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

[Richard Lung]

To all:
“I believe electoral reform advocates have a similar problem fighting anti-intellectualism as climate
change alarmists have. Both are ridiculously complex topics,…”

  

This quote touches on, it seems to me, what is fundamentally wrong with the Election Methods group
desire for “something else” to IRV (ordered choice being a necessary but not sufficient condition of
electoral logic).
And the “something else” seems too much like a renaming and rehashing of long discredited or
limited options, such as: cumulative voting; points systems.

  

Climate study is a holistic problem, too complex to solve adequately, given the current state of
knowledge. (I have never dared pronounce on it, tho I reviewed it, in one of my Commentaries
series books.) But from a practical point of view, it doesn’t matter, because the prudent thing,
to do, is to heed the ominous threat of the Greenhouse Effect.

The main problem of climate change is not the climate but human improvidence.
(The same reckless complacency says “Nuclear power is fine! (Allegedly) no-one was killed -
when the wind blew the fallout fromThree-mile  Island  away from ten nearby American cities.)

  

Election research, unlike climate research, is not the study of a complex whole.
On the contrary, it is an analytic subject, much more akin to mechanics,
based on simple first principles. (I developed a theoretical analogy between motion and choice,
in a chapter, Relativity of Choice, in my free e-book: Science is Ethics as Electics.)
Electoral complexity is essentially the result of indefinite refinement.

  

An ounce of practise is worth a ton of precept:
Someone from the Science Fiction awards asked this group for advice
on proportional representation of the votes. I didn’t notice anyone else 
reply.
I recommended Meek method STV (with its downloadable computer count). No 
response received.


From
Richard Lung.



On 24/12/2016 01:16, Rob Lanphier wrote:
> 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
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - seehttp://electorama.com/em  for list info


-- 
Richard Lung.
http://www.voting.ukscientists.com
Democracy Science series 3 free e-books in pdf:
https://plus.google.com/106191200795605365085
E-books in epub format:
https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/democracyscience

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20161228/60142e83/attachment-0001.htm>