OK, it seems that there are no objections to using this list to organize a statement. I think this would explain the connection to this list, but explicitly disclaim being an "official position" of any persons or organizations besides its signatories.<div>
<br></div><div>Here's the general points I'd like it to make:</div><div><br></div><div>Problems with plurality</div><div>-For voters</div><div> -tactical dilemma</div><div> -A tactical vote is insincere</div>
<div> -A sincere vote is not decisive</div><div> -often no recourse</div><div> -foregone conclusions</div><div> -"corrupt vs. evil" elections</div><div> -overemphasis on which candidates are "relevant" makes campaigns too expensive</div>
<div> -democracy for sale</div><div>-For the majority party</div><div> -More vulnerable to vote splitting / spoilers than the minority.</div><div>-For the minority major party</div><div> -Non-proportional results and disproportionate swings</div>
<div>-For issue-based activists</div><div> -Often even popular positions are out-of-the-mainstream in either party, and thus shut out of the public debate</div><div>-For officeholders</div><div> -Security in office often depends more on demographics than on the quality of your work</div>
<div> -Two-way races favor negative ads</div><div>-For third parties</div><div> -A total disaster</div><div><br></div><div>Solutions exist</div><div><br></div><div>Although no system is perfect, plurality is almost perfectly bad. That is, there are systems which are superior in every important way.</div>
<div> -Myth: "Non-plurality systems lead to divided government."</div><div> -Things like "hung parliaments" and frequent shifts in party control are a factor of a parliamentary system. The US three-branch system is never going to be like Italy.</div>
<div> -Myth: "Voting reform only matters for third-party supporters"</div><div> -See advantages above for the first and second parties and for officeholders</div><div> -Myth: "It's all about campaign finance."</div>
<div> -Election system reform and campaign finance reform would support each other. Without election system reform, campaign finance reform cannot solve the problem.</div><div> -Myth: "One man one vote" or "keep voting simple" mean that plurality is the only way.</div>
<div> -While these systems are less-familiar than plurality, they are just as democratic and accessible to all voters. Many are direct elaborations of clear principles. All can be explained in a few clear sentences. </div>
<div><br></div><div>List solutions</div><div> -Link to poll. This is why I think that a non-secret-ballot poll with a few dozen votes would have value in and of itself, not just as a way of choosing which methods to list.</div>
<div> -List of solutions - a short description each, one or two strengths for each system. Not more than one system described within each "class" (ie, Condorcet, Median-based), although mentions of a couple of others are OK. </div>
<div> -Separate lists for single-winner and PR solutions</div><div> -Mention, without too much detail, of other worthy non-partisan reforms (anti-gerrymandering, limit supermajority requirements, grassroots asset-voting, voting security, easy registration. The latter two are not incompatible.)</div>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div><br></div><div>Solutions considered</div><div> -IRV, Borda</div><div> -Some of the undersigned feel that these would be improvements over plurality; others feel that their problems are as great as or greater than those of plurality.</div>
<div> -This statement takes no position on these systems.</div><div><br></div><div>Pledge of solidarity</div><div> -The undersigned agree that all the systems mentioned above would be improvements over plurality, and important reforms to US democracy.</div>
<div> -Although we may have preferences between the systems offered, we will all support any of them.</div><div> -Any arguments we make about which specific system is better, or about the weaknesses of a given system, should not be construed to negate our support for reforming plurality.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Obviously, that's not a statement, just a rough first-draft of an outline. Comments and changes are welcome.</div><div><br></div><div>Jameson</div><div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">
2011/5/30 Andy Jennings <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:elections@jenningsstory.com">elections@jenningsstory.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div>I think an official statement by this list is a great idea.</div><div><br></div><font color="#888888"><div>Andy</div>
<br><br></font><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div></div><div class="h5">On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:01 AM, Jameson Quinn <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jameson.quinn@gmail.com" target="_blank">jameson.quinn@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div></div><div class="h5">This thread, like this list, has two purposes - practical advocacy and mathematical exploration.<div>
<br></div><div>On the practical advocacy front, I'd propose a process:</div>
<div>0. We discuss get some degree of informal consensus on this process itself - I imagine it will take about a week, so say, before Sunday June 5th.</div>
<div>1. We draw up a statement which details the serious problems with plurality in the US context, and states that there are solutions. Leave a blank space for a list of acceptable solutions. This statement, when finished (after step 3) would be "signable" by any members of this list, completely at their own option.</div>
<div>2. We take a vote on what options to list. We can use <a href="http://betterpolls.com" target="_blank">betterpolls.com</a>, remembering that the scores there are -10 to 10, and negative/positive is mapped to approval/disapproval.</div>
<div>3. We list the options and the winner(s) in the statement and sign it.</div><div>4. When we have a good number of signatures, we put out a "press" release to some bloggers who've shown an interest in the issue (e.g. Andrew Sullivan)<br>
</div><div><br></div><div>My hope is that, despite the varied opinions, we could say something clearly and strongly enough to have an impact.</div><div><br></div><font color="#888888"><div>JQ</div>
</font><br></div></div><div class="im">----<br>
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="http://electorama.com/em" target="_blank">http://electorama.com/em</a> for list info<br>
<br></div></blockquote></div><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>