[EM] JamesonQ, wrt critical part of re: Kristofer Munsterhjelm

[David L Wetzell]

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>wrote:

> JQ:Unfortunately, I think it's hard to build a national or even a local
> movement for a complicated, multi-step reform plan. You have to be able to
> say what you want in about four words, tops.


dlw: It helps if you use alliteration or variations on existing
slogans...God Bless(We Need) American Proportional Representation(PR)!


>  Plan A:
> 1. Local elections using PR. ("But I don't care about local elections...")
>
Re: that's cuz they're (almost) never competitive.
The reason why is because we don't use PR.
If we use PR, it will make them competitive, which will make us care about
them and it will help in lots of ways.... (increased local activism, where
we're more effective....and so on...)


> 2. Increases power of third parties ("But I don't care about third
> parties...")
>
Alternatives: (start with) Handicap major party rivalry (End Incentive for
Grid-Lock) or Give  third parties a role/part-to-play/chance or "Let us
Play Coy (Politically)"


> 3. More spoiled or near-spoiled elections increase pressure for
> single-winner reform ("Huh?")
>
Alternative: Meaningful Multi-seat elections mean More Voices.  More voices
means more reforms, including electoral reforms.


> 4. Single-winner reform implemented ("But IRV was the wrong reform, we
> should have gone for system X")
>
Re: With IRV, there'll be room for more than one electoral reform at a time!

[JQ]6. One day, we have a competitive, more-than-two-way race for
> representative, senator, president, or mayor
> 7. Corruption withers.
>
> See how many people you lose before you get to steps 6 and 7?[/JQ]
>

dlw: Not as many as you all tend to lose when you talk about your alphabet
soups of characteristics of single-winner election rules.

>
> JQ:I think this works better:
> Plan B:
> 1. Empower a commission (like the one in Rhode Island now... which hasn't
> been constituted yet although it was supposed to start working in
> September) to pick a good single-winner system.
>
[/endquote]

how is this commission "empowered" and how do they pick the criterion that
is decisive for picking a good single-winner system?

>
>
2. Use that system at all levels.
>

dlw:That's 6 words.

dlw: But one election rule doesn't fit all elections so this undercuts the
deeper need for electoral pluralism!  And it's too damn easy to get some
smart person who understands electoral analytics to find something to make
any election rule look bad.

3a. Increases pressure for PR reform
>

dlw:You gotta get folks first to swallow the super-rule.  There is
precedent for election reforms getting reversed, and not just with IRV!!!

3b. All races more competitive
>

dlw: Start at the top, after changing every election, and then PR?  But the
whole point is that the partial/strategic use of PR gives us more bang than
some mythical single-winner reform that has yet to be tried out much in
political elections.
dlw: I may not my idea packaged [yet] for general consumption, but that
doesn't mean I'm not generally right...


> 4. Corruption withers
>
dlw:Age of Aquarius begins.

>
> JQ:My point is not that single-winner reform is more important or easier
> than PR reform, but that if either one will lead to the other, we should
> start with the one that can apply to all races initially, not the one which
> is limited in scope. It appeals to people who only care about the top of
> the ticket, and it does not lead to the disruptive and
> temporarily-counterproductive step 3 of plan A.
>

dlw:"if" either one will lead to the other.
Experience has not suggested that we're going to agree on one election rule
as inherently superior so that it should be implemented in all elections.
 I for one would argue against such, saying that election rules are like
screw-driver, no one works well for all elections.   But even if we did
somehow come to agreement, we'd still need to make the change one election
at a time, rather than to all elections at once.  That's political science
fiction.  There's precedent in the US for getting PR adopted in "more
local" elections, as there's precedent for stalwarts using smoke and
mirrors to subvert electoral reform.

>
> JQ:Anyway, that's why I prefer something like plan B. Obviously on the
> whole what we need are different people starting out with different plans,
> and also ready to support any plan that starts working. So I'm not telling
> anyone to stop doing what they're doing, just giving my own thoughts.
>

dlw: The push for American forms of PR is going to begin soon, it's a good
time to get prepared to make it a success!

>
> Jameson
>
>
> 2011/11/17 David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>
>
>> 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
>>
>> ----
>> 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/20111117/096e5022/attachment-0003.htm>