Unfortunately, I think it's hard to build a national or even a local movement for a complicated, multi-step reform plan. You have to be able to say what you want in about four words, tops.<div><br></div><div>Plan A:</div>
<div>1. Local elections using PR. ("But I don't care about local elections...")</div><div>2. Increases power of third parties ("But I don't care about third parties...")</div><div>3. More spoiled or near-spoiled elections increase pressure for single-winner reform ("Huh?")</div>
<div>4. Single-winner reform implemented ("But IRV was the wrong reform, we should have gone for system X")</div><div>5. etc.</div><div>6. One day, we have a competitive, more-than-two-way race for representative, senator, president, or mayor</div>
<div>7. Corruption withers.</div><div><br></div><div>See how many people you lose before you get to steps 6 and 7?</div><div><br></div><div>I think this works better:</div><div>Plan B:</div><div>1. Empower a commission (like the one in Rhode Island now... which hasn't been constituted yet although it was supposed to start working in September) to pick a good single-winner system.</div>
<div>2. Use that system at all levels.</div><div>3a. Increases pressure for PR reform</div><div>3b. All races more competitive</div><div>4. Corruption withers</div><div><br></div><div>My point is not that single-winner reform is more important or easier than PR reform, but that if either one will lead to the other, we should start with the one that can apply to all races initially, not the one which is limited in scope. It appeals to people who only care about the top of the ticket, and it does not lead to the disruptive and temporarily-counterproductive step 3 of plan A.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Anyway, that's why I prefer something like plan B. Obviously on the whole what we need are different people starting out with different plans, and also ready to support any plan that starts working. So I'm not telling anyone to stop doing what they're doing, just giving my own thoughts.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Jameson</div><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2011/11/17 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">
Since my reply is long, I thought I'd share the last bit separately, here.<div><br></div><div><div style="color:rgb(34, 34, 34);font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="font-size:13px">KM:However, even if we wanted to choose that strategy[pushing hard for PR in US/State representative elections and city council elections], those who organize voting might at any point ask "well, what of single-winner elections?". Then we can say "pick Approval, Schulze (e.g.), MJ or Range; authorities X, Y, Z, think they're all pretty good". We just have to get X, Y, and Z to sign. </span><span style="font-size:13px">If some local governments try any of them and find out that, say, MJ is good enough, then we can later say "X, Y, Z think they're all pretty good, and [county W] says they've had good experience with MJ".</span><br style="font-size:13px">
[endquote]<br style="font-size:13px">dlw: Why not say, "the use of PR in 'more local' elections(like the above) will create a greater ability for third parties to spoil 'less local' single-winner elections, thereby increasing the demand for single-winner election reform. Right now, the plurality of support among electoral reform activists is for the use of a form of IRV to replace FPTP. We think that will change later down the road, since there are other options, but we'd rather just stay united in pushing hard for American forms of PR than cause dissent over an issue that is secondary in importance. </div>
<span><font color="#888888">
<div style="color:rgb(34, 34, 34);font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="color:rgb(34, 34, 34);font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px">
dlw</div></font></span></div>
<br>----<br>
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="http://electorama.com/em" target="_blank">http://electorama.com/em</a> for list info<br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>