[EM] wrt Fobes

[Richard Fobes]

On 5/29/2013 3:24 PM, David L Wetzell wrote:
 > My agenda is to defend iRV for single-winner gener'l elections and
 > redirect energy to complenting such with American forms of Proportional
 > Represetnation that similarly won't so much challenge the US's 2-party
 > dominated system but keep it from tilting to one-party domination and
 > make it work a lot better, as I belive would be inevitable if the
 > proliferation of LTPs were incentivized by the use of Am forms of PR
 > that make it easy for a small, local third party to win represetnation.

Interesting.  You/David seem to be focused on the balance of power 
between left versus right, whereas I'm focused on the balance of power 
between voters ("up") versus special interests ("down").

In my book I promote ways for U.S. elections to produce more 
proportional results, but I'm sure the approach is unlike whatever you 
have in mind, which I presume is STV.

If your perspective is shared by the Green party, that could explain why 
the Green party says they promote the use of IRV, yet they do not use it 
for their own primary elections.

I think that one of the best ways to promote election reform (of any/all 
types) is for a third party to adopt any method -- even IRV -- for their 
primary elections because that would force state election organizations 
to accommodate it on the ballot.  Or if a state's election rules do not 
allow it, then that party would do well to offer a candidate for 
Secretary of State (or whichever office handles election issues) and 
highlight the issue in the voter's pamphlet.

More realistically I expect election-method reform to come to the United 
States after it has occurred in other nations, which is the same pattern 
that occurred for women getting the right to vote.

Richard Fobes

On 5/29/2013 3:24 PM, David L Wetzell wrote:
> It may not be fair but in the status quo US system there are networking
> effects in activism and voter education about electoral reform.  Given
> the need to deal w. rational ignorance about politics, and even moreso
> electoral rules, there is a need for marketing short-cuts.  FairVote
> does that well in simplifying the message for low-info voters ignorant
> about electoral rule analytics.
>
> So reform in a system where economies of scale are exacerbated by the
> status quo is not fair and there's scope for a 2nd best approach based
> on networking externalities and marketing advantages that include
> over-simplifications or statements of tendencies as absolutes.
>
> I agree w. your focus on primary systems where the no. of candidates on
> average wd tend to be higher.
>
> My agenda is to defend iRV for single-winner gener'l elections and
> redirect energy to complenting such with American forms of Proportional
> Represetnation that similarly won't so much challenge the US's 2-party
> dominated system but keep it from tilting to one-party domination and
> make it work a lot better, as I belive would be inevitable if the
> proliferation of LTPs were incentivized by the use of Am forms of PR
> that make it easy for a small, local third party to win represetnation.
>
> dlw