[EM] Consensus and PR methods

[robert bristow-johnson]

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------

Subject: Re: [EM] Consensus and PR methods

From: "Jack Santucci" <jms346 at georgetown.edu>

Date: Wed, March 7, 2018 9:44 pm

To: "Richard Lung" <voting at ukscientists.com>

Cc: "EM" <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------



> Political scientists like their parties to be few and disciplined. This is said to promote accountability.

>

>
"few" makes sense if it is at least 3 parties that are viable and get people elected.  then it wouldn't always fall into that "If you ain't fer us, you agin' us!" syndrome of the two-party polarization.
and i certainly don't want it to be as few as 1 or
0.  that would promote no accountability.  if you toss in libertarians and communitarians and maybe some wing on the left or right (like Greenies or Vermont Progs or John Birch), "few" might mean 6 or 8.
i like that we have parties (i just wish more than the Dems and GOP)
and i think they serve a useful purpose in accomplishing sometimes difficult political goals.  they do this by consolidation and coalition, and with combined numbers, they can demonstrate political will and popular authority.  this is why i am an unabashed advocate for RCV decided by
Condorcet.  It can demonstrate genuine mandate when such might be obscured by a polarized 2-party environment.
--


r b-j                         rbj at audioimagination.com



"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

 
 
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20180308/f8d3e08c/attachment.html>