[EM] The Occupy Movement: A Ray of Hope -- inPolitics

Dave Ketchum davek at clarityconnect.com
Sun Dec 11 16:36:21 PST 2011


>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Dave Ketchum <davek at clarityconnect.com 
>> > wrote
per this subject - see at end below.

Leon Smith added reference to http://reformact.org/ - by a group that  
offers extensive references and thoughts - worth exploring.

On Dec 11, 2011, at 6:06 PM, James Gilmour wrote: the following about  
what Leon offered - worthy, but not about the entire current subject.

> 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
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for  
> list info






More information about the Election-Methods mailing list