<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Jameson Quinn <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jameson.quinn@gmail.com">jameson.quinn@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br><br><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 class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>2. I agree that "who benefits" is a key question. But I think what I'm talking about doesn't redistribute or decentralize power so much as influence. And I'm willing to bet that those in power would be more likely to be okay with that if it subverts the twin evils of extremism and apathy among US_Americans w.o. ending effective two-party rule. </div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>Reassuring insiders is worthwhile, but it's more important to build pressure from grass roots. Insiders will <b>never</b> seek out a disruptive change in the status quo without outside pressure.</div>
</div></blockquote><div> </div><div>dlw: Agreed, but if the pressure is strategically placed then it becomes far more convenient for the insiders to accommodate than to fight against the proposed reforms. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br></div><div>That said, I think you'd be interested in my own proposals for single-winner and PR reform: <a href="http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/SODA_voting" target="_blank">SODA voting</a> and <a href="http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/PAL_representation" target="_blank">PAL representation</a>. Both were designed to be much more competitive with a minimum of disruption.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think I've read about the second one already. </div><div><br></div><div>It's interesting. I'd rather just argue before the supreme court that the law that prohibits multi-seat federal elections is unconstitutional because of its harmful effects on minority voters and the fact that the specific election rule used by states should be up to the states. </div>
<div>Then, 3-5 seat STV with a Droop quota, as advocated by FairVote, would be feasible.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br></div><div>I realize that right now I am just a guy, so far nowhere near in Fairvote's league for effective organization for reform, so I could forgive you for discounting my "crazy ideas" and pragmatically supporting IRV. But I'm working on a kick-ass website and web service - something that will be like <a href="http://modernballots.com/" target="_blank">http://modernballots.com/</a> but even better, and with a "donate" button that will have (I hope) an existing, large-membership good-government organization behind it. Can't say too much more right now.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div> I've been where you are and still am for the most part. </div><div>Beware of the power of the ego to rationalize tilting against windmills...</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br></div><div>In other words: "I have a bunch of vaporware. What do you bring to the table?" :)</div><div class="im"><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_quote"><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></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>This is a good non-partisan goal. Both PR and single-winner reform would help here. It is easier to convince people that this is your sincere goal when talking about single-winner reform, for the reasons above.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>dlw: You can't do that in "more local" elections. Giving folks more options in the forms of rankings or approvals or what-not won't matter if they are in an area that strongly supports one of the two major parties. </div>
<div><br></div><div>And there's no point in trying to push for election rules that try to end two party rule in a system that is dominated by two parties. What does make sense is to push for election rules that end the tendency for effective two party rule to devolve into effective single party rule. </div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>Though you imply that you're only talking about PR, this could certainly describe my single-winner SODA proposal.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'll have to take a swig of this SODA then...</div>
<div>dlw </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="gmail_quote"><div> </div><font color="#888888"><div>Jameson</div><div><br></div><div><br></div>
</font></div>
</blockquote></div><br>