents in a multi seat district).
Try the New Netscape Mail Today!
Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list