<div dir="ltr">Hi Fred,<div><br></div><div>STV with nomination by petition is anything but a party-based system. Yet I find that party organization helps explain even the adoption of that (supposedly) party-weakening voting rule.</div><div><br></div><div>I have little to add to a normative debate about the place of parties in democracy. I am somewhat familiar with what it takes to win an election reform. This paper by Jack Nagel is pretty good: <a href="https://fairvote.app.box.com/v/ingredients-for-reform-success">https://fairvote.app.box.com/v/ingredients-for-reform-success</a></div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Jack</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">Jack Santucci<br><div><div>Ph.D. Candidate in Government</div><div>Georgetown University</div></div><div><a href="http://www.jacksantucci.com" target="_blank">http://www.jacksantucci.com</a></div><div>202-681-5225 (Google Voice)</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Fred Gohlke <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:fredgohlke@verizon.net" target="_blank">fredgohlke@verizon.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Good Morning, Jack<br>
<br>
The difficulty arises because partisanship is a vital part of society. Unfortunately, it's a double-edged sword. On the good side, it is at the heart of all progress; on the not-so-good side, it provides a natural platform for power-seekers.<br>
<br>
The big problem, in politics, is that party-based systems do not let the mellowing voice of non-partisans temper their excesses. Instead, non-partisans are disenfranchised. Pew Research, for example, constantly refers to 'leaners', people who vote with a party but are not members. What should stand out, but doesn't, is that leaners lean because they have no other choice. They are forced to choose the (for them) lesser of two evils.<br>
<br>
Sennet Williams asked, "What is the goal of a 'better' election method?" and answered himself by saying, "Personally, I want 'better govt.'"<br>
<br>
I suggest that, if we want better government, we should start by recognizing that our government cannot be better than the people we elect to provide it. If we are dissatisfied with our government, the first step in improving it is to elect better people. That cannot happen as long as political parties are allowed to select the candidates for public office because "Those who control the options, control the outcome."<br>
<br>
When thinking about better election methods, the biggest issue is not how the votes are counted, it is who the people can vote for. If we want better candidates, we must change the way they are selected. As Jane Mansbridge told us in "A 'Selection Model' of Political Representation"[1]:<br>
<br>
"Another possible --- and sometimes conflicting -- approach is<br>
based primarily on selection. This approach works only when<br>
the principal and agent would have similar objectives even in<br>
the absence of specific incentives and sanctions. That is,<br>
the agent is already internally motivated to pursue certain<br>
goals -- goals that in politics include both a general<br>
political direction and specific policies. If the<br>
representative's desired direction and policies are the ones<br>
the constituent desires, and if the representative also has a<br>
verifiable reputation of being both competent and honest, then<br>
it makes sense for a constituent to put that representative in<br>
office and subsequently spend relatively little effort on<br>
monitoring and sanctioning. As a general rule, the higher the<br>
probability that the objectives of principal and agent may be<br>
aligned, the more efficient it is for the principal to invest<br>
resources ex ante, in selecting the required type, rather than<br>
ex post, in monitoring and sanctioning."<br>
<br>
Consideration of electoral methods should include thought about ways to select candidates whose goals are in line with the public interest. Instead of letting political parties tell us who we can vote for, we need a method that integrates the goals of partisans and non-partisans. It's not difficult, it's just different.<br>
<br>
Fred Gohlke<br>
<br>
[1] <a href="https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/workingpapers/citation.aspx?PubId=5548&type=WPN" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://research.hks.harvard.e<wbr>du/publications/workingpapers/<wbr>citation.aspx?PubId=5548&type=<wbr>WPN</a><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
----<br>
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="http://electorama.com/em" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://electorama.com/em</a> for list info<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>