[EM] Board Meeting Deadline

[Jameson Quinn]

2012/10/31 Jonathan Denn <info at agreater.us>

> Hello All,
>
> I have a board meeting tonight of a left/right/center group who among
> others has in it the Conservative Party, Justice Party (Rocky Anderson),
> IndeCan.org (largest collection of Independent candidates in the US), TJ
> Ohara (Modern Whig POTUS Candidate who was #5 on American's Elect), and
> myself. Stephen Erickson the Exec from RebuildDemocracy.org is also an
> interested party but not a board member. As you know, I'm the Editor of
> aGREATER.US.
>
> We are considering making Ban Single Mark Ballots our first action. We
> would ask all past and present 3rd Party POTUS candidates (we also have
> access to Nader) to sign on, and other political organizations, which sort
> of sorts out the true believers from the make believe reformers—as I gather
> nothing protects the two party duopoly better than single mark ballots.
> Intellectually, no 3rd party would NOT sign onto this accept if we blow the
> details.
>

OK, first, one detail: the URL is BanSingleMarkBallots.com, but the
document is called the Declaration of Election Method Reform Advocates,
abbreviated DEMRA.

Second, if you're going to jump into this, you should be aware of Fa¡rVote
(yes, I know this is a public list and they could read it if they choose,
but I'd rather not trip their google alerts, so I'll call them FV from now
on. Not ashamed, just a slight precaution). They are by far the largest
voting reform advocacy organization, and they do not support the DEMRA.
Much of their advocacy focuses on promoting IRV, a method which is
mentioned in the DEMRA as having both advantages and disadvantages. My
personal impression is that probably the majority of the DEMRA's signers,
and the majority of people here, think that this focus on IRV is a mistake.
The disadvantages include: a vulnerability to "center squeeze" as shown in
Burlington 2009 (and other related pathologies), a need for some form of
centralized counting, and an increase in "spoiled" ballots.

But FV has significant organizational advantages over "us" (whoever "us"
is: EM posters, DEMRA signers, whatever). John Anderson is on their board,
and they have contacts in the major and minor parties that we largely can't
match. That's changing (congratulations to the Center for Election Science
for getting 501c3 status), but it's still the case. And FV has a wildly
exaggerated view of the benefits of IRV and of the disadvantages of
Approval and Score. They may be able to accept Condorcet and MJ, but so
far, I've seen no public indication that they are ultimately in it for
anything but IRV (and PR), and they have historically shown no spirit of
solidarity with other voting reformers; in fact, quite the reverse.

So, while I'd like to believe that "no 3rd party would NOT sign onto this
except if we blow the details," I can't be sure of that. There may be some
people in those 3rd parties who were convinced by FV's anti-approval
propaganda, and who it would take empathy and patient work to convince
otherwise.


>
> So from your preamble I gather that after Single Mark Ballots are banned,
> the States or Congress should decide on whether to use...
> A. Approval
> B. Condorcet ( I gather there is now a tweaked version of this)
> C. Majority Judgement
> D. Range Voting
>

For me, the universal rule I would start from is: the right to vote and to
have that vote counted if possible.

This right is not explicitly enumerated in the constitution; the closest it
comes is  "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
Republican Form of Government". In an Luther v Borden, an 1840 case in
which reformers in Rhode Island were arrested for trying to organize a
state constitutional convention (!), this clause was held to be outside the
purview of the courts — which puts it directly under the purview of the
legislative branch. This interpretation was upheld during Reconstruction
and after.

Congress could therefore pass a law saying "Each citizen has a right to
vote, to have that vote counted, to have the voting process be free of
fraud; and that the public has a right to verify these rights are upheld.
Voting rules which circumscribe one of these rights are acceptable only if
they proportionally increase another of them."

This would not immediately ban any single-mark ballots. But it would create
a clear presumption in favor of voting systems that did not invalidate
votes as "overvotes". This includes all 4 of the methods in the DEMRA, as
long as equal-rankings are allowed in Condorcet.


>
> It also appears that this would NOT need to be a Constitutional Amendment.
> Is that correct?
>

See above. This could be done exclusively by the states, or it could be
imposed by congress; the constitution and supreme court would not have to
be touched.

>
> My analysis has led me to believe the hole in this strategy is there is no
> position taken on primaries. Going back to the premise that the duopoly
> must be broken, it appears to me the whole "ball game" is how to structure
> primaries. Conservatives will want it left up the the States, liberals
> probably want Congress to pass something. Nevertheless, letting everyone
> vote, and having a diverse selection of viewpoints to choose from seems
> critical.
>

You're right that primaries and ballot qualification in general is outside
the scope of this. In general, these questions become much less crucial
with a good voting method. I think there are two ways to deal with this.
One is to fix the voting method first, and let primaries work themselves
out naturally, once the partisan pressure to distort the process is
relieved. And the other is to pitch voting reform as a way of fixing the
primary system; to use an improved voting system instead of primaries. I
think the choice between these two strategies should be made on a
state-by-state basis.

>
> I previously noted that in an open primary in CT for Senate I would have
> chosen; Hill (R) Byciewicz (D) and Passerell (L) probably in that order if
> I had to rank. I'm a staunch centrist (I) so don't read too much into a (R)
> being first; Brian is simply the best reformer of those running. BUT, what
> my choice is next week is Murphy (D) and McMahon (R). I'm NOT happy.
> Neither has any idea how economics actually work, and for that btw, as
> shocking as your work is to electoral reform, Modern Monetary Theory is to
> economics.
>
> So, here it is. Us activists may want to fly your flag, but what is on the
> flag?
>

Does the above answer your questions?

Cheers,
Jameson


>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>
>
>
>
> ----
> 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/20121031/2a9b09b9/attachment-0004.htm>