[EM] Article on BSMB

[Richard Fobes]

On 4/22/2013 7:30 AM, Jonathan Denn wrote:
> ...
> My conclusion to the IVN piece is likely going to be to immediately
> advocate for "Approval" voting nationwide.

"Nationwide" is both ambiguous and ambitious.  If you express the reform 
that way, I'd suggest clarifying what you mean.  Personally I'd suggest 
more of a ramping-up approach.

> And after voters get used to
> the change to then have an independent commission study which method is
> best for the ranking of candidates.

A strong "no" on the idea of an independent commission study!

Ontario Canada created a citizen's committee to study voting methods and 
they (under the influence of a biased "expert") came up with the 
"closed-list" form of PR (proportional representation).  It allows the 
people in power to stay in power, which is the opposite of what voters 
want.  I and others then worked to defeat that choice when it came up on 
the ballot.  In the Declaration Of Election-Method Reform Advocates we 
specifically denounce the "closed-list" approach by recommending the 
"open-list" approach instead (if PR is used).

Let different cities and states use different methods -- preferably with 
guidance from the information in the Declaration.  There is no need to 
converge on a single common approach.  In fact, even though I advocate 
the Condorcet-Kemeny method, even I would recommend having used Approval 
voting in the recall election that Arnold Swartzeneger (sp?) won to 
become California's governor because there were 135 candidates competing 
for that single seat, and Approval voting is less confusing to the 
voters when there are that many candidates.

...
>
> So, would anyone like to send me a quote, or be interviewed, or want to
> dissuade me from my conclusion? I'm a sucker for a greater argument. I
> can't guarantee your input will make it into the article, but as you
> know I'm a big fan of DEMRA's work.

You can regard this as either an attempt to influence what you say, or 
as a quote, or a series of quotes (your choice):

"The most important part of advocating better ballots and better 
counting methods is to educate voters as to why election results so 
often yield winners who most of the voters dislike.  We know that money 
has an excessive influence on election results, but not enough people 
understand that it happens because we use single-mark ballots. 
Single-mark ballots are only intended to handle choosing between two 
choices.  We need to use ballots and counting methods that handle three 
or more choices.  This need is especially important in primary elections 
because that is where the biggest campaign contributors take advantage 
of vote splitting if a reform-minded candidate dares to run against a 
money-backed candidate.  Remember that the biggest campaign contributors 
control both the Republican and Democratic parties, and by controlling 
the primary elections of both parties they don't have to care whether 
the Republican or Democrat wins the general election.  Most voters, and 
politicians, are too distracted by the left-versus-right debate to 
notice where the real control of power occurs, and why it is so easy for 
moneyed interests to control both parties.  The biggest potential for 
reform is for third parties to adopt better ballots and better counting 
methods in their primary elections.  That change, besides attracting 
lots of voters to those third parties, will educate mainstream voters 
that there are alternatives.  Approval voting is the logical place to 
start because the existing ballot-counting hardware can be used, and it 
just involves allowing more than one mark per race.  Yet any use of any 
kind of better ballot -- in any kind of decision-making situation -- 
will quickly educate lots of voters about the unfairness of the 
single-mark ballots we now use."

"Education is the key!"

Richard Fobes
Author of "Ending The Hidden Unfairness In U.S. Elections"