[EM] Statement by this list (was Remember toby Nixon)

[Jameson Quinn]

OK, it seems that there are no objections to using this list to organize a
statement. I think this would explain the connection to this list, but
explicitly disclaim being an "official position" of any persons or
organizations besides its signatories.

Here's the general points I'd like it to make:

Problems with plurality
-For voters
   -tactical dilemma
      -A tactical vote is insincere
      -A sincere vote is not decisive
   -often no recourse
      -foregone conclusions
      -"corrupt vs. evil" elections
   -overemphasis on which candidates are "relevant" makes campaigns too
expensive
      -democracy for sale
-For the majority party
   -More vulnerable to vote splitting / spoilers than the minority.
-For the minority major party
   -Non-proportional results and disproportionate swings
-For issue-based activists
   -Often even popular positions are out-of-the-mainstream in either party,
and thus shut out of the public debate
-For officeholders
   -Security in office often depends more on demographics than on the
quality of your work
   -Two-way races favor negative ads
-For third parties
   -A total disaster

Solutions exist

Although no system is perfect, plurality is almost perfectly bad. That is,
there are systems which are superior in every important way.
   -Myth: "Non-plurality systems lead to divided government."
      -Things like "hung parliaments" and frequent shifts in party control
are a factor of a parliamentary system. The US three-branch system is never
going to be like Italy.
   -Myth: "Voting reform only matters for third-party supporters"
      -See advantages above for the first and second parties and for
officeholders
   -Myth: "It's all about campaign finance."
      -Election system reform and campaign finance reform would support each
other. Without election system reform, campaign finance reform cannot solve
the problem.
   -Myth: "One man one vote" or "keep voting simple" mean that plurality is
the only way.
      -While these systems are less-familiar than plurality, they are just
as democratic and accessible to all voters. Many are direct elaborations of
clear principles. All can be explained in a few clear sentences.

List solutions
   -Link to poll. This is why I think that a non-secret-ballot poll with a
few dozen votes would have value in and of itself, not just as a way of
choosing which methods to list.
   -List of solutions - a short description each, one or two strengths for
each system. Not more than one system described within each "class" (ie,
Condorcet, Median-based), although mentions of a couple of others are OK.
   -Separate lists for single-winner and PR solutions
   -Mention, without too much detail, of other worthy non-partisan reforms
(anti-gerrymandering, limit supermajority requirements, grassroots
asset-voting, voting security, easy registration. The latter two are not
incompatible.)

Solutions considered
   -IRV, Borda
   -Some of the undersigned feel that these would be improvements over
plurality; others feel that their problems are as great as or greater than
those of plurality.
   -This statement takes no position on these systems.

Pledge of solidarity
   -The undersigned agree that all the systems mentioned above would be
improvements over plurality, and important reforms to US democracy.
   -Although we may have preferences between the systems offered, we will
all support any of them.
   -Any arguments we make about which specific system is better, or about
the weaknesses of a given system, should not be construed to negate our
support for reforming plurality.

Obviously, that's not a statement, just a rough first-draft of an outline.
Comments and changes are welcome.

Jameson


2011/5/30 Andy Jennings <elections at jenningsstory.com>

> I think an official statement by this list is a great idea.
>
> Andy
>
>
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:01 AM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> This thread, like this list, has two purposes - practical advocacy and
>> mathematical exploration.
>>
>> On the practical advocacy front, I'd propose a process:
>> 0. We discuss get some degree of informal consensus on this process itself
>> - I imagine it will take about a week, so say, before Sunday June 5th.
>> 1. We draw up a statement which details the serious problems with
>> plurality in the US context, and states that there are solutions. Leave a
>> blank space for a list of acceptable solutions. This statement, when
>> finished (after step 3) would be "signable" by any members of this list,
>> completely at their own option.
>> 2. We take a vote on what options to list. We can use betterpolls.com,
>> remembering that the scores there are -10 to 10, and negative/positive is
>> mapped to approval/disapproval.
>> 3. We list the options and the winner(s) in the statement and sign it.
>> 4. When we have a good number of signatures, we put out a "press" release
>> to some bloggers who've shown an interest in the issue (e.g. Andrew
>> Sullivan)
>>
>> My hope is that, despite the varied opinions, we could say something
>> clearly and strongly enough to have an impact.
>>
>> JQ
>>
>> ----
>> 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/20110530/9da59586/attachment-0004.htm>