[EM] Re, take 2: NYT/Richie voting reform "debate" next Sunday; write in.

[David L Wetzell]

I'm sorry I didn't read JQs note in full.

I hope you'll listen to him.
But I still believe that PR needs to be pushed harder than Rob Richie puts
it in his editorial so I'll be crafting a letter that focuses on this and I
hope to get some feedback from you all on it.

dlw

On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 8:19 PM, <
election-methods-request at lists.electorama.com> wrote:

> Send Election-Methods mailing list submissions to
>        election-methods at lists.electorama.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        election-methods-request at lists.electorama.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        election-methods-owner at lists.electorama.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Election-Methods digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: Election-Methods Digest, Vol 92, Issue 55 (David L Wetzell)
>   2. NYT/Richie voting reform "debate" next Sunday; write in.
>      (Jameson Quinn)
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>
> To: election-methods at lists.electorama.com
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 19:49:36 -0600
> Subject: Re: [EM] Election-Methods Digest, Vol 92, Issue 55
>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Kevin Venzke <stepjak at yahoo.fr>
>> To: election-methods <election-methods at electorama.com>
>> Cc:
>> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 22:37:56 +0000 (GMT)
>> Subject: Re: [EM] Kevin V
>>   Hi David,
>>
>>
>>   *De :* David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>
>> *À :* stepjak at yahoo.fr; EM <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
>> *Envoyé le :* Mardi 7 février 2012 16h17
>> *Objet :* Re: Kevin V
>>
>>    dlw: I argue that the strength of the US presidency and regular
>> presidential elections has the effect of building up our two-party system.
>> This is why I take as a given that there tend to be 2 bigger major
>> parties and not as many serious candidates in "single-winner elections".
>>  This in turn tends to
>> reduce the import of the diffs among the wide variety of single-winner
>> elections.
>>
>>
>> I think it works like this:
>> President isn't responsible to or chosen by Congress ->
>> There is not that much prize for having a majority of a house ->
>> Weak party discipline (because of less focus on party: a candidate can
>> get reelected even if his peers are unhappy) ->
>> If you are a viable candidate, there is no need for you to carve out a
>> new party. There is only room for two contenders per
>> race (under FPP), and there are two parties that will take you as long
>> as you can win for them.
>>
>> dlw: Aye, but the prez election itself and its potential for coat-tails
>> and the reward from capturing one or both of the US legislatures
>> does build up the parties who can afford to run a serious prez election
>> race.  I think some of the weak party discipline is also due to the
>> restrictions on donations to parties in the 1974 FEC act.
>> Our system wd function better if there was more intra-party discipline
>> and the donations flowed thru the relatively transparent venue of the
>> party.
>>
>>
>>
>> Personally I prefer weak party discipline. I like candidates to have
>> independence, with the decision-making power
>> less concentrated. And I'm suspicious of what party policies designed at
>> the national level would look like.
>>
>
> dlw: Well, intra-party discipline is needed one way or the other to get
> things done.  Our system right now is characterized as full of political
> entrepreneurship, which makes bills a lot more complicated than they need
> to be and things take longer and too much of politicians' time gets spent
> fund-raising...
>
>>
>>
>>
>> KV: I think we could have three "parties" (if not a much greater variety
>> of viewpoints) with the right method. I wouldn't care
>> if they are actually parties or just a higher number of real choices, on
>> average, in a race.
>>
>> dlw:Would it make a diff if our two major parties became two different
>> major parties, bridging the gap between the de facto center and the true
>> center?
>> If American forms of PR were adopted so that there'd still be 2 major
>> parties per area, they wouldn't be the same 2 parties for all regions,
>> which would then enable minor parties
>> to contest the duopoly.  And if this got complemented by a host of
>> LTPs(with coalitions)  that specialized in contesting "more local"
>> elections and voting strategically together in "less local" elections,
>> along with other acts that hold elected officials accountable to their
>> promises then we'd have better quality choices, even if the quantity is
>> less than we'd prefer.
>>
>>
>> Yes, I think it would be useful if we could increase the incentive to
>> stand at the median, even if two "parties" maintained
>> their grip on things.
>>
>> I don't find PR very interesting personally. It can be its own goal, but
>> it doesn't seem useful for the things I'm concerned
>> about.
>>
>
> dlw: For more local electyions that are rarely competitive, it's the only
> way to make them not DINOs.  We used quasi-proportional elections for IL
> from 1870-1980 and it kept either major party from dominating the state's
> politics, so other states that are/were economically dependent on IL could
> afford to be more politically independent than if one party had been able
> to leverage their domination of IL's politics...  It's a neglected part of
> our history!!!
>
> dlw
>
>>
>> Kevin
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Kevin Venzke <stepjak at yahoo.fr>
>> To: election-methods <election-methods at electorama.com>
>> Cc:
>> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 22:53:34 +0000 (GMT)
>> Subject: Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet
>> Hi Robert,
>>
>> I would +1 to Bryan Mills' post.
>>
>> >in the two-candidate case, you would have to assume unequal treatment
>> for voters
>>
>> Yes, utility inherently does this. It's trying to maximize "happiness"
>> which is a different ideal from giving
>> everyone equal weight (e.g. even people who don't have a strong opinion).
>>
>> >but when Clay says that Score or Approval is better at picking the
>> Condorcet winner than is a
>> >Condorcet-compliant method, *that* is no tautology is obviously
>> controversial, since it says that there is
>> >a number closer to 3 than the number 3 itself.
>>
>> What Clay means is that score/Approval are better at picking the
>> *sincere* Condorcet winner. Yes, that's
>> obviously controversial. It could be true if it so happens that nobody
>> wants to vote truthfully under
>> Condorcet methods, while Approval in practice never has any bad
>> outcomes, etc.
>>
>> >if it isn't 0 (for when you don't get who you voted for) and 1 (for when
>> your candidate is elected), then
>> >some voter is diluting their utilities and i think it's pretty useless
>> and in bad taste to ask voters to do that
>> >explicitly with a Score ballot.
>>
>> "Utilities" refers to what voters actually "feel," not what they are
>> putting on the ballot.
>>
>> Kevin
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Election-Methods mailing list
>> Election-Methods at lists.electorama.com
>> http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>
> To: EM <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>, electionsciencefoundation
> <electionscience at googlegroups.com>
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 20:18:52 -0600
> Subject: [EM] NYT/Richie voting reform "debate" next Sunday; write in.
> Invitation to a Dialogue: A Better Way to Elect? Published: February 7,
> 2012
>
>    - RECOMMEND
>    - TWITTER
>    - LINKEDIN
>    -  E-MAIL
>    - PRINT<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/opinion/invitation-to-a-dialogue-a-better-way-to-elect.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&pagewanted=print>
>    <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/opinion/invitation-to-a-dialogue-a-better-way-to-elect.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&pagewanted=all>
>    -  REPRINTS<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/opinion/invitation-to-a-dialogue-a-better-way-to-elect.html?_r=1&ref=opinion#>
>    - SHARE<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/opinion/invitation-to-a-dialogue-a-better-way-to-elect.html?_r=1&ref=opinion#>
>
>
> <http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/opinion&pos=Frame4A&sn2=f8475720/9aad5d74&sn1=82e89b96/89090ad2&camp=FSL2012_ArticleTools_120x60_1787503b_nyt5&ad=TreeofLife_January27_120x60&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ecom%2Fthetreeoflife>
>
> *To the Editor:*
>  Enlarge This Image
>  Hieronymus
>
> Every four years a handful of the same old states effectively pick party
> nominees for president, voting earlier and earlier with campaign spending
> mattering more and more.
>
> The parties should winnow their field with what is known as the American
> Plan <http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=965>, a nomination schedule that
> rewards retail campaigning and gives late-entering candidates a better
> chance. Ten biweekly rounds of voting would be held, starting in small
> states. Delegates would beallocated proportionally<http://www.fairvote.org/delegate-allocation-rules-in-2012-gop#.TzFko1Zjc4T> rather
> than by winner take all.
>
> Up to three candidates for each party would earn a place in a national
> primary, held in June in conjunction with Congressional primaries.
>
> Ranked-choice voting — a proven system used in national elections in
> Australia and mayoral elections in a dozen American cities, in which voters
> rank candidates in order of preference — would ensure that winners earn
> majority support in an “instant runoff<http://www.instantrunoff.com/the-basics>
> .”
>
> For general elections, the nominees of major parties should face more
> competition from third-party and independent candidates by having fairer
> ballot access, inclusive debates, ranked-choice voting and, eventually, a national
> popular vote <http://nationalpopularvote.com/> for president.
>
> For Congressional elections, creating larger districts with several seats
> and a proportional voting system to allow more voters to elect a preferred
> candidate would better represent the left, the right and the center.
>
> With these changes, all Americans could be engaged in our presidential
> elections, not just the favored few of Iowa, New Hampshire and the other
> early primary and caucus states. And we just might regularly end up with
> better presidents and members of Congress.
>
> ROB RICHIE
> Takoma Park, Md., Feb. 6, 2012
>
> *The writer is executive director of FairVote, which promotes election
> reform.*
>
> *Editors’ Note: **We invite readers to respond to this letter for our
> Sunday Dialogue. We plan to publish responses and Mr. Richie’s rejoinder in
> the Sunday Review. E-mail:letters at nytimes.com*
>
>
> ---------------
>
> Jameson here... I think we should definitely take this opportunity to
> promote reform in general. I'd advise a "yes, and" approach to Richie. As I
> see it, it is definitely not worth trying to talk about the flaws in IRV.
> Richie will get his rejoinder; it's impossible to pre-rebut all of the
> various half-truths or worse that he could come up with, so it's better not
> to try. Also, remember, we want the average reader to go away thinking that
> all the experts agree that election reform is a great idea, not feeling
> that it's a minefield of debate. So say your piece, but be nice to Richie,
> no matter what you think he deserves.
>
> Personally, I'd love it if the Center for Election Science could have an
> official response. Similarly for all the people with credentials -
> votefair, etc.
>
> A similar idea: statement signers, do you think we could agree on a
> response in time to get published on Sunday?
>
> Jameson
>
> _______________________________________________
> Election-Methods mailing list
> Election-Methods at lists.electorama.com
> http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120208/59e3f3df/attachment-0003.htm>