[EM] Critical part of Re:Kristofer Munsterhjelm

[Jameson Quinn]

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.

Plan A:
1. Local elections using PR. ("But I don't care about local elections...")
2. Increases power of third parties ("But I don't care about third
parties...")
3. More spoiled or near-spoiled elections increase pressure for
single-winner reform ("Huh?")
4. Single-winner reform implemented ("But IRV was the wrong reform, we
should have gone for system X")
5. etc.
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?

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.
2. Use that system at all levels.
3a. Increases pressure for PR reform
3b. All races more competitive
4. Corruption withers

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.

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.

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/af4c633a/attachment-0004.htm>