[EM] Voting reform statement - new draft, please give opinions

[Jameson Quinn]

2011/8/19 Jonathan Lundell <jlundell at pobox.com>

> On Aug 19, 2011, at 9:22 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>
> Re: 10 words per signatory.
>
> I don't think I should be the one to judge. What do other people think? If
> people like things short, I've suggested an extra 15 or 20 words below.
>
> JQ
>
> 2011/8/19 Michael Allan <mike at zelea.com>
>
>> One possible obstacle to participation (and to agreement) is the sheer
>> size of the text.  I once formulated a "laconic rule of thumb" to
>> address this kind of problem.  It states: [1]
>>
>>   Limit the consensus draft to 10 words per voter [or signatory].
>>
>> In our case, and depending on how we tallied the level of agreement,
>> that would mean 20 or 30 words maximum.  I recommend: [2]
>>
>>   These are better than Plurality:
>
> Plurality has big problems. Any of these would solve most:
>
>>     * Approval
>>     * Bucklin
>>
> / (Majority Judgment)
>
>>     * Condorcet
>>     * Range
>>     * SODA
>>   Approval is ideal as a first step in voting reform.
>
>
> Gerrymandering and safe seats are also problems. Proportional
> representation would solve it. There are many good options, including some
> with geographical aspects, but closed party list is not good.
>
>
> I'm not a fan of closed lists, but I wonder if their condemnation qualifies
> as an electoral-method topic. What drives closed lists is the desire for
> strong parties and party discipline. One might disagree philosophically, but
> that doesn't make it a bad electoral method if that's the goal. Seems to me
> the question then becomes how the list gets generated. Suppose, for example,
> that a party held a ranked-vote primary that used the Condorcet preference
> ranking of the candidates to create a list.
>

I live in Guatemala, where closed lists are completely decided by party
higher-ups. What that means is that literally the majority of congress don't
give a flying flip what the voters think. That is what I meant by closed
lists. To me, a primary-based system would be more like "two-round open
lists" than closed lists. And the problems I see with this go far beyond a
matter of taste, and easily equal the worst problems of gerrymandering or
two-party domination.

JQ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110819/ec0e3bb0/attachment-0004.htm>