[EM] Election-Methods Digest, Vol 92, Issue 89

[David L Wetzell]

On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 12:24 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: STV vs Party-list PR, could context matter?
>      (Kristofer Munsterhjelm)
>   2. Re: Conditionality-by-top-count probably violates FBC
>      (Kristofer Munsterhjelm)
>   3. Re: Conditionality-by-top-count probably violates FBC
>      (Jameson Quinn)
>   4. Re: STV vs Party-list PR, could context matter? (James Gilmour)
>   5. Re Rich Fobes, Kristofer M, James G (David L Wetzell)
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_elmet at lavabit.com>
> To: ElectionMethods at VoteFair.org
> Cc: election-methods at electorama.com
> Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 10:24:23 +0100
> Subject: Re: [EM] STV vs Party-list PR, could context matter?
> On 02/19/2012 06:18 AM, Richard Fobes wrote:
>
>> I have in mind European parliaments where coalitions are typically needed.
>>
>> In my opinion, coalitions require back-room compromises that most voters
>> would not like (if they knew what those compromises were).
>>
>> I have not seen any parliamentary democracies in which voters are able
>> to elect problem-solving leaders. Instead, special-interest puppets are
>> elected.
>>
>> More specifically, European politicians seem to be as clueless as U.S.
>> politicians about what is needed to "create jobs" and restore widespread
>> economic prosperity.
>>
>
> Let me just say that, as a Norwegian, that does not match my experience at
> all.
>

dlw: But you'll concede that a good deal of your country's prosperity comes
from its oil holdings, apart from its use of PR?
It's easier to let the pie get sliced into many pieces when it's a big pie
and you are a smaller, relatively homogeneous country.
Which makes it harder to discern what benefits are due to PR and then
there's the issue of what sort of PR gets used.

>
>
> Instead, I'd say that the European problem is that the ones in power are
> trying to bite off too much. The European Union, in growing so quickly, had
> to be built on compromise at all costs, and that compromise has led to many
> solutions that only go some of the way. The Euro matter is a good example:
> the management of the currency (along with attendant financial policy) is
> partially centralized, partially decentralized, and that doesn't work. They
> also have their undemocratic, bureaucrat-ruled past to deal with, though
> they've come some way by giving some of the Commission's power to the
> Parliament.
>

dlw: Or they don't follow thru with critical changes because their
coalitions don't last very long?


>
>  I agree that a lot can be accomplished without making this change.
>>
>> I also agree that there are no "unchangeable" laws that would prevent
>> changing how voting is done in Congress.
>>
>> Yet special interests -- i.e. the biggest campaign contributors -- will
>> never intentionally allow such changes -- because they know how to
>> control ("rig") the system under the current laws/rules.
>>
>
> That seems to say that you can't expect the rules to change to favor third
> parties first, because under the current system, the campaign contributors
> would want the status quo to prevail.
>


> So you'd have to weaken the power of the campaign contributors. And how
> would you do so? Perhaps by competition?
>
> I guess the risky part would be that you get multipartyism, and then the
> rules don't work, and then instead of the coalitions altering the rules so
> that they *do* work (now that campaign contributors can't buy all the
> parties off), the people say "oh, it's not working, let's return to the old
> lesser-evil system -- at least that did work".
>
> Is that something like what you're imagining?
>

dlw: I don't think they'd get even to first base if that's what they were
aiming for.

3rd parties are not powerful at all in the US.  Thus, it's a lot harder to
get really third party friendly electoral reforms.  It's easier to go the
opposite direction with a "top two primary"....

This is why we observe FairVote pushing for electoral reforms that help 3rd
parties, but not a whole lot.
Unlike us dilettantes, they have very much at stake as an org in their
efforts for electoral reform and so they, IMO, try to choose their battles
carefully.
dlw

>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120219/afcb264a/attachment-0003.htm>