[EM] hello from DLW of "A New Kind of Party":long time electoral reform enthusiast/iconoclast-wannabe...

[Jameson Quinn]

2011/10/31 David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>

>
>
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 2011/10/31 David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>
>>
>>>  2. I agree that "who benefits" is a key question.  But I think what
>>> I'm talking about doesn't redistribute or decentralize power so much as
>>> influence.  And I'm willing to bet that those in power would be more likely
>>> to be okay with that if it subverts the twin evils of extremism and apathy
>>> among US_Americans w.o. ending effective two-party rule.
>>>
>>
>> Reassuring insiders is worthwhile, but it's more important to build
>> pressure from grass roots. Insiders will *never* seek out a disruptive
>> change in the status quo without outside pressure.
>>
>
> dlw: Agreed, but if the pressure is strategically placed then it becomes
> far more convenient for the insiders to accommodate than to fight against
> the proposed reforms.
>
>>
>> That said, I think you'd be interested in my own proposals for
>> single-winner and PR reform: SODA voting<http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/SODA_voting>and PAL
>> representation <http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/PAL_representation>.
>> Both were designed to be much more competitive with a minimum of disruption.
>>
>
> I think I've read about the second one already.
>
> It's interesting.  I'd rather just argue before the supreme court that the
> law that prohibits multi-seat federal elections is unconstitutional because
> of its harmful effects on minority voters and the fact that the specific
> election rule used by states should be up to the states.
>

I think the chances of that idea flying with the SCOTUS any time in the
next 20 years are virtually nil. For me, the best option for PR is a
seriously empowered grassroots push, on the level of the progressive
movement or the civil rights movement (and something which hasn't happened
since the latter, including the anti-Vietnam movement), which starts with
local victories in cities and state legislatures and moves to push congress
to make PR legal. It is not inconceivable that #OWS could develop into such
a movement; I think that the Tea Party, on the other hand, has shot its wad.

Then, 3-5 seat STV with a Droop quota, as advocated by FairVote, would be
> feasible.
>

That's a great option, I agree.


>
>> I realize that right now I am just a guy, so far nowhere near in
>> Fairvote's league for effective organization for reform, so I could forgive
>> you for discounting my "crazy ideas" and pragmatically supporting IRV. But
>> I'm working on a kick-ass website and web service - something that will be
>> like http://modernballots.com/ but even better, and with a "donate"
>> button that will have (I hope) an existing, large-membership
>> good-government organization behind it. Can't say too much more right now.
>>
>
>  I've been where you are and still am for the most part.
> Beware of the power of the ego to rationalize tilting against windmills...
>
>>
>> In other words: "I have a bunch of vaporware. What do you bring to the
>> table?" :)
>>
>
Part of my motive for my empty bragging was to probe what your plans and
skills, as opposed to your goals, are. I guess putting it in ironic quotes
was not the best way to show that the question was serious, though friendly.

JQ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111031/f028b442/attachment-0002.htm>