[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>

>  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.

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 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.

In other words: "I have a bunch of vaporware. What do you bring to the
table?" :)


>
>>
>>> Well, I believe that making more "more local" elections more competitive
>>> and thereby more meaningful checks on $peech is something that would appeal
>>> to the different factions of the #OWS a lot more than stuff on
>>> single-winner reform.
>>>
>>
>> This is a good non-partisan goal. Both PR and single-winner reform would
>> help here. It is easier to convince people that this is your sincere goal
>> when talking about single-winner reform, for the reasons above.
>>
>
> dlw: You can't do that in "more local" elections.  Giving folks more
> options in the forms of rankings or approvals or what-not won't matter if
> they are in an area that strongly supports one of the two major parties.
>
> And there's no point in trying to push for election rules that try to end
> two party rule in a system that is dominated by two parties.  What does
> make sense is to push for election rules that end the tendency for
> effective two party rule to devolve into effective single party rule.
>

Though you imply that you're only talking about PR, this could certainly
describe my single-winner SODA proposal.

Jameson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111031/2dea9c44/attachment-0004.htm>