<div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br><br>---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: Richard Fobes <ElectionMethods@VoteFair.org><br>
To: Raph Frank <<a href="mailto:raphfrk@gmail.com">raphfrk@gmail.com</a>>, <a href="mailto:election-methods@electorama.com">election-methods@electorama.com</a><br>Cc: <br>Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:45:26 -0800<br>Subject: [EM] Campaign contribution reform<br>
[pulled out of message below]<br>
On 2/20/2012 5:18 AM, Raph Frank wrote:<br>
...<br>
> I assume you mean campaign contribution reform? That isn't actually<br>
> an election method.<br>
<br>
Nope.<br>
<br>
As I see it, using better ballots and better counting methods will cut the puppet strings that connect politicians to their biggest campaign contributors.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>dlw:cut is the wrong metaphor. If there's rent$ at stake $peech will try to find a way. </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
The main reason money matters so much (in politics) is that money can be used to win elections through vote splitting (in primary elections), gerrymandering (which affects general elections), and media influence. Vote splitting and gerrymandering will disappear when well-designed voting methods are used. </blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>dlw:Most election alternatives atrophy the vote-splitting problem a great deal. </div><div>Gerrymandering is much better reduced by the strategic use of smell number forms of PR or quasi-PR. A heavily democratic local single-winner district will go democratic almost all fo the time, regardless of the rule used. </div>
<div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Then money won't matter as much. (Media influence will continue, but voters can ignore it.)<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>dlw: They'll find ways to attract our attention. The less educated you are, the easier it is for advertising to hook you. But 3-seat LR Hare circumvents this problem to a serious degree and by denying the ability of one party to corner the state house of reps, they won't be able to leverage it to get an advantage in other elections and all of suddent $peech has to hedge its bets and still cannot corner the public square. </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
BTW, lobbyists only have influence because they can (when needed) remind politicians about the necessity of having lots of campaign funds. As money becomes less significant, lobbyists loose power.<br>
<br>
To the extent that money can no longer take advantage of vote splitting (mainly in primary elections) and gerrymandering, there isn't so much need for reforming campaign financing.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>
dlw: vote-splitting is small potatoes. If they can't gerrymander, they'll hedge and still $pin. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
BTW, this is why I oppose public financing of campaigns. Why should taxpayers waste money opposing the money from special interests?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm in favor of a mix of progressive taxes on all forms of $peech(as it is made to be transparent and to go through the state's party leadership, like before CFR in 1975) and some subsidies. </div>
<div>But the real kicker is to increase the number of competitive elections, which is the natural way to reduce the influence of $peech (as in like makiing "more local" elections become compatitive for the 3rd seat by the use of PR), and by the election of some 3rd party politicians to at least the state assembly, since you can't trust the two major parties to enforce any CFRegulations well, otherwise. </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Using better ballots and better counting methods will eliminate the need for reforming campaign contributions, PACs, Super-PACs, etc.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>dlw: That's utopic. It's not good to overstate the likely effects of electoral reform. When they pushed for quasi-PR in the Illinois late 1860s, they made it sound like it would inaugurate the second coming of Christ and when the results were quite different (but not insignificant) it obviously made it hard to catch on in other states. </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Keeping in mind that I'm the author of a how-to book on creative problem solving, I'll repeat an important point from that book: the best place to solve a problem is at the source/root of the problem.<br></blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>dlw: How the system tilts too easily to effective single-party rule, too many elections are rarely competitive and minorities don't get much voice because of their low chances of being swing voters? All of these are fixed by the strategic use of PR in "more local" elections, not so much better single-winner elections.</div>
<div><br></div><div>dlw </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Richard Fobes<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2/20/2012 5:18 AM, Raph Frank wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Richard Fobes<br>
<<a href="mailto:ElectionMethods@votefair.org" target="_blank">ElectionMethods@votefair.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Another way to understand the second problem is to consider what would<br>
happen if 55% of the voters in a state favor the Republican Party, and the<br>
remaining 45% favor the Democratic Party, and there is an even distribution<br>
of these preferences throughout the state. If STV uses 3 seats per<br>
district, the likely result would be that two thirds of the elected<br>
representatives would be Republicans, and only one third would be Democrats.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
If they were single seaters, then it would be 100% Republican.<br>
<br>
Small districts inherently don't give good PR, but a 1/3 to 2/3 split<br>
is better than 100% to one, if the votes are 55% to 45%.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
If STV is used with 4 seats per district, in a (different) state that<br>
strongly favors a third party, the fourth seat would yield unpredictable<br>
results. Here I'm assuming that the first three seats would be filled by<br>
one Republican, one Democrat, and one third-party politician.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
There would be a little randomness, but it should balance out somewhat<br>
when averaged over many districts. Tiny parties would still have a<br>
very hard time.<br>
<br>
4 seats means a quota of 20%. If both Republicans and Democrats are><br>
40%, then they both get 2 seat each.<br>
<br>
An odd number of seats has the feature that if a party gets a majority<br>
of the vote, it gets a majority of the seats.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
In contrast, my view is that first we -- the voters -- need to reclaim<br>
control of the Republican and Democratic parties, and then we can decide<br>
whether we need one or more third parties. (I expect that we will need<br>
small third parties, but that they will primarily serve as a way for voters<br>
to steer the two main parties in wiser directions.)<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
The issue is that if the 2 parties work together, then they can ignore<br>
the voters, since they effectively hold a duopoly.<br>
<br>
Everyone must choose one or other, so there is relatively little control.<br>
<br>
With third parties, it is possible for voters to move to one of the<br>
third parties. Even if only a small number do it, it still acts on as<br>
a check, since each voter who leaves represents loss of power for the<br>
party.<br>
<br>
Currently, the only way to leave is to switch vote from one party to<br>
the other, which is a big step for many people.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Remember that state legislatures and Congress use a voting method (for<br>
choosing which proposed laws to pass) that works reasonably well with just<br>
two main parties, but that voting method would break down into chaos if a<br>
legislature or Congress had to form coalitions (in order to get a majority<br>
of support for each proposed law).<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Certainly, there would need to be changes in the customs/rules of<br>
order in the House.<br>
<br>
The Senate would likely not be PR based anyway, due to the 2 Senator<br>
per State rule.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Also remember that in Congress (and<br>
presumably in state legislatures) the chairmanship of each committee<br>
switches to a committee member who is from the majority party; there is no<br>
graceful way to choose which committees switch their chairmanships to which<br>
of three (or more) parties.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
That could be handled either by having a formal coalition (the<br>
coalition agreement would include how to split the chairmanships) or<br>
maybe doing it via PR, or some other compromise.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
You seem to be focused on accommodating a transition to a three-party<br>
system, without also accommodating a later transition back to a two-party<br>
system.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
PR is unlikely to switch back to a 2 party system. There is little<br>
benefit in reducing voter choice. However, if the voters mostly vote<br>
for the 2 biggest parties, PR allows it to move back to 2 party.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Election-method reform must (first and foremost) cut the puppet strings that<br>
currently connect politicians -- of both parties -- to the biggest campaign<br>
contributors ("special interests").<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
That is one of the main points about PR. By giving the voters more<br>
choice, they can move their support away from parties that don't<br>
represent them well.<br>
<br>
A 2 party system inherently, only has 2 choice. If a voter hates one<br>
party and dislikes the other, then he isn't likely to move his vote to<br>
the party he hates.<br>
<br>
The more voters who are in that situation, the less voter control<br>
their is over the party.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
That alone will change the political<br>
landscape dramatically, and that change might result in a stable two-party<br>
system that all the voters like.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I assume you mean campaign contribution reform? That isn't actually<br>
an election method.<br>
<br>
Also, because of the FPTP method, politicians can ignore the public,<br>
as long as both parties agree.<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>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Election-Methods mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Election-Methods@lists.electorama.com">Election-Methods@lists.electorama.com</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com" target="_blank">http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>