2013/6/15 Andy Jennings <electi...@jenningsstory.com> > I also report that I was talking with a progressive activist (and former > legislator) here in Arizona last year who didn't like branding of the word > "majority". He was afraid it would be a turn-off to those who feel like > the wrong majority is already too dominant. >
On that score... certainly I personally sympathize with a third-party activist's frustration with the "majority" parties (or worse, a locally "majority" party). But I've made a conscious choice in my voting reform activism not to pitch it as a third party idea. I think the kind of thing Mike Ossipoff does when he says that a good voting system will lead to a green takeover is both false and a huge turnoff to the average voter. Voting reform would mean that third parties would win sometimes, but its largest effects would be in forcing/allowing the major parties to reform and in reducing the power of special interest money. And I think it's important to make that clear, to stop normal Democratic and Republican voters from classing us (and thus our voting reform proposals) as a third party dead-ender. So yeah, if "majority" is a turn-off for more people than it's a turn-on for, we don't want it in the name. But I don't think we can conclude that from Andy's anecdotal evidence. Still, it's all worth considering, so thanks for the responses. Jameson
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info