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

[Dave Ketchum]

On May 30, 2011, at 1:21 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:

> 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.

Sounds like serious work.

Pick a meaningful subject - yet make that short
>
> Here's the general points I'd like it to make:
>
> Problems with plurality
> -For voters
    -Voter can NEED to back multiple candidates, AND not want to give  
equal backing to all of those.
    -Yet bullet voting can express voter desire, and should be  
acceptable - (while agreeing enthusiastically that it is time to leave  
plurality, some methods impose complications that may please method  
designers and annoy voters when they can do fine with bullet voting).
>    -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
    -Both third parties and minor ideas NEED a way for voters to  
express interest to show how great the interest is, whether or not  
approaching ability to win.
>
> Solutions exist
>
> Although no system is perfect, plurality is almost perfectly bad.  
> That is, there are systems which are superior in every important way.
    -But watch out - we can certainly do worse than plurality if we  
get careless.
>    -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.
    -Careful - drafting questions for such can get biased - look at  
the polls politicians write.
>    -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
      -Certainly want both, but desirable if voter chores can be kept  
similar.
>    -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.
    -Just listing the above two is implied backing:
      -We know enough of IRV that it should get lost unless with much  
competition.
      -I apologize for not being ready to comment on Borda.
      -I see Condorcet as important, and that range and asset need  
considering - at least those three need to be on such a list - but  
asset is too complex to live alone.
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ----
> 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/20110530/20ff9956/attachment-0003.htm>