On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:32 PM, 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;">
<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>On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 11:58 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 class="gmail_quote">
<div><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><div>dlw: all election rules are results oriented ideas. Some pragmatists believe that the essence of all ideas are their results. </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>My point was: many politically-active people quickly filter new ideas by partisan advantage. This can be as blunt as "If it hurts my party, I oppose it" or as sophisticated as "If it helps the party of the person who is proposing it, then that must be their primary motivation." Since PR, unlike single-winner reform, has highly predictable partisan results in the short term, fewer people have the open mind to listen to you talk about it.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Highly predictable results can cut both ways in terms of implementation.</div><div>1. I don't push for large-seated forms of PR, as "American forms of PR", so there'd be a Dem and a Pub state/nat'l legislator for every super district. This doesn't hurt or help either party too much. It provides some security in representation that is denied to a large portion of the population o.w. </div>
<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>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="gmail_quote"><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><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>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>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="gmail_quote"><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>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></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>Yes, it is important to stay grounded in reality, and not get caught up in improbable scenarios; something which, you're right, is more of a danger when talking about single-winner reform.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Anyway, I think we probably already agree more than it would sound like, in that activism should be balanced between PR and single-winner advocacy, and not too focused on just one side of that.</div></div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yup. I think it's a matter of priorities and pragmatism. My priority is on American forms of PR in "more local" elections and I pragmatically support IRV, which means I don't feel compelled to justify it as the "best" election rule out there. I think it'd be more than adequate and effective for making bolstering the relative import of "popular democracy" in our political system. </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 class="gmail_quote"><div>
</div><font color="#888888"><div>Jameson</div></font></div><br>
</blockquote></div><br>