[EM] Response to Kristofer Musterhjelm

[David L Wetzell]

On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>wrote:

> Again, I find your arguments plausible, but fragile. That is, you have a
> plan which could work, if various unknowns all fall in line the way you
> reasonably expect they will. Meanwhile, you seem to be arguing that it
> would be better if others abandoned conflicting plans, and joined you.
>

dlw: It's not just me.
1. FairVote will also be pushing for American Forms of PR in the coming
year(s) hard so it'd be a good bandwagon to get on.
2. I'm saying the real world evidence is such that improving the mix of PR
and single-winner is of greater import than replacing FPP with some not yet
agreed upon alternative single-winner election rule.
3a.  It's also inherently easier to agree that "more local" elections need
(quasi)PR to become competitive and interesting.
3b. it's also good to direct folks attention more to "more local" elections
where the consequences are more immediate and their votes are more likely
to make a difference, regardless of which election rule is used.


>
> JQ:I know that sounds harsh and perhaps patronizing. I do not intend it as
> such. If electoral reform were an easy problem, the progressive movement
> (which had many resources we don't) would have solved it. Since it is a
> hard problem, it's much easier to pick holes in other people's strategies
> for reform than to come up with a good one yourself. So when you're
> proposing positive action and I'm sniping, I think third parties should
> always give you the benefit of the doubt.
>

dlw: 1. I think Progressives tend to focus too much on the "important"
elections or building up agreement on "important" issues.  I'm saying the
"more local" elections are better venues for reform, and that we don't need
to agree on most issues to act via LTPs or caucuses within major/minor
parties as the yeast that makes democracy rise.
2. They want to be the tail that wags the more progressive major party that
has a permanent majority.
My approach denies a permanent majority to either major party.  It is both
centrist and progressive at the same time.
3. The benefitors from the use of 3-5 seat PR in "More local" elections are
very many groups, almost anyone who doesn't benefit from the status quo.
 This makes it harder to get one group to fund getting the idea off the
ground.  Most progressives don't have that big of messianic complexes...

>
> KQ: But it seems you're not just proposing positive action. You're also
> implicitly sniping at non-IRV ideas when you say that, since IRV has a
> first-mover advantage, we should all support it.
>

dlw: In a FPTP dominated political system, it is rational to support
strategically the alternative to the status quo that is most likely to be
successful.  IRV has both a first-mover and a marketing advantage.  Most of
the activism of electoral analyst folks like Clay from ScoreVoting have
been destructive, since they have not been able to establish Approval
Voting or what-not as the worthy replacement of IRV.

>
> KQ: My perspective on that is: imagine that, 10 years from now (or 5 or
> 20... the number doesn't matter) voting reform has been a resounding
> success. How much value would we assign to the patient groundwork of
> Fairvote up until now? Certainly not none, but I think it's hard to deny
> that the bulk of the work remains to be done. So say they've done 1/3 of
> the work. That means that if some other system is 1/3 easier to get
> implemented, then it's a tie. I think that the differences between systems
> are easily of that magnitude. Obviously I'm getting these numbers from an
> unspecified location, but it's just to make a point; you can use whatever
> numbers you like and see if my point holds for you.
>

I have not seen meaningful analysis to the end that x alternative election
rule is easier to get implemented a lot relative to IRV+PR, which is well
established among progressives due to FairVote and Ralph Nader.

>
>
>> KM:You are right that we have been divided. I hope the declaration helps.
>>> Whether it does, time will tell, but it might, particularly if authorities
>>> within the field sign it.
>>>
>>
>> dlw: Endorsing 4 election rules and waving your hands over IRV hardly
>> seems very helpful.
>>
>
> Problem: lack of consensus.
> Solution 1: propose that everyone should just agree with you on all points.
> Solution 2: start with the minimal consensus you can achieve and build
> from there.
>
> "No, solution 2 is thinking too small."
>
[endquote]

dlw: Propose that we agree on pushing for American forms of PR and
 call a detente on single-winner alternatives in lieu of the advantages IRV
has in getting implemented in the near future in the US.

or

We push for electoral pluralism: the need to experiment with alternatives
to FPTP and to improve the mix of multi-winner and single-winner elections,
with American forms of PR being used more in "more local" elections that
tend otherwise not to be competitive.

dlw

>
> Jameson
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111107/82a2d993/attachment-0004.htm>