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

[Jameson Quinn]

2011/11/17 David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>

>
>
> 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.
>

Really? You think the only reason that people spend more time talking about
the president than the city council is that the presidential election is
more 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)
>

People are very good at asking "cui bono".
Reformer: "End gridlock incentive" (good slogan, by the way)
Person: "How?"
Reformer: "By giving you a third choice."
Person: "Oh, you're one of those third-party freaks. Greens are dirty
hippies, libertarians are unrealistic Ayn Rand cultists or antisemitic
conspiracy theorists [I know, that's actually Larouche, but people get
confused]. I would never want to elect those people."

I know, this is a hurdle for any election reform path. But the longer the
path, the less you can convince people to keep their eye on the prize and
jump the hurdles.

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.
>
This argument goes both ways - from PR to single-winner, or vice versa.


>
>
>> 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.
>

That's when we're talking to each other.


>
>> 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?
>

As in Rhode Island, by the state legislature. Or by some legislature at
another level - congress, municipal, whatever. How do they choose? As
reasonable people - like the New Zealand commission did.


>
>>
> 2. Use that system at all levels.
>>
>
> dlw:That's 6 words.
>

OK, "No more plurality elections".


>
> 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!!!
>

Including PR. In fact, each seat that PR gives to a third party is a seat
with a dispersed constituency, and all the major parties need to do to take
it back is repeal. With single-winner reform, there's a better chance that
the winner has the political strength to defend the system - or to defend
themselves as an incumbent without the system, which makes repeal less
tempting.


> 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.
>

More bang per election, but fewer elections. I'd take one mayor over three
city councilmembers.


>
> 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.
>

Sure, you never really reach the end of the road, but it's still worth
setting your sights on it. And that makes straight roads easier to walk
than twisty ones. Or, if you're in the wilderness, "follow the drinking
gourd."


>
>> 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.
>

I wasn't suggesting you do it all at once. It's a lot of little struggles,
just like anything else. But you can state the goal in four words, and that
makes it easier to tie those struggles together.


>  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!
>

Great. And you get ready to make my website a success, too. The age of
Aquarius is nigh.

Jameson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111117/fd7ab4ac/attachment-0004.htm>