[EM] Fwd: how goes American PR?

[Jameson Quinn]

I left out one of the most important advantages of PAL voting: that it's
dead simple for voters. Though you can vote a more-expressive ballot if you
want to, a simple bullet vote is enough to give good, proportional but not
party-centric, results.

Jameson

2011/12/3 Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>

> Does "American PR" have a specific meaning yet? I'm sure I'll be in favor
> of it, whatever PR variant it is; but while I'm still ignorant, let me
> guess a little.
>
> I doubt it's a mixed-member system. They're good, but the US, despite (or
> perhaps because of) being one of the most partisan countries around, has
> too much suspicion of "party machines" for that to catch on.
>
> So that leaves ... I guess the most-probable options are global STV or STV
> in small multimember districts (3-5 members).
>
> Again, these are both quite good systems I'd support. But if it's not too
> late to offer a suggestion... I'd strongly encourage you to consider
> something like PAL representation<http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/PAL_representation>.
> It's certainly not the simplest system there is, but then no PR system is
> really simple. And as advantages you get:
> -- High potential for 100% continuity (if the statewide gerrymander was
> fairly proportional, and if third parties don't pick up any seats). This is
> a HUGE advantage when selling to incumbents. I mean, seriously, tremendous.
> -- Voters and/or peers have the real power to remove even the most
> well-encrusted incumbent if they sour on him or her. That is, it's
> voter-centric, not party-centric
> -- Almost every voter gets their own local representative WHOM THEY VOTED
> FOR. This is absolutely something that would resonate with US voters,
> raised on tales of "No taxation without representation".
>
> Check it out.
>
> (And yes, I think that we can work together over PR, even if we don't see
> eye-to-eye on single winner systems.)
>
> Jameson
> 2011/12/3 David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>
>
>>
>> American PR is a coming.  You must decide if you want to keep quibbling
>> over the best single-winner election rule or push hard for a better mix of
>> multi and single-winner election rules in the US.
>>
>> dlw
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Rob Richie <rr at fairvote.org>
>> Date: Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 11:05 AM
>> Subject: Re: how goes American PR?
>> To: David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>
>>
>>
>> A little slow in getting our American PR-like plans drawn, but we'll have
>> them done for hte whole country in early 2012 and heat up in our
>> outreach... getting some related opeds.
>>
>> Next year should be a good one for the idea --  lots of chances to talk
>> about it.
>> Rob
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:26 PM, David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I wonder if tea-partiers unhappy w. the Republican party might get in on
>>> it?
>>>
>>> dlw
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> "Respect for Every Vote and Every Voice"
>>
>> Rob Richie
>> Executive Director
>>
>> FairVote
>> 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
>> Takoma Park, MD 20912
>> www.fairvote.org  <http://www.fairvote.org> rr at fairvote.org
>> (301) 270-4616
>>
>> Please support FairVote through action and tax-deductible donations --
>> see http://fairvote.org/donate. For federal employees, please consider
>> a gift to us through the Combined Federal Campaign (FairVote's  CFC number
>> is 10132.) Thank you!
>>
>>
>>
>> ----
>> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
>> info
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111203/5ae8c54d/attachment-0004.htm>