[EM] STV vs Party-list PR, could context matter?

[Richard Fobes]

On 2/19/2012 1:24 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
 > On 02/19/2012 06:18 AM, Richard Fobes wrote:
 >> ...
 >> 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.

Ah, indeed Norway has a better political system than the "main" European 
nations (France, Germany, Spain, etc.).  Also, oil exports put Norway in 
a much better position economically than what's going on here in the 
U.S. (and tighter budgets result in greater dysfunctionality).  And, 
culturally, Norwegians seem to be enlightened more so than many other 
countries.

The need for Norway to resist the European Union in its effort to "bite 
off too much" underscores my point about European nations, on average -- 
which implies a lack of wise leadership in both the EU and the countries 
that dominate the EU.

A point about the EU: Personally I think that creating the Eurodollar as 
a monetary unit that is represented in currency was a mistake.  Before 
the Eurodollar was instituted, I publicly (in "The Futurist" magazine) 
suggested that something called a "Unidollar" should be created as a 
monetary unit that is defined in a way that does not inflate or deflate 
with respect to tangible "things" and services, but without being 
available as a tangible currency.  That would allow people in different 
countries to talk about monetary amounts in Unidollars without having to 
know the conversion rate for the country of the person they are talking 
to.  (They only have to know the conversion rate between their country's 
currency and the Unidollar.)  The fact that the EU leaders didn't 
anticipate the possibility of Greek and Italian (and other) defaults 
before they even instituted the common currency (and did not realize 
that just asking new EU nations to make a promise to spend taxpayers' 
money wisely, with no real way to back up those promises) reveals a lack 
of wisdom.

As for the U.S., the biggest (but not the only) election unfairness 
occurs in primary elections as a result of vote splitting.  "Special 
interests" -- the people who give the largest amounts of money to 
election campaigns -- have learned to give money to candidates in the 
primary elections of _both_ the Republican party and the Democratic 
party (as needed), and give additional support to "spoiler" candidates 
when needed.  The result is that the money-backed candidate in each 
party's primary election wins, and then it doesn't much matter whether 
the Republican or the Democrat wins the "general election".

Simply getting one political party or the other to use a fairer voting 
method (any of the ones supported by the Declaration of Election-Method 
Reform Advocates) in the primary elections would greatly improve the 
ability of voters to elect problem-solving leaders -- instead of 
special-interest puppets.  (After one party adopts such fairer primary 
elections, the other party would soon have to do the same or else risk 
losing lots of support.)

That's all I have time to write now.

Richard Fobes


On 2/19/2012 1:24 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
> 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.
>
> Clearly, politics here isn't perfect. I would say that the current
> coalition's largest member (the Labor Party) holds certain positions
> about which the majority does not agree, and that said party uses its
> power as "a majority of a majority" (i.e. the largest - majority - party
> within the largest - majority - coalition) to push its own views through
> even when they're unpopular.
>
> (I'm thinking of the Labor Party accepting (de jure optional) European
> Union regulations too readily, in particular, because the party likes
> the idea of the EU even though the union has been growing steadily less
> popular with the people due to the whole business with Greece.)
>
> However, the coalition did manage to steer the country through the last
> (European/American-induced) economic turbulence without too much
> problem; and the Labor Party had to concede on some local-vs-central
> issues because of the nature of coalition government, whereas they
> probably would not have had to do so if they were the majority in a
> two-party state.
>
> 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.
>
>> 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?
>
>
>