[EM] Board Meeting Deadline

[Richard Fobes]

Here is an attempt to answer Jon's question: "Us activists may want to 
fly your flag, but what is on the flag?"

As Jameson points out, the Declaration Of Election-Method Reform 
Advocates is the document that best describes our "flag" as a group.  In 
addition to requesting the ban on single-mark ballots, it lists 
suggested actions.  The recommended actions that apply to the people 
you/Jon are involved with are these:

* "If you are active in a political party that uses plurality voting, 
you can increase your party’s chances of winning in the main election by 
using better voting methods to choose your party's candidates, 
delegates, and officers."

* "If you are involved in a small political party, you can urge the 
adoption of one of the methods here as part of your party platform and 
an important strategy for growing your party."

* "Most importantly, if you are a policymaker, you can better represent 
your constituents, reduce your need to constantly raise funds, and 
discourage negative campaigns, by introducing legislation to replace 
plurality voting with a better election method."

Another recommended action is this one, for which the word 
"organization" can apply to a political party:

* "If you are a member of an organization that elects officers using 
plurality voting, you can help your organization increase election 
fairness, and run more smoothly, by requesting the use of a better 
election method when an election involves more than two candidates."

At the moment the focus in Jon's network is on Presidential candidates 
(a.k.a. POTUS candidates), yet the above recommendations apply to any 
election for any office.

In my opinion -- and this is where others in this forum are most likely 
to disagree -- our "flag" is for a third party to adopt one of the 
recommended voting methods supported by the Declaration.  Ideally they 
would adopt it for use in both delegate elections and primary elections 
(or at least one of those two uses).

This approach has already been pioneered in Europe where the Pirate 
party in several nations have adopted voting methods that are supported 
by the Declaration.

Notice that neither I nor the Declaration suggests starting with trying 
to reform the general elections of either Congressmen or Presidents. 
Therefore, a Constitutional amendment is not needed (because it controls 
Presidential general elections).

As for changing state laws, that would be needed if a third party wants 
to use a better ballot (either an Approval, Ranked, or Score ballot) in 
their primary election AND their state's laws (or constitution) does not 
allow it.  I live in Oregon, and a well-informed advocate of IRV 
(explained below) says that our state constitution and (if I remember 
correctly) our laws allow a ranked ballot (a.k.a. 1-2-3 ballot), so a 
third party could use a ranked (or 1-2-3) ballot here.  I don't know the 
situation in other states.

As for the methods supported by the Declaration, they are (in 
alphabetical order):

* Approval voting

* Most of the Condorcet methods

* Majority judgment

* Range voting

Regarding the Condorcet methods, Jon says "I gather there is now a 
tweaked version of this," but I have not seen a clear description of 
that method -- that does not include references to voters insincerely 
ranking choices at the same level -- so I don't know if it qualifies as 
a Condorcet method.  Also, it has not yet been implemented in software, 
so adopting it at this time is a moot point.

So, my interpretation is that our "flag" is that either Approval voting, 
a Condorcet method, Majority judgment, or Range voting should be adopted 
for use in a third party.

Actions speak louder than words, so what is needed is to adopt a better 
voting method, or express support for adopting a better voting method, 
and specifying where -- presumably within a third party -- it will be used.

Perhaps a better first step would be for any reform-minded candidate to 
add their signature to the Declaration Of Election-Method Reform Advocates.

Actually anyone -- including you/Jon -- can sign the Declaration. 
Perhaps this is the most important action that can occur.  As more 
reform-minded voters sign the Declaration, more candidate signatures are 
likely to follow.

To sign it, anyone in Jon's network can send an email to Jon asking to 
sign it, then Jon can forward the message to this forum.  In the message 
the signer needs to indicate what brief words should accompany their 
signature.  Look at the other signatures to see what might be 
appropriate.  Then Jameson will add the signature to the original 
document, and I/Richard will add the signature to the copy posted at 
BanSingleMarkBallots.org.

Also there is a related Facebook page, which allows Facebook users to 
"like" the Declaration.

Note that, to repeat what Jameson said, banning single-mark ballots is 
just part of the Declaration.  Expressing support for the four specific 
methods that have been carefully analyzed by election-method experts is 
really the centerpiece of the Declaration.

Although the above actions do not include requesting changes in 
Republican or Democratic primary elections, such additional changes 
would be very welcome -- but highly unlikely.  (Interestingly this 
situation reveals that both mainstream parties are out-of-touch with the 
majority of voters.)

Jon says: "Intellectually, no 3rd party would NOT sign onto this accept 
if we blow the details."

Alas, there is a well-networked group that Jameson (for good reasons) 
spells as Fa¡rVote and they aggressively promote IRV (instant-runoff 
voting).

(Clarification: I created a method called VoteFair ranking, and its name 
should not be confused with the above similar word.)

The signers of the Declaration have different opinions about the IRV 
method.  A carefully worded portion of the Declaration says:

"Our lack of formal support for IRV does not mean that all of us oppose 
it.  After all, we and IRV advocates are fighting against the same 
enemy, plurality voting.  Yet IRV’s disadvantages make it impossible for 
us to unanimously support it."

This (and related) wording allows people who like IRV to sign the 
Declaration without dismissing IRV as another alternative.

Yet the Fa¡rVote group is likely to aggressively campaign against the 
methods supported in the Declaration.  So I need to clarify why.  Based 
on earlier writings, the leader of that group really wants a method 
called STV (the single transferable vote), and IRV is a single-winner 
version of STV, which makes IRV like a "gateway drug" to STV.  It's 
significant that the group's branch in Canada advocates STV, not IRV.

That is why that group is unwilling to consider any of the methods 
recommended in the Declaration, even though the Declaration-supported 
methods reliably produce fairer results.

Very importantly, as the Declaration states: "In Australia, where IRV 
has been used for more than a century, the House of Representatives has 
had only one third-party winner in the last 600 individual elections."

In the United States, IRV has been adopted in various municipalities, 
but some of those places tried it and didn't like the results, so they 
went back to "standard" plurality voting.  Examples: Aspen Colorado and 
Burlington Vermont

So, to simplify, our "flag" is the Declaration Of Election-Method Reform 
Advocates, and I believe the first helpful action would be for lots of 
third-party voters and the third-party candidates to sign the 
declaration.  A bigger step would be for one or more third parties to 
adopt -- for use in upcoming elections -- one of the voting methods it 
recommends.

I hope this answer helps.

Richard Fobes


On 10/31/2012 4:18 AM, Jonathan Denn wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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
>
> It also appears that this would NOT need to be a Constitutional Amendment. Is that correct?
>
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>