<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 4:16 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;">
I think it would be great if we could unite all the activists, theorists, and academics behind a single plan for system-wide election reform. I would get behind such a plan in a heartbeat, even if I thought it was flawed in its details.<div>
<br></div><div>But that is, demonstrably, not happening.</div></blockquote><div><br>It has not happened <i>yet</i>. There is a strong majority of electoral reform or progressive activists in favor of IRV+PR. It's the electoral theorists who don't like IRV. I'd like to think that if we take into account more realistic models of voter behavior that it'll help us to build more unity. Likewise, with the need to push for PR usages that handicap the rivalry between the two major parties et al. , rather than end two-party domination of US politics. Successful electoral reform advocacy has had to choose its battles with the status quo. It has not been driven by theory, it has used it as a tool. This list tends to elevate the role of electoral theory beyond what is meant for it. <br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div><br></div><div>David, you do not have a choice between a world where you agree with others, and a world where they agree with you. You have a choice between a world where you agree with others, and a world where you don't. That's the only part you get to decide.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I honestly believe that the statement, as it is, is going to bring the broadest possible consensus. To convince me to favor changing it, you'd have to convince me otherwise.</div></blockquote><div>
<br>If a political reform statement is not supported institutionally, it's going to swim upstream to influence things. I have learned this the hard way and it is why I view myself as a foot-soldier ally of FairVote. <br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div><br></div><div>
Why do I care more about the breadth of consensus than about which reforms are most likely to pass in the short term? Because I think that short-term thinking is, well, shortsighted. Fairvote has some hard-won accomplishments behind it, yes. But honestly, the distance they've come is a small fraction of the total effort it's going to take to reform the whole voting system in the US (or Guatemala where I live, or the UK, or...). Given where we are in that larger context, I think that the most effective I can possibly be is by trying to promote the broadest consensus possible.</div>
</blockquote><div><br><font color="#000000"><font size="1"><font face="Arial">We agree that a FPTP dominated system really sucks. However, it is the system of my country(I don't know about Guatemala). As such, it dictates that we act strategically(as opposed to consensually). You can't end FPTP without following its logic and that entails the sort of activism mastered by FairVote. So when we snipe at FairVote and IRV, we make it easier for others to muddy the waters and we risk holding up electoral reform. <br>
<br>And it's going to get easier to push for electoral reforms in the coming year thanks to #OWS and unhappiness with both major parties(especially when people wake up to how hard it is to get and enforce effective CFR). But I think we need to respect FairVote's leadership role and the first-mover and marketing advantage of IRV to take advantage of this time. <br>
dlw<br><br></font></font></font></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<div><br></div><div>Jameson</div></font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">2011/11/24 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">
Let me start off by saying that I'm thankful for this list-serve of people passionate about electoral reform<br>and that you put together a working consensus statement. I'm trying to work it some more...<br><br>
My belief is that the US's system makes it necessary to frame electoral reform simply and to limit the options proffered. This is what FairVote does and they do it well. If you're going to undercut their marketing strategy then ethically the burden of proof is on you wrt providing a clear-cut alternative to IRV3. Your statement provide several solutions. This is not a clear-cut alternative. I argue for IRV3/AV3 as such an alternative, for it addresses your critiques. It also could be pitched in such a way as permits FairVote to save face and retain its leadership role in electoral reform in the US, which increases the chances that they and others switch to it. <br>
<br>And so what about IRV3/AV3? Is that not worth at least including in your statement, along with the phrase "American forms of Proportional Representation", which is likely going to be getting big due to the leadership of FairVote in this coming year?<br>
<br>I'll likely sign it, but I feel conflicted because of the reasons I mention above, and want some due process over these ideas first. <br><span><font color="#888888"><br>dlw</font></span><div>
<div><br><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 4:52 AM, Jameson Quinn <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jameson.quinn@gmail.com" target="_blank">jameson.quinn@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">I absolutely agree. We should not waste energy fighting over which election system is the ideal. For instance, if we are given the opportunity to sign a statement which clearly states some of the problems with the current system and supports several solutions we believe would help, including giving weak support to the solutions we consider best, we should sign it, not waste our energy criticizing the precise levels of support it gives to the various options.<div>
<br></div><div>The statement is supportive of PR, and it also clearly says that IRV has advantages over plurality.</div><span><font color="#888888"><div><br></div></font></span><div><span><font color="#888888">Jameson</font></span><div>
<div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2011/11/23 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:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">The variations in "x", particularly among low-info voters as we predominantly have in the USA, are too small to put a lot of time/energy into trying to get it perfect. It just lowers the p because of the proliferation of election rules trying to become numero uno.<br>
<br>But how else do we make "more local" elections become competitive and interesting than thru the use of multi-winner PR elections? <br><span><font color="#888888"><br>dlw</font></span><div>
<div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Jameson Quinn <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jameson.quinn@gmail.com" target="_blank">jameson.quinn@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div>
<blockquote style="border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div><br></div>
<div>If I've read you correctly here, it seems to me that you should sign the statement. You agree with everything it says, even if you wish it said some other things. And if you're truly being open-minded about this, you will want to avoid the circular logic involved in not signing. ("I won't sign it because it doesn't have wide enough support.")</div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
</div><div>dlw: Ah, but I can't support giving a lot of attention to single-winner reforms when the empirical evidence suggests that it's the mix of multi-winner and single-winner that is of far greater import.</div>
<span><font color="#888888">
<div> </div></font></span></div></blockquote></div><div>Seriously? You won't eat our chips and fish, because that's the wrong way around?</div><span><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>Jameson</div>
</font></span></div>
</blockquote></div><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>