At 12:54 PM 8/15/2005, Warren Smith wrote:
Also range is TACTICALLY THE BEST in terms of the PLAN of
appealing to US 3rd parties!!!!
Convince me that, say, the Libertarian party would not be interested in
being able to receive votes for its candidate which the candidate could
then distribute at will. Asset Voting should be, absolutely, the strongest
aid to third parties. It would give them real negotiating power.
But Asset voting requires a structural change: it requires that the rules
be changed to prevent a winner by other than a majority, and then to allow
vote-getters to reassign their votes.
In reality, though, it would probably move politics away from the party
system, once people realize that it would become possible to run for an
office and then exert some real political power based on votes received,
even if they were not a majority....
So you have to unify behind range.
I'm trying to make it clear as I can. It seems obvious to me,
so I am sorry if I seem impatient.
Lots of things can be obvious to one and not to others, Warren.... I've
been saying for years now that we have to consider the whole process by
which groups of people make decisions, decide how to cooperate. Seems to me
that the situation you are facing is crying for such methods and procedures!
How should, indeed, the whole election reform community decide what to support?
Let me suggest that there are two basic ways being followed now:
(1) Somebody has an idea and convinces someone to donate a big chunk of
money, which is then used to create an organization which can issue press
releases and make it look like something serious is happening, and then
more people will sign on and support the cause.
(2) A small group of people form an organization and, again, try to make it
look like there is something real there. Perhaps they incorporate, after
all, it is inexpensive and makes it look like you are serious. And then
they solicit donations and try to drum up support.
The nature of these two ways involves having some coherent strategy from
the beginning; or else the organizations created will be weak, it is
thought. But the problem is that the intelligence is lost; the
organizations become like a set-and-forget guided missile....
I think there is a better way. But I can say this: it is not going to
happen unless a few people (three?) recognize this metaproblem and start
working on it. One is certain not enough. One plus a few people giving a
little encouragement is not enough. Two is probably not enough. Three might
pull it off....
CAV may seem like it has it together a little. After all, a Board meets and
issues a statement. But CAV doesn't have the foggiest idea of how to put
together a mass movement that would be inclusive rather than exclusive. I'm
just a tiny example: I was banned from posting to the ApprovalVoting list
simply because I stood for the principle that a moderated list should have
rules rather than simply being subject to arbitrary moderation at the whim
of the moderator. I violated no list rules. I did not refuse to follow any
moderator instructions; I merely did not jump for the chance to subject
myself to vague special rules made up just for me. I did not even continue
the behavior that was allegedly objectionable in the first place (which was
simply expressing my opinions, quite the same as others on the list, and,
like others, sometimes adding content not fully relevant to Approval Voting).
CAV is likely to remain quite small. CRV is even smaller; I can't say
whether or not it will grow, a lot depends on various accidents. But the
Election Reform community badly needs some unity, and I've been trying to
provide structure for it (mostly working on the AV list; and I suspect that
my efforts there were perceived as possibly harmful to CAV, thus explaining
my abrupt banning without warning.)
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
