[EM] Critical part of Re:Kristofer Munsterhjelm

[David L Wetzell]

Since my reply is long, I thought I'd share the last bit separately, here.

KM:However, even if we wanted to choose that strategy[pushing hard for PR
in US/State representative elections and city council elections], those who
organize voting might at any point ask "well, what of single-winner
elections?". Then we can say "pick Approval, Schulze (e.g.), MJ or Range;
authorities X, Y, Z, think they're all pretty good". We just have to get X,
Y, and Z to sign.  If some local governments try any of them and find out
that, say, MJ is good enough, then we can later say "X, Y, Z think they're
all pretty good, and [county W] says they've had good experience with MJ".
[endquote]
dlw: Why not say,  "the use of PR in 'more local' elections(like the above)
will create a greater ability for third parties to spoil 'less local'
single-winner elections, thereby increasing the demand for single-winner
election reform.  Right now, the plurality of support among electoral
reform activists is for the use of a form of IRV to replace FPTP.  We think
that will change later down the road, since there are other options, but
we'd rather just stay united in pushing hard for American forms of PR than
cause dissent over an issue that is secondary in importance.

dlw
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111117/a04bc39d/attachment-0003.htm>