<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On 9.2.2012, at 17.21, David L Wetzell wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; position: static; z-index: auto; ">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: Juho Laatu <<a href="mailto:juho4880@yahoo.co.uk" target="_blank">juho4880@yahoo.co.uk</a>><br>
To: EM list <<a href="mailto:election-methods@lists.electorama.com" target="_blank">election-methods@lists.electorama.com</a>><br>Cc: <br>Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 22:29:02 +0200<br>Subject: Re: [EM] Utilitarianism and Perfectionism.<br>
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div>On 8.2.2012, at 16.18, David L Wetzell wrote:</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><font color="#000000">...</font></div><div>dlw:At any rate, this is why I've argued that ascertaining the best single-winner election rule is nowhere near as important as pitching the importance of mixing the use of single-winner and multi-winner election rules, with the latter replacing the former more so in "more local" elections that are not competitive often in single-winner elections.</div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>JL:I think I agree when I say that the first decision (in the USA) is whether to make the current two-party system work better or whether to aim at a multi-party system. </div></div></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>dlw: I think the power of $peech in the US has made that choice for us.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>In every system there are many entities that try to defend the status quo and their current good position in it.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><div> But I'd argue that to make our two-party system work better, we need to provide a constructive role for 3rd parties in it. This wd be accomplished by the use of 3-seat LR Hare in state reps elections. If the Hare quota is used in the "more local" election and the Droop quota is used in the "less local" election, like the US congressional elections then we'll keep a two-party system. An analogous case could be made for the use of Hare quotas in aldermen elections and Droop quotas in city council member elections. But without giving third parties a constructive role to play, we're never going to be able to enforce regulations of $peech. </div>
<div><br></div><div>The kicker needs to be to separate the advocacy for such from a perfectionist approach that presumes we need an EU-style multi-party system ASAP. When those are connected, too many people say it's not possible and down-grade it's short-run importance as an issue. </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree. From tactical point of view one can drive the reform forward in many more or less hidden ways. But if we talk directly about the targets, I believe an attempt to establish an improved two-party system where also third parties can survive, challenge the current parties, and maybe even bypass them one day and become a new dominant party if the current dominat parties are not good enough, will have a different supporter basis than a proposal to switch completely to a multi-party system with coalition governments etc.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; position: static; z-index: auto; "><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div>JL: After that has been agreed, it is easier to pick the used election methods. </div>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>dlw:I think the best way to build consensus is to take inspiration from our practical difficulties. Our difficulty is that to get reform, we need to get support from leaders of the two parties that dominate our two-party system. This should make that agreement a lot easier.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes. Proven practical benefits are better than priven theoretical benefits.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br></div><div>JL: Now, in addition to technical problems one has also a mixture of political higher level targets injected in the discussion, and that does not make it any easier.</div><div><br></div><div>dlw: That is part of what holds up electoral reform: we get caught up in reaching the political higher level targets and don't reach for the low-hanging fruit that will have a significant "trickle-up effect". </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; position: static; z-index: auto; "><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div>JL: At the top level there is the presidential system that is tailored for the two-party approach. If one would give up the two-party approach at that level one might move also e.g. away from the single-party government approach towards multi-party govennments.</div>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>dlw: I think Ralph Nader has shown the barrenness of focusing on the prez system. Anything that requires a US constitutional amendment should be ruled off the table, IMO. </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; position: static; z-index: auto; "><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><br></div><div>JL: At the lower levels one might consider also two-party oriented methods that are allow also third parties to take part in the competition. I mean that if one wants to stay in the two-party model, one may not need full multi-winner methods at the lower levels. It would be enough to e.g. guarantee that also third parties can survive and get their candidates elected, and that some third party may also one day replace one of the major parties as one of the two leading parties in some states, and maybe at national level too. I think this more lmited approac to multiple parties is quite different from typical multi-party requirements that typically include requirements like proportional represnetation.</div>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>dlw: But a "less-is-more" PR cd help such come about, as it arguably did with IL and NY historically. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; position: static; z-index: auto; ">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>
<div><br></div><div>Of course one may also adopt different models in the two layers, two-party system for the rop level and proportonal representation for some state level representative bodies. Above I also made the assumption that the strict tw-party approach where there are two fixed parties and that's it, is not considered acceptable / sufficient.</div>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>dlw:I agree that the only good two-party system is one that is meritocratic, whereby which 2 parties are at the top and dominate can change or where one of them can be forced to merge with a successful 3rd party, like with the Democratic Farm-Labor party in MN. </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>A system that allows third parties to grow could easily lead to 1) one of the major parties changing its opinions in the direction of the rising party or 2) merge with the rising party. That is ok as long as the change in opinions is true, since in this way the voice of the people will be heard and the system will change in the direction that the voters want. A very pure two-party system on the other hand may much easier become a ping pong game between two equally unwanted alternatives.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; position: static; z-index: auto; "><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>
<div><br></div><div>JL: The message I'm trying to carry with this, is simply that after one names the targets, it is much easier to discuss what the best methods to implement those targets would be. Is it a two-party system, a flexible two-party system, or a proportional system, and are the targets different at different levels and in different bodies.</div>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>dlw:I agree, would you agree that if we were to target a flexible 2-party system that a modified form of IRV would be more acceptable for single-winner elections than in an EU-style multi-party system? </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Pure single-winner elections have a strong (fixed) two-party tendency. An "approximately three-party" method would make the system more flexible. Full proportional multi-party elections would be an overkill. If you want to have a more flexible two-party system the ideal methods are methods that are targeted to meet just these requirements. Proportional methods with limitations to e.g. three candidates could do in some cases, no problem with taht, but only if they happen to implement teh agreed "flexibel two-party" targets well.</div><div><br></div><div>Juho</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote">
<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 style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>
</div><br><div>Juho</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><br><br>---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: Jameson Quinn <<a href="mailto:jameson.quinn@gmail.com" target="_blank">jameson.quinn@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: EM <<a href="mailto:election-methods@lists.electorama.com" target="_blank">election-methods@lists.electorama.com</a>>, electionsciencefoundation <<a href="mailto:electionscience@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">electionscience@googlegroups.com</a>><br>
Cc: <br>Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 07:33:27 -0600<br>Subject: Re: [EM] NYT/Richie voting reform "debate" next Sunday; write in.<br>Here's the first draft of my letter to the NYT. I welcome comments (or copycats). I'd be even happier if something like this could be signed by several of us, and I'd happily cede considerable editorial control I'll send it around midday Friday to give them time to include it before Sunday. Here's a <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-rf1rr7FoxcLrCsMMDrOzSzRrsBCD_DP3NfDqV-kYmY/edit?pli=1&hl=en_US" target="_blank">google doc</a> of my letter, if anyone wants to help edit it or sign on; but I'll also try to incorporate any comments made here on the list.<div>
-----------</div><div><b style="font-family:Arial;font-size:15px;text-indent:232px"><span style="font-weight:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Since the 1950s, we've known that it's no coincidence that our voting system leads to a two-party monopoly; it's the inevitable result under Duverger's Law. Imagine if we had such a monopoly for cars: for instance, only Ford Focuses and Chrysler Minivans were allowed. Worse, if you tried to order, say, a Chevy Volt, you'd get the Minivan, the permitted model you liked least. Ford and Chrysler would happily charge whatever price that captive market would bear, innovation would suffer, and they'd triangulate towards the "swing buyer" to further erode buyer's free choices. Indeed, I'm very happy that in the real world Ford and Chrysler win their popularity honestly, not by a guaranteed monopoly.</span></b></div>
<div><div style="text-indent:232px;font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline"><span><div style="text-indent:555px;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline">
<b><span style="font-weight:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap"> Just as in the analogy, much of our broken politics isn't even the voters' fault. Voters left and right are incensed by corruption, and yet we too-often have no real choices. As Mr. Richie points out, a better voting system could give better results, and there's no shortage of better options. At <a href="http://BanSingleMarkBallots.com">BanSingleMarkBallots.com</a>, there's a statement which discusses the problem and offers several solutions, which has been signed by a number of voting system experts. We may have some friendly disagreements with Mr. Richie – for instance, we support simpler, robust systems like approval voting, while I know Mr. Richie favors instant runoffs – but we commend him for bringing much-deserved attention to this issue.</span></b></div>
</span></div></div><div>-----------<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>dlw: Rather than pillory the 2-party system, let's say the only way it could "work" is if 3rd parties are given a constructive role in it, for to trust the two major parties to regulate $peech is like to trust the foxes to guard the hen-house. We must adapt American exceptional-ism to give 3rd parties access to power so they can hold us accountable for the protection of the rights of ethnic, economic and ideological minority groups in the USA. For we have been dismal, not exceptional, in our treatment of many such groups in the USA. To do this, we need to emphasize changes to the use of proportional (the term richie used) in "more local" elections. These seemingly unimportant elections could be very important for handicapping the cut-throat competition in our country between our top two parties. For if no party can dominate then their incentive becomes to work together more than to attack each other or to game the system to get and stay into power.</div>
<div><br></div><div>All of what Rob Richie wrote and more would help in this regard, but the strategic use of PR(once again using richie's term), within a two-party dominated system, needs to be emphasized as extra important to help make critical changes in the US's political culture in the near future.</div>
<div><br></div><div>dlw</div></div>
----<br>Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="http://electorama.com/em">http://electorama.com/em</a> for list info<br></blockquote></div><br></body></html>