<span style>---------- Forwarded message ----------</span><br style><span style>From: Kevin Venzke <></span><br style><span style>To: em <<a href="mailto:election-methods@electorama.com">election-methods@electorama.com</a>></span><br style>
<span style>Cc: </span><br style><span style>Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 20:01:39 +0000 (GMT)</span><br style><span style>Subject: Re: [EM] Re Raph Frank wrt 3-seat LR Hare and RV for US Senators by proxy.</span><br style><div style>
<div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'times new roman','new york',times,serif"><div>Hi,</div><div> </div><div><br> </div><div style="font-size:12pt"><font face="Arial"><blockquote><div dir="ltr"><div readonly style="border-right-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-right-width:1px;border-right-style:solid;padding-right:0px;border-top-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-top-width:1px;border-top-style:solid;padding-left:0px;font-size:0px;padding-bottom:0px;margin-top:5px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:5px;margin-left:0px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;line-height:0;padding-top:0px;border-bottom-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:solid;min-height:0px">
</div></div><div dir="ltr"><b>De :</b> David L Wetzell <<a href="mailto:wetzelld@gmail.com" target="_blank" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">wetzelld@gmail.com</a>><br><b>À :</b> Raph Frank <<a href="mailto:raphfrk@gmail.com" target="_blank" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">raphfrk@gmail.com</a>>; EM <<a href="mailto:election-methods@lists.electorama.com" target="_blank" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">election-methods@lists.electorama.com</a>> <br>
<b>Envoyé le :</b> Mardi 7 février 2012 13h20<br><b>Objet :</b> Re: [EM] Re Raph Frank wrt 3-seat LR Hare and RV for US Senators by proxy.<br></div></blockquote></font><br><div><blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right:0px">
<div><font face="arial, sans-serif" color="#222222">dlw: I argue that the strength of the US presidency and regular presidential elections has the effect of building up our two-party system. <br></font></div><div>This is why I take as a given that there tend to be 2 bigger major parties and not as many serious candidates in "single-winner elections". This in turn tends to </div>
<div>reduce the import of the diffs among the wide variety of single-winner elections. </div></blockquote><div> </div><div>I think it works like this:</div><div>President isn't responsible to or chosen by Congress -></div>
<div>There is not<var></var> that much prize for having a majority of a house -></div><div>Weak party discipline (because of less focus on party: a candidate can get reelected even if his peers are unhappy) -></div>
<div>If you are a viable candidate, there is no need for you to carve out a new party. There is only room for two contenders per</div><div>race (under FPP), and there are two parties that will take you as long as you can win for them.</div>
<div><br></div><div>dlw: Aye, but the prez election itself and its potential for coat-tails and the reward from capturing one or both of the US legislatures</div><div>does build up the parties who can afford to run a serious prez election race. <span style="font-size:12pt">I think some of the weak party discipline is also due to the restrictions on donations to parties in the 1974 FEC act.</span></div>
<div>Our system wd function better if there was more intra-party discipline and the donations flowed thru the relatively transparent venue of the party. </div><div> </div><div>KV: I think we could have three "parties" (if not a much greater variety of viewpoints) with the right method. I wouldn't care</div>
<div>if they are actually parties or just a higher number of real choices, on average, in a race.</div><div><br></div><div>dlw:Would it make a diff if our two major parties became two different major parties, bridging the gap between the de facto center and the true center?</div>
<div>If American forms of PR were adopted so that there'd still be 2 major parties per area, they wouldn't be the same 2 parties for all regions, which would then enable minor parties </div><div>to contest the duopoly. And if this got complemented by a host of LTPs(with coalitions) that specialized in contesting "more local" elections and voting strategically together in "less local" elections, </div>
<div>along with other acts that hold elected officials accountable to their promises then we'd have better quality choices, even if the quantity is less than we'd prefer.</div><div><br></div><div>dlw</div><div> </div>
<div>Kevin</div></div></div></div></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">