[EM] Campaign contribution reform

[Richard Fobes]

[pulled out of message below]
On 2/20/2012 5:18 AM, Raph Frank wrote:
  ...
 > I assume you mean campaign contribution reform?  That isn't actually
 > an election method.

Nope.

As I see it, using better ballots and better counting methods will cut 
the puppet strings that connect politicians to their biggest campaign 
contributors.

The main reason money matters so much (in politics) is that money can be 
used to win elections through vote splitting (in primary elections), 
gerrymandering (which affects general elections), and media influence. 
Vote splitting and gerrymandering will disappear when well-designed 
voting methods are used.  Then money won't matter as much.  (Media 
influence will continue, but voters can ignore it.)

BTW, lobbyists only have influence because they can (when needed) remind 
politicians about the necessity of having lots of campaign funds.  As 
money becomes less significant, lobbyists loose power.

To the extent that money can no longer take advantage of vote splitting 
(mainly in primary elections) and gerrymandering, there isn't so much 
need for reforming campaign financing.

BTW, this is why I oppose public financing of campaigns.  Why should 
taxpayers waste money opposing the money from special interests?

Using better ballots and better counting methods will eliminate the need 
for reforming campaign contributions, PACs, Super-PACs, etc.

Keeping in mind that I'm the author of a how-to book on creative problem 
solving, I'll repeat an important point from that book: the best place 
to solve a problem is at the source/root of the problem.

Richard Fobes



On 2/20/2012 5:18 AM, Raph Frank wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Richard Fobes
> <ElectionMethods at votefair.org>  wrote:
>> Another way to understand the second problem is to consider what would
>> happen if 55% of the voters in a state favor the Republican Party, and the
>> remaining 45% favor the Democratic Party, and there is an even distribution
>> of these preferences throughout the state.  If STV uses 3 seats per
>> district, the likely result would be that two thirds of the elected
>> representatives would be Republicans, and only one third would be Democrats.
>
> If they were single seaters, then it would be 100% Republican.
>
> Small districts inherently don't give good PR, but a 1/3 to 2/3 split
> is better than 100% to one, if the votes are 55% to 45%.
>
>> If STV is used with 4 seats per district, in a (different) state that
>> strongly favors a third party, the fourth seat would yield unpredictable
>> results.  Here I'm assuming that the first three seats would be filled by
>> one Republican, one Democrat, and one third-party politician.
>
> There would be a little randomness, but it should balance out somewhat
> when averaged over many districts.  Tiny parties would still have a
> very hard time.
>
> 4 seats means a quota of 20%.  If both Republicans and Democrats are>
> 40%, then they both get 2 seat each.
>
> An odd number of seats has the feature that if a party gets a majority
> of the vote, it gets a majority of the seats.
>
>> In contrast, my view is that first we -- the voters -- need to reclaim
>> control of the Republican and Democratic parties, and then we can decide
>> whether we need one or more third parties.  (I expect that we will need
>> small third parties, but that they will primarily serve as a way for voters
>> to steer the two main parties in wiser directions.)
>
> The issue is that if the 2 parties work together, then they can ignore
> the voters, since they effectively hold a duopoly.
>
> Everyone must choose one or other, so there is relatively little control.
>
> With third parties, it is possible for voters to move to one of the
> third parties.  Even if only a small number do it, it still acts on as
> a check, since each voter who leaves represents loss of power for the
> party.
>
> Currently, the only way to leave is to switch vote from one party to
> the other, which is a big step for many people.
>
>> Remember that state legislatures and Congress use a voting method (for
>> choosing which proposed laws to pass) that works reasonably well with just
>> two main parties, but that voting method would break down into chaos if a
>> legislature or Congress had to form coalitions (in order to get a majority
>> of support for each proposed law).
>
> Certainly, there would need to be changes in the customs/rules of
> order in the House.
>
> The Senate would likely not be PR based anyway, due to the 2 Senator
> per State rule.
>
>> Also remember that in Congress (and
>> presumably in state legislatures) the chairmanship of each committee
>> switches to a committee member who is from the majority party; there is no
>> graceful way to choose which committees switch their chairmanships to which
>> of three (or more) parties.
>
> That could be handled either by having a formal coalition (the
> coalition agreement would include how to split the chairmanships) or
> maybe doing it via PR, or some other compromise.
>
>> You seem to be focused on accommodating a transition to a three-party
>> system, without also accommodating a later transition back to a two-party
>> system.
>
> PR is unlikely to switch back to a 2 party system.  There is little
> benefit in reducing voter choice.  However, if the voters mostly vote
> for the 2 biggest parties, PR allows it to move back to 2 party.
>
>> Election-method reform must (first and foremost) cut the puppet strings that
>> currently connect politicians -- of both parties -- to the biggest campaign
>> contributors ("special interests").
>
> That is one of the main points about PR.  By giving the voters more
> choice, they can move their support away from parties that don't
> represent them well.
>
> A 2 party system inherently, only has 2 choice.  If a voter hates one
> party and dislikes the other, then he isn't likely to move his vote to
> the party he hates.
>
> The more voters who are in that situation, the less voter control
> their is over the party.
>
>>   That alone will change the political
>> landscape dramatically, and that change might result in a stable two-party
>> system that all the voters like.
>
> I assume you mean campaign contribution reform?  That isn't actually
> an election method.
>
> Also, because of the FPTP method, politicians can ignore the public,
> as long as both parties agree.
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>
>
>