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

[David L Wetzell]

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>>
>
> JQ: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?
>

dlw: I didn't say that.  I implied the main reason that people don't talk
about city council is that the city council elections are rarely
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."
>
dlw: "By making it impossible for either to get a permanent majority"


> 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."
>

dlw: Who'd benefit?  Do we not all benefit (holistically, if not
economically) when our economic, ethnic and ideological minorities' rights
are protected?  And how is that s'posed to happen if we don't handicap
major party rivalry and give third parties a constructive role to play?
 I'm not saying we give them a realistic chance of being in power, I'm
saying we let them decide which of our two major parties are in power so
that they get the chance to raise their issues!

>
> 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.
>

It's not that long a path and your arg can kill any election reform,not
just mine.  You can't meaningfully change the rules without raising
someone's hackles.   My proposal does not help

>
> 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.
>>
>

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

dlw: That is our area of diff.  You claim it goes both ways, but  I'm
skeptical.  I think that "more local" PR has a stronger case of leading to
single-winner than vice-versa.  I also think political cultural changes
dwarf both venues .   But perhaps you can spell out for me how really good
single-winner reform(as opposed to IRV3/AV3) would get us PR.

>
>
>>
>>
>>> 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!
>>
>
> ???
>

The rational strategy in a FPTP system is often to vote strategically and
there can only be two contenders: the status quo and a single alternative.
 If we were using IRV then it'd be easier for there to be more alternative
election rules getting more consideration.

>
>
>>
>> [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.
>

dlw: But can you keep it colloquial and explain why "she's the one"???

>
>
>>
>>> 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.
>

dlw: And why would our national leaders commission such a thiing?

>
>
>>
>>>
>> 2. Use that system at all levels.
>>>
>>
>> dlw:That's 6 words.
>>
>
> OK, "No more plurality elections".
>

dlw: need one clearcut alternative.

>
>
>>
>> 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.
>

dlw: Au contraire, mon frere!  With a 3-seat form of PR, a third of the
seats would go to members of the smaller major party in each district.
 These are people who wouldn't get elected o.w. and they, together with the
third party candidates are likely to get at least half of the votes.
 There's a good reason that 3-seat quasi-PR lasted 110 years in IL and was
ended only by a deceptive campaign in a referendum at a time when people
were very much angry at their elected officials.

>
>
>> 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: Ah, but since we are talking about "more local" elections, the
single-winner elections are chronically non-competitive due to the
economies of scale that the big two parties still benefit from and de facto
segregation. Thus, even if the use of 3-5 seat PR elections reduces the
number of elections, it increases the number of competitive elections.
WRT, to "less local" elections, like a mayoral election, these are more
easily competitive already, which is part of the reason why they're so
"popular".  When Minneapolis used IRV3 two years ago, it didn't increase
the turnout much, because the mayoral election wasn't competitive.  If
another single-winner election rule had been used, it wouldn't have made
much of a difference.  In a heavily democratic area, the dominant party
will win single-winner elections most of the time.

>
>
>>
>> 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: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."
>

dlw: When you're in the wilderness, you make due with the manna provided
you and trust that you'll receive further guidance in the future.  Arguing
about what the oasis at the end will be is a waste of time when you're
stuck.  I'm saying I know 3-5 seat PR in "more local" elections would get
us unstuck, regardless of whether voters act rationally or not.  But in my
opinion, the increased benefits of a lot of the more fancy single-winner
elections rely heavily on rational choice assumptions that are not
realistic.

>
>
>>
>>> 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.
>

Subvert Gridlock/Rivalry, Decentralize Influence(as opposed to Power)!

That sounds better than "get the Condorcet winner" if s/he exists and is
meaningful, provided that folks bother to study all of the candidates(on
enough issues) and rank them all correctly.


>
>
>>  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.
>

As long as you also point to AmPR, it doesn't matter that you also push
SODA and what-not..., but if AmPR gets hot, because of FairVote's
comparative advantage at marketing electoral reform to US_Americans, and
your products don't, it might be time to shift tactics.

dlw

>
> Jameson
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111118/7494219c/attachment-0004.htm>