[EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process

[Michael Ossipoff]

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Fred Gohlke <fredgohlke at verizon.net> wrote:

Fred:

Before I reply, let me mention that, as you've probably heard, the U.S.
state of California has recently enacted a law that replaces its partisan
elections with a Runoff system, which takes away the official status of
parties in California elections. Parties can endorse, but have no official
status, and are effectively removed from the electoral system in California.


> Good Morning, Michael
>
> I'm glad to see you.  I hoped this topic would attract thoughtful comment.
>  I may have misunderstood your point, though.
>
> I think you are suggesting that party primaries be open to the public?
>
>
>
No. With a good voting system, such as Approval, there needn't be any
primaries. I propose Approval, with no primaries.

But, if you want a separate pre-election choice of parties' candidates,
then sure, public primaries are one of several perfectly good ways of
choosing a party's candidates. Public primaries are common practice now in
the U.S. Myself, I oppose letting parties have any official status in
elections. I don't believe in government sponsored party primaries. In
fact, as I said, primaries are entirely unnecessary, when the voting system
is something better than Plurality.

Alternatively, in list PR countries, there can be open list elections. That
system is well-established in several European countries that use PR.
I described open-list PR in my previous posting to this thread.

In the U.S., one advantage of a better voting system, such as Approval,  is
that primaries are unnecessary. Just have, on the ballot, the names of all
of the candidates who want to run. Maybe there have  been endorsements of
some candidates by some popular people in the party.. Maybe different party
notables will endorse different candidates. That will probably usually be
the case. But that doesn't amount to undemocratic party
candidate-selection. It's just exercise of free speech by individuals.

A party needn't be anything more than a group of people who say, "We
advocate this set of policies. This is our platform:..."
How can you object to that? Is it really bad to say that you agree with
other people?

> Is that your intent?

No. My intent is Approval as our single-winner method, to replace
Plurality. Approval, with no primaries. As described above.

You continued:

.> If so, would the attending non-partisans have to vote for one of the
party's candidates?

First, I don't advocate primaries. But, when there are public primaries,
there's no need to let someone vote in a party's primary unless they're
registered with that party.

So, to summarize:

I advocate, for all of our single-winner elections, Approval, with no
primaries.

I ask if there's anything wrong with expressing agreement with other
people. ...and if there's anything wrong with that agreeing group of people
publishing a platform, and with people running for office in support of
that platform if they want to.  ...With the understanding that you don't
have to vote for any of them unless you want to. There will surely also be
independent candidates who don't support any party's platform, but who
instead, publish their own platforms.

Or, say you agree with most of party X's platform, but disagree on one or a
few key or minor points. You can say that in your campaign messages. Or
maybe you completely support the party X platform, so you can say so. Or
you can say that you support some subset of their platform, but that you
differ in specified ways, on certain specified issues. Or you can publish
your own platform. If it has significant similarity to that of party X, you
might want to say so. Or you can publish a platform with no resemblance to
that of any party.

And, as a voter, you can make a point of never supporting a candidate who
mentions a party, if such is your preference.

Mike Ossipoff





I'm anxious to examine your ideas, but want to be sure my understanding is
correct.

Fred

>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120628/863abaf6/attachment-0003.htm>