[EM] Election-method reform bill in U.S. Congress

Frank Martinez frankdmartinez at gmail.com
Thu Jul 6 17:43:03 PDT 2017

All I know is this: never start with a compromised bill; push for ideal and
make Other negotiate You away from it. The Democrats saw that happen with
healthcare. Their ideal outcome was single-payer. Instead, they started
with a compromised bill which was compromised more to get out of committee,
compromised more to pass the House, compromised more to get to the Senate
floor, more still to pass the Senate, and compromised yet again to get out
of conference and into law. Starting from compromise is an inherently bad
idea in legislation.

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 20:09 <fdpk69p6uq at snkmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Frank Martinez wrote:
>> This bill is a bad way because it gets low information Voters think RCV
>> is a significant improvement when it is nothing of the kind. In other
>> words, it takes well meaning Individuals and distorts Their world view.
> As much as I dislike FairVote and their use of the term "RCV", in this
> case it means "single transferable vote", which I understand to be a
> more-or-less decent proportional representation system.  In single-rep
> states, it devolves into instant-runoff voting, and using PR in lots of
> 5-member districts means it will still be two-party dominated compared to a
> single 435-member district, but it's not terrible?
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
P.S.: I prefer to be reached on BitMessage at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20170707/f99af257/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list