[EM] [CES #4194] Re: The Occupy Movement: A Ray of Hope -- inPolitics

[James Gilmour]

The trouble with this group, judging by their website, is that, like many other "electoral reformers" in the USA, they recognise
only part of the problem: "First Past the Post Voting is Obviously Flawed"  -  most definitely.
But they fail to see the bigger picture (representation of voters) and show almost no appreciation of where the real solution might
lie (some system of proportional representation).
Issues concerning "ballot access" and "recounts" are trivial in comparison with the distortion of representation of the voters  -
i.e. the relationship between votes cast and seats won.

Of course, there are some major challenges in improving the election of officials to single-office positions by single-winner
elections.  But the bigger picture concerns the "representative assemblies"  -  the city councils and boards, the state legislatures
and both Houses of the Federal Congress.  No improvement of the voting system used to elect these members from single-member
districts is going to deliver real improvement of the representation of the voters.

James Gilmour



> -----Original Message-----
> From: election-methods-bounces at lists.electorama.com 
> [mailto:election-methods-bounces at lists.electorama.com] On 
> Behalf Of Leon Smith
> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 8:29 PM
> To: electionscience at googlegroups.com
> Cc: Politics_CurrentEvents_Group at yahoogroups.com; 
> nygreen at yahoogroups.com; RangeVoting at yahoogroups.com; EM; 
> mike+dated+1324017722.00cc10 at zelea.com
> Subject: Re: [EM] [CES #4194] Re: The Occupy Movement: A Ray 
> of Hope -- inPolitics
> 
> 
> I suppose the existence of this group is worth noting:
> 
> http://reformact.org/
> 
> They were a little naive about election methods at first,  
> advocating Instant Runoff,  but they have been receptive and 
> are now open for debate,  though they seem to be tentatively 
> arguing for Condorcet. And they take a comprehensive look at 
> electoral reform,  not just method.
> 
> Best,
> Leon
> 
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Dave Ketchum 
> <davek at clarityconnect.com> wrote:
> > I am delighted to hear of this valuable activity.  A couple notes:
> >      .  "local, state, federal and global levels" are 
> > Open_voting_network topics. All except global are important 
> in the US 
> > in 2012 as a year in which serious activity is possible - 
> within the 
> > framework of current laws, but without depending on 
> instantly changing 
> > the laws..
> >      .  "primary" is a word used here.  It is different 
> from the "primary
> > elections" used in the US - they are used by parties to 
> cope with the needs
> > of plurality voting.
> >      .  Among the possibilities would be such as 
> destructive competition
> > between Occupy-backing candidates in the Green and 
> Libertarian parties - if
> > they split the votes of Occupy backers and thus each lost.
> >
> > On Dec 11, 2011, at 1:42 AM, Michael Allan wrote:
> >
> > Dave Ketchum wrote:
> >
> > Write-ins can be effective.  I hold up proof this year.  For
> >
> > a supervisor race:
> >
> >  111 Rep - Joe - on the ballot from winning primary, though not
> >
> >            campaigning.
> >
> >  346 Con - Darlene - running as Con though unable to run as Rep+Con.
> >
> >  540 Write-in - Bob - who gets the votes with his campaign starting
> >
> >                 18 days before election day.
> >
> >
> > We're floating the idea within Occupy of a primary voting 
> network that 
> > might help by giving independents a leg up.  It would 
> extend not only 
> > across and beyond parties, but also across any number of voting 
> > methods and service providers: (see also the discussion tab here) 
> > 
> https://wiki.occupy.net/wiki/User:Michael_Allan/RFC/Open_voting_networ
> > k
> >
> > It's not easy to summarize, but maybe easier from the voter's POV:
> >
> >   We won't endorse any single provider (monopoly) of primary voting
> >   and consensus making services.  Instead we'll maintain an open
> >   voting network (counter-monopoly) in which: (1) no person is
> >   excluded from participating in the development of alternative
> >   technologies and methodologies of consensus making; (2) 
> no toolset,
> >   platform or practice is excluded; and (3) each person may freely
> >   choose a provider, toolset and practices based on personal needs
> >   and preferences without thereby becoming isolated from 
> participants
> >   who make different choices.
> >
> > None of this is especially difficult (not technically), but 
> it's hard 
> > to imagine how it could ever get started without Occupy.
> >
> > --
> > Michael Allan
> >
> > Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
> > http://zelea.com/
> >
> > Dave Ketchum wrote: ...
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em 
> for list info