[EM] The Global Fight For Electoral Justice: A Primer

[Rob Lanphier]

On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm new to this list, though not new to the issues it discusses. I wanted to let you know about an article I've just published that's intended as a primer around electoral reform issues (written for an American audience but with an international perspective):
>
> https://medium.com/@xirzon/the-global-fight-for-electoral-justice-a-primer-834ad8cb3b75
>
> The primer intentionally does not go into detail as to the inner workings of each method, but instead is focused on identifying commonality and building solidarity between different reform movements around the world. My goal was to frame this in a way that helps people get engaged on these topics who've previously not been. This is therefore also a politically opinionated piece rather than a neutral one that's purely focused on the advantages/disadvantages of different voting methods. So, plenty to disagree with I'm sure.
>
> I worked in some expert feedback beforehand, but if you do see minor/major errors, please do let me know and I can still correct them. And if this primer is helpful, feel free to use it in your own work; the text is in the public domain.

Welcome Erik! [1]

I'll repeat what I wrote to Erik in another forum: thanks for this
comprehensive, contemporary survey of the current electoral reform
landscape. I believe electoral reform advocates have a similar problem
fighting anti-intellectualism as climate change alarmists have. Both
are ridiculously complex topics fraught with well-meaning infighting
with some unsatisfying solutions and dangers of unintended
consequences. This quote of yours really highlights the similarity:
"It’s easy to get lost in the arguments about which system produces
better outcomes, and to retreat again into the comfortable status quo
bias: if it ain’t broken, don’t fix it! But as reformers around the
world know all too well, the first-past-the-post system is broken, and
the careful exploration of new frontiers in American democracy is not
a journey without a destination — it’s a journey towards a more just
society."

With respect to STV/IRV/RCV, I'm a bit more bullish on Approval
Voting's prospects than he seems to be.  Living in a city that uses
IRV leaves me unconvinced about the merits of the system.  That said,
those of us that consider somethingelse>IRV>FPTP haven't had as much
success as IRV advocates have had pushing IRV.  It seems to me that
those of us who prefer somethingelse (e.g. Approval, Range, MAM,
Schulz) may need to figure out how we can be better allies with IRV
advocates like FairVote.

Another quote from your article that's worth repeating.  In what seems
to be a nod to the 2009 Burlington election and subsequent 2010
repeal[3], you note:
> When confusion reigns, anti-intellectual arguments may prevail, leading to
> repeals. Still, most election experts agree that even non-proportional
> ranked-choice voting is a major improvement on first-past-the-post
> voting. This is why the Center for Election Science [supported Maine’s
> adoption of ranked-choice voting, rebutted some misconceptions, and
> offered reasoned criticism][3]. Single Transferable Vote can be seen as
> the “upgrade path” for ranked-choice voting that helps to achieve
> proportionality.

I'm eager to read what regular posters to this list think of Erik's writeup.

Rob
[1]: I know Erik well from other contexts, and have only just started
reading this list closely enough to notice that he subscribed and
posted.  Oops.
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting_in_the_United_States#2009_Burlington_results
[3]: https://electology.org/blog/maine%E2%80%99s-ranked-choice-voting-%20it%E2%80%99s-not-plurality