[EM] IRV Revisited. Easy Implementation of Plurality's Optimal Strategy.

[Jameson Quinn]

I have several reactions to this thread.

1. I am sympathetic to the idea that we shouldn't dismiss IRV out-of-hand
simply because it has inferior properties. Its better momentum is a force
to be reckoned with.

2. I am also very supportive of discussing activist tactics in general.
Inevitably, that will involve breaking the nonpartisan fiction. For
instance, I consider myself a progressive, and while I can respectfully
suggest tactics to my voting-reform allies who are libertarian or centrist,
it is reasonable for me to spend more attention on what I myself can do as
a progressive, and to talk more about the Greens and Democrats than about
the Libertarians, Republicans, and Tea Party.

3. However, there's a big difference between tactical activist thinking,
and magical "assume a can opener" thinking. Any idea that starts with
"first we elect a significant Green caucus to congress..." or "Since greens
are immune to corruption and hate gerrymandering..." is a dead end.

So, from that perspective, what do I think the important tactics are?

Priority one is to grow the movement. There are maybe 50 people active on
this list; and perhaps a few hundred people involved in FairVote
nationwide. Even if sympathizers and supporters are ten times that, that's
still way too small and/or diffuse a group to win even the smallest battle.
One particular focus should be to find large contributors. For instance,
Sergey Brin recently posted a rant about partisanship, and Ka-Ping Yee
works at google.org; if we could make Google into a hotbed of voting reform
advocacy, that would be a very powerful ally.

Priority two is to win federal, and more-importantly state, elected
officials to our cause. That means engaging in electoral politics,
principally at the primary stage. In other words: we cannot sit and dream
about a third-party tomorrow, we must also find candidates and movements we
can honestly support within the two parties. For me, a progressive, that
means working inside the Democratic party. For libertarians, that probably
means the Republicans. For Bloomberg technocrat types... well, from my
perspective, you're a lot closer to the Democrats, but I'll let you decide
that. Whichever party it is: find people you can honestly support, and help
them win primaries and then general elections. That doesn't mean you have
to abandon your third party party-building work; but it does mean being
willing to work with good people inside a major party even if you believe
that the larger part of that party is corrupt and counterproductive.

Priorities one and two lay the groundwork for priority three: actual
implementations of voting reform. This does not take a constitutional
amendment. Most of the work would be on a municipal or state level. Find
out who your city council and state legislators are. Get 5 friends in your
district to work together to lobby them. Write letters, set up appointments
if you can. If you find that they're sympathetic, don't hesitate to help
them fundraise. If you find they're not, look for an opponent for them who
is and who could credibly win the district.

There is also a bit of important work at the federal level; for instance,
Congress could change the law which forbids PR for the house of
representative, or explicitly interpret the constitutions Guaranty Clause
in a way that favors approval voting by giving citizens and/or citizen
groups standing to challenge voting laws that reduce effective
participation (as plurality does when it throws away overvotes). But
principally, the important battles are at the municipal or state level.

Where does IRV and FairVote fit into this? Obviously, your answer to that
will depend on how you feel about IRV. But even if you think that IRV's
disadvantages versus plurality outweigh its advantages, I think it's worth
working with FairVote on PR. And if, like me, you think that it is a small
step up from plurality, then... well I won't tell you what to do, but I
spend most of my voting-reform energy on Approval, but try not to
completely burn my bridges with FairVote, no matter how annoying or wrong I
often find them. So, Rob Richie, if you're reading this: I will always
endorse any viable proposal to replace plurality with IRV, and at all times
try to deflect energy spent infighting between reform proposals towards
opposing plurality, and for at least the 10th time I personally and
publicly invite you to start doing the same.

Jameson

2012/11/10 Ken B <kbearman at isd.net>

> On 11/10/2012 9:18 AM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
>
>> If there is a voting system that can be enacted at national level,
>>
> = = = = =
> [Ken B.]  Unless something's changed recently, there's no national voting
> system now and never has been in the USA.  Voting methods and election
> rules are set at the state and local level.
>
> You'd need an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to create a national
> voting system, wouldn't you?
>
>   - Ken Bearman, Minneapolis MN
>
>
> ----
> 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/20121111/4308521e/attachment-0004.htm>