<div dir="ltr"><span style="font-size:12.8px">Here's </span><a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nfpFrGNXA8KJHw0Rd6YByyXyx2Gj_awi16apSUr9L0s/edit" target="_blank" style="font-size:12.8px">the bill text as a google doc</a><span style="font-size:12.8px">.</span><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px">It requires all states to use "RCV" for the House, which means IRV for single-seat states and STV in districts of up to 5 seats for multi-seat states. It also spends over half of the bill defining and requiring independent redistricting commissions, even though with PR the issue of gerrymandering is far less serious.</div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px">Here's <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AWhaCWxG2TkvsASkbYt6Gf4NihvzCupcJL5cM9Qu9BQ/edit" target="_blank">a draft of the bill which I've rewritten to use GOLD voting</a>.<div class="gmail-yj6qo gmail-ajU"><div id="gmail-:2qa" class="gmail-ajR" tabindex="0"><img class="gmail-ajT" src="https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif" style="opacity: 0.3;"></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2017-07-06 21:09 GMT-04:00 Erik Moeller <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:eloquence@gmail.com" target="_blank">eloquence@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 5:40 PM, <<a href="mailto:fdpk69p6uq@snkmail.com">fdpk69p6uq@snkmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Is that bad? A government that has trouble passing laws until they're<br>
> modified to appeal to a diverse majority seems like a good thing to me.<br>
<br>
</span>I think it's important to distinguish between political parties and<br>
political opinions. Parties always contain within them some amount of<br>
diversity, and fragmentation of parties may not significantly increase<br>
diversity beyond a certain point of diminishing returns. Parties can<br>
split because of personality conflicts and struggles for power that<br>
have nothing to do with larger ideological differences in the general<br>
population.<br>
<br>
I don't know if this is harmful under all circumstances. It is IMO<br>
definitely harmful if you generally want your government to be formed<br>
with and sustained by an affirmative majority in parliament, because<br>
you end up with lots of parties who, by behaving "rationally" within<br>
their self-interested context, end up unable to form a government: "We<br>
said clearly beforehand that we would never form a coalition with<br>
party X, so we cannot now break this promise, or voters will punish us<br>
next time around."<br>
<br>
If, like Norway, you're comfortable with minority gov'ts and ad hoc<br>
parliamentary majorities, fragmentation may be less harmful.<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
Erik<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>