On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Jameson Quinn <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jameson.quinn@gmail.com">jameson.quinn@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
The reason PR makes you sound more like a whiny loser than single-winner reform is that PR is essentially a results-oriented idea. If you say you want PR, people know that you mean you want different winners, and they can easily check who that would be in practice. And that makes it easy for them to pigeonhole you.</blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>dlw: all election rules are results oriented ideas. Some pragmatists believe that the essence of all ideas are their results. </div><div><br></div><div>PR(or quasi-PR) promotes pluralism. Single-seated elections promote hierarchy. Both are needed in politics. But hierarchy is more important in the "less local" elections. It is in "More local" elections that it's important to give the ethnic/economic/ideological minorities more voice. O.W., the tyranny of the majority leads to a tyranny of the select minority due to how voter interest in elections is endogenous to whether they are competitive. </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div>
<br></div><div>Single-winner reform lets you talk about process and deeper issues more easily, and because immediate results are harder to predict exactly, it's harder to pigeonhole and easier to keep the focus on longer-term results.</div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don't think it gets a lot deeper than the need to compromise or blend together the values promoted by PR and Single winner elections. A lot of times, the purportedly deeper issues can be deceptive, because they are relatively abstract and hard to connect to reality. The truth is GIGO. If political candidates/parties are inherently fuzzy options then many of the funky things you can do to rank or what-not among those options are less meaningful or helpful than purported. </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div><br></div><div>I think we agree on the deeper goals, I'm just saying that it would be a mistake to stop talking about both PR and single-winner reform, even if you think PR is more important.</div></blockquote><div>
<br></div><div>Well, I believe that making more "more local" elections more competitive and thereby more meaningful checks on $peech is something that would appeal to the different factions of the #OWS a lot more than stuff on single-winner reform. </div>
<div>The latter is too esoteric and let's face it, a lot of it is chasing each other's tails, as it's too easy to tease out something that might be (mis)construed as a deal-killer in any election rule. </div>
<div><br></div><div>dlw</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div><br></div>
<div><font color="#888888">JQ<br><br></font><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">2011/10/31 David L Wetzell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wetzelld@gmail.com" target="_blank">wetzelld@gmail.com</a>></span><br>
</div><div><div></div><div class="h5"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div style="color:rgb(34, 34, 34);font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255, 255, 255)">
Also, it is very easy to sound like a whiny loser when talking about PR (either a third-party loser or local-minority-party loser). So there's no way single-winner issues should be put on the back burner. We can walk and chew gum here. (Gum on back burner ... eewww)</div>
</div><div><div style="color:rgb(34, 34, 34);font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255, 255, 255)">Jameson:Also, it is very easy to sound like a whiny loser when talking about PR (either a third-party loser or local-minority-party loser). So there's no way single-winner issues should be put on the back burner. We can walk and chew gum here. (Gum on back burner ... eewww)</div>
</div><div><br></div>
<div><br></div></div></blockquote><div>dlw: once again, if we frame it as solving a problem then it's not a matter of whining.</div><div>3-5 seat forms of PR or quasi-PR are very much needed for "more local" elections that otherwise tend to be rarely competitive due to de facto segregation. </div>
<div><br></div><div>This is not about getting third party candidates elected, it's about making our polity tend towards a contested(and far more dynamic) political duopoly, rather than a (somewhat contested) political monopoly.</div>
<div><br></div><font color="#888888"><div>dlw</div></font></div><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div><br></div>
</blockquote></div><br>