[EM] Electoral Experimentation

[Richard Fobes]

On 12/15/2011 1:40 PM, David L Wetzell wrote:
 > ---------- [see below] ----------

David, your evidence in support of delaying electoral experimentation 
seems to be that FairVote's intended path is the only path on "the" map.

Keep in mind that maps in areas that have not yet been heavily traveled 
are notoriously inaccurate.

Also consider that there are other paths -- including "American forms of 
PR" -- that may not show up on your map.

Until there is a clear (unfuzzy) map that is charted using measurements 
and experience, we must rely on principles.

I have already indicated one such principle, namely that elected 
officials tend to oppose adopting a different election method from the 
one through which they were elected.

I, and I assume others, would like to hear about any principles that 
support your claim that we must follow the FairVote path.

Richard Fobes



On 12/15/2011 1:40 PM, David L Wetzell wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Richard Fobes <ElectionMethods at VoteFair.org>
> To: election-methods at electorama.com <mailto:election-methods at electorama.com>
> Cc:
> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:39:23 -0800
> Subject: Re: [EM] Electoral Experimentation
> On 12/15/2011 12:15 PM, David L Wetzell wrote:
>>  dlw: Within the third parties themselves, there'd need to be used
>>  single-winner elections to determine their candidates/leaders/positions.
>>    In these regards, there'd be great scope for experimentation with
>>  single-winner election rules, especially since they'd have no commitment
>>  to a particular single-winner election rule.
>
> Fobes: You said that experimentation opportunities would be
> "a good reason to strategically support IRV".
> Presumably IRV would be used for both internal voting
> "to determine their candidates/leaders/positions"
> and for choosing candidates for public elections.
>
> dlw: There'd be no need for such.  The point is that if there were many
> LTPs, local third parties, they'd have their own rules and could use
> IRV[or another alternative to FPTP] to choose which rules they'd use for
> internal voting and the determination of their candidates in elections.
>
> Why would IRV-chosen party leaders be motivated to try
> any other voting method (for either internal or
> candidate-selection use)?
>
> dlw: Because it'd be the American forms of PR, not IRV, that would give
> the LTPs license to win representation and to have more voice.  I said
> "strategically support IRV for single-winner", not because it's a
> god-send but because bickering endlessly about the best single-winner
> election rule takes away from pushing for the aforementioned reform that
> would then bring about many venues for electoral experimentation.
>   There's no good reason to presuppose that these smaller parties would
> be beholden to IRV so as not to consider other options.  And that is why
> it's worthwhile to put aside the infinite number of other election rules
> and focus on getting Am forms of PR plus IRV as key parts of the renewal
> of the US's democracy.
>
> dlw
>
> Richard Fobes
>
>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info