<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2011/10/31 David L Wetzell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wetzelld@gmail.com" target="_blank">wetzelld@gmail.com</a>></span><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>On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:32 PM, 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">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div>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><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><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><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><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></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think the chances of that idea flying with the SCOTUS any time in the next 20 years are virtually nil. For me, the best option for PR is a seriously empowered grassroots push, on the level of the progressive movement or the civil rights movement (and something which hasn't happened since the latter, including the anti-Vietnam movement), which starts with local victories in cities and state legislatures and moves to push congress to make PR legal. It is not inconceivable that #OWS could develop into such a movement; I think that the Tea Party, on the other hand, has shot its wad.</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div>Then, 3-5 seat STV with a Droop quota, as advocated by FairVote, would be feasible.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That's a great option, I agree.</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><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><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><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></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Part of my motive for my empty bragging was to probe what your plans and skills, as opposed to your goals, are. I guess putting it in ironic quotes was not the best way to show that the question was serious, though friendly.</div>
<div><br></div><div>JQ</div></div>