[EM] Approval Voting
Plurality voting without the Electoral College In a three way race for POTUS. Let's say we have the traditional D and R. A fringe third party candidate runs and is widely hated (H) by everyone except his/her supporters. But the final results are H 34% D 33% R 33% Now the hated candidate is leader of the free world. In Approval Voting, I think it unlikely in this hyper-partisan country that many voters will vote for D R, and not H. So the results might very well be the same. Is this a legit flaw for Approval? It seems quite plausible to me. Jon Denn Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Approval Voting
In these likely scenarios, and assuming there is no electoral college, doesn't a runoff of the top two seem the best method until someone gets a majority? Jon On May 6, 2013, at 5:14 PM, Jonathan Lundell wrote: On 6 May 2013, at 2:08 PM, Jonathan Denn i...@agreater.us wrote: Plurality voting without the Electoral College In a three way race for POTUS. Let's say we have the traditional D and R. A fringe third party candidate runs and is widely hated (H) by everyone except his/her supporters. But the final results are H 34% D 33% R 33% Now the hated candidate is leader of the free world. In Approval Voting, I think it unlikely in this hyper-partisan country that many voters will vote for D R, and not H. So the results might very well be the same. Is this a legit flaw for Approval? It seems quite plausible to me. Sure. Suppose the plurality numbers (could be approval with 100% bullet voting) were: H 32 R 33 D 35 D wins. But suppose that 5 D's decide to approve R in an effort to avoid the possible election of H, but the R's are determined to bullet-vote: H 32 R 38 D 35 Oops. Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[EM] Voting method advice needed
@TweetTheDebates is recreating the Constitutional Convention of 1787 on Twitter using Madison's Journal. The web address is http://www.tweetthedebates.com/. And the KickStarter page is http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1817799742/tweet-the-debates. At the bottom of the that page is... Finally, one problem in the preparation of the ScriptSheet - what's the best way to deal with voting? Do we want to have a vote every time the Convention voted? There's lots of votes nem. con. - unanimous consent. Should we skip those and hold votes just for questions that are discussed? Give us your input! This might be a nice way for DEMRA folk to get some PR. Cheers, Jon Denn I'll be writing this up for IVN next week. I hope to be cast in the role of John Dickinson. Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Election-Methods Digest, Vol 103, Issue 1
Greetings! As I've mentioned previously, I am on the board of a nonprofit that will be announcing a Clean Government Alliance shortly. It will have two prominent far left/ far right reformers, probably another pair of center left/right will be joining them. The purpose is to draft a Constitutional Amendment for omnibus electoral reform. For these people everything is on the table. We had to pass on another household name because that person wouldn't put Term Limits on the table. I have been flying your flag: Ban Single Mark Ballots, and I have to say, that these sophisticated folk need it explained to them. Anyway, and I have asked this question before, What is the solution for primaries? This is the biggest open item in the work that has to be done. 40% of the electorate are independents, probably centrists. We cannot vote in primaries in almost all states. It's a gaping yaw in a democratic republic. I've used this example before. I did live in CT until a few weeks ago, now MA, in the last Senate election there was a great Republican Brian K Hill, a reformer. And the former Democratic Sec of State Susan Byceiwicz was also an interesting candidate. I would have liked to vote for both in the primary, and would have loved to seen them in the general election against each other. Instead we had a plutocrat running against a billionaire. In the end the oligarchs won. I expect the amendment will begin being drafted in DC in a few weeks, so please, load me up with the arguments. Cheers, Jon Denn @jmdenn Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[EM] Gerrymandering
Fair Redistricting or Ending Gerrymandering is always a great grievance among electoral reformers. But the solution is much more elusive. Do you folks ever venture into that area? Jon Denn Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[EM] An artist's view on voting methods
Someone is editing Kurt Vonnegut letters for publication. This was online today... I'm struck with editor meaning voter and stories as candidates ...I invite you to read the fifteen tales in Masters of the Modern Short Story (W. Havighurst, editor, 1955, Harcourt, Brace, $14.95 in paperback). Read them for pleasure and satisfaction, beginning each as though, only seven minutes before, you had swallowed two ounces of very good booze. “Except ye be as little children ...” Then reproduce on a single sheet of clean, white paper the table of contents of the book, omitting the page numbers, and substituting for each number a grade from A to F. The grades should be childishly selfish and impudent measures of your own joy or lack of it. I don’t care what grades you give. I do insist that you like some stories better than others. Proceed next to the hallucination that you are a minor but useful editor on a good literary magazine not connected with a university. Take three stories that please you most and three that please you least, six in all, and pretend that they have been offered for publication. Write a report on each to be submitted to a wise, respected, witty and world-weary superior. Do not do so as an academic critic, nor as a person drunk on art, nor as a barbarian in the literary market place. Do so as a sensitive person who has a few practical hunches about how stories can succeed or fail. Praise or damn as you please, but do so rather flatly, pragmatically, with cunning attention to annoying or gratifying details. Be yourself. Be unique. Be a good editor. The Universe needs more good editors, God knows... There are a few more delightful bits if you're interested. Oh, and an inside joke, KV was an atheist for most of his life, and when he wrote this. http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/2012/11/kurt_vonnegut_term_paper_assignment_from_the_iowa_writers_workshop.html?google_editors_picks=true Jon Denn Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[EM] Advocacy
United Republic has a new high profile attempt at change with the American Anti-Corruption Act. Of course, it doesn't address Banning Single Mark Ballots. On my site BSMB has an 83% approval rating which is a weighted average of conservatives, independents, and liberals. While this is a very good rating, even greater, it really needs to be up in the 90s to get real notice. So, if you could take a few moments, go to aGREATER.US, sign up (it just takes a minute), click on http://www.agreater.us/billpage.php?id=400 , and give it 5 stars: I can then more confidently push this in my meetings and tweets. Also, UR has some real juice, so if their folk come to rate AACA and then hang out for awhile they may learn about (y)our efforts. Cheers, Jon Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Board Meeting Deadline
Hello All, I have a board meeting tonight of a left/right/center group who among others has in it the Conservative Party, Justice Party (Rocky Anderson), IndeCan.org (largest collection of Independent candidates in the US), TJ Ohara (Modern Whig POTUS Candidate who was #5 on American's Elect), and myself. Stephen Erickson the Exec from RebuildDemocracy.org is also an interested party but not a board member. As you know, I'm the Editor of aGREATER.US. We are considering making Ban Single Mark Ballots our first action. We would ask all past and present 3rd Party POTUS candidates (we also have access to Nader) to sign on, and other political organizations, which sort of sorts out the true believers from the make believe reformers—as I gather nothing protects the two party duopoly better than single mark ballots. Intellectually, no 3rd party would NOT sign onto this accept if we blow the details. So from your preamble I gather that after Single Mark Ballots are banned, the States or Congress should decide on whether to use... A. Approval B. Condorcet ( I gather there is now a tweaked version of this) C. Majority Judgement D. Range Voting It also appears that this would NOT need to be a Constitutional Amendment. Is that correct? My analysis has led me to believe the hole in this strategy is there is no position taken on primaries. Going back to the premise that the duopoly must be broken, it appears to me the whole ball game is how to structure primaries. Conservatives will want it left up the the States, liberals probably want Congress to pass something. Nevertheless, letting everyone vote, and having a diverse selection of viewpoints to choose from seems critical. I previously noted that in an open primary in CT for Senate I would have chosen; Hill (R) Byciewicz (D) and Passerell (L) probably in that order if I had to rank. I'm a staunch centrist (I) so don't read too much into a (R) being first; Brian is simply the best reformer of those running. BUT, what my choice is next week is Murphy (D) and McMahon (R). I'm NOT happy. Neither has any idea how economics actually work, and for that btw, as shocking as your work is to electoral reform, Modern Monetary Theory is to economics. So, here it is. Us activists may want to fly your flag, but what is on the flag? Cheers, Jon Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] A Reformer's Lament
Hello Michael, A Public Party I believe this is the meme that is circulating now in the US amongst reformers. Essentially my site, aGREATER.US is choice creation of the ax or best practice/idea on any particular topic. Some ideas are nonpartisan (almost everyone loves it) or tripartisan (a combination of love and no one hates it too much). Bipartisan Protectionism vs Public Party Groups like the Bipartisan Policy Center, and NoLabels are essentially working to protect the duopoly. These other groups forming are trying to bring in the 40% disenfranchised independent voters, and level the playing field so that No Political Party Shall Be Privileged. Whether NL can make the transition into real reform work remains to be seen. Policy Work is Really Hard The issue I see with getting this meme off the ground is no one, or almost no one, really wants to spend the time, effort, study, dialogue, scientific method, pain of changing positions necessary to do quality policy work. I'm a centrist, and have changed my mind in both directions (individual vs common responsibility) several times this year. Partisan politicians might call me a flip-flopper, but the difference is after doing considerable work in an area, and given a certain context, I don't mind admitting I was wrong or perhaps not fully informed. E.G. I am now not for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact because a 26% candidate in a four way race, that 74% of the public hates could become leader of the free world. (Nope not going there). Vice Versa; Decriminalizing Personal Drug Use is not best practice compared to a War on Chronic Drug Users' Behavior. Policy Work Doesn't Pay. Based on the work of your Canadian MacClean's People's Verdict, and subsequent work of Tom Atlee and Jim Rough, it really does take only about 12 diverse people to hear all sides of an argument and arrive at a solution the larger universe will embrace. BUT, who wants to employ 12 people to do this work? Maybe that should be in the Commons, but it isn't. My goal is to seat an editorial board at aGREATER.US to vet the policies and write new ones. That looks a lot like a public party. By writing content that can be used on multiple sites, it might be able to be done with true-believer volunteers. The Ship May be Sailing If over the next few months these left/right/center groups do coalesce into a network or movement there really does need to be a best practice in general elections to rally around. The Top Two red herring will not help this as it taints future departures away from single mark ballots. I hope you folks can help give us the answer that can be sound-bited and reduced to an easily given elevator speech. I had an almost perfect math score on my college A.C.Ts, and while I could understand the posts of the last couple days, it is way too esoteric for me to explain to let's say my conference center staff where I work (until we close forever in two weeks, but that's another story). Cheers, Jon On Oct 28, 2012, at 4:35 AM, Michael Allan wrote: Welcome Jon, How would you folks handle primaries that would allow the 40% plus Independents to have a say? I'm an engineer, so I often approach such questions on lines that are unlike traditional electoral reform. I describe one possibility here: http://metagovernment.org/wiki/User:Michael_Allan/Public_parties That's atypical even for me. But among all the approaches I would recommend there is a common theme, which is to enable individuals (formally independent or not) to have a real vote, and a real say. Not only the independents are lacking there. Very best, -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ aGREATER.US said: Ok, so I get that there are a number of better solutions for a general election. My question is about primaries. E.g. In CT if I were allowed to vote in primaries, which I am not as an independent, I probably would have voted (Senate) for Brian K Hill (R), Susan B. (D) and Paul P (L). But we now have Linda McMahon and Murphy. I'm not happy. A plutocrat will certainly be elected. How would you folks handle primaries that would allow the 40% plus Independents to have a say? Cheers Jon Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Introduction
Thanks, Richard, by the way Top Two got a real beating at the 3rd party Presidential Debate moderated by Larry King. Not actually for the mathematical defects but a beating nonetheless. I did post the math reason, however brief. You can see the debate at freeandequal.org. It was the first question so it's easy to find. Cheers, Jon On Oct 26, 2012, at 4:12 PM, Richard Fobes wrote: Jon, welcome! To add to Jon's self-introduction, I'll say to other participants here that, based on my earlier interactions with him, Jon quickly comprehends plain-English voting explanations, which is an appreciated contrast to many reform-minded folks who, in my opinion, are fixated on symptoms rather than solutions. Jon, we appreciate that you can help us get our knowledge of election methods in front of the countless voters who are trying to figure out ways to improve the election system. Especially, thank you for posting this group's (executive summary of the) Declaration of Election-Method Reform Advocates on your website and thereby helping more people understand the root of our unfair election system. This explains why recently there have been some new Facebook likes for the associated Facebook page. When you are ready to announce your Rebuild Democracy project (along with the big names), Adrian at Democracy Chronicles (.com), who participates here, can help you promote it at his online newspaper. Clarification to Adrian: Jon is the person who asked for my opinion about Arizona's proposition for a so-called top-two primary, which led to using what I wrote to Jon as the content for my recent article at Democracy Chronicles. Jon, thanks for joining us. Richard Fobes On 10/25/2012 1:20 PM, Jonathan Denn wrote: Hello All, I'm the editor of aGREATER.US http://aGREATER.US, an internet platform to find a greater political platform for the US. We are about a year old. I am also on the board of two different left, right, center reform groups. One is being formed by the Modern Whigs, Conservative Party and Justice Party; the other RebuildDemocracy.org http://RebuildDemocracy.org will be announcing their national leadership (big names!) momentarily. I've pitched the former Ban Single Mark Ballots! as our first action, hoping to get past and present third party Presidential candidates to sign on. It has an excellent tripartisan rating on my site... http://www.agreater.us/billpage.php?id=400 Anyway, I'd be very pleased to engage with you folks. I found you through Richard Fobes, we met on the Continental Congress 2.0 forum. And he has been quite generous with his time explaining nuance. By the way, I'm a true centrist, conservative or progressive depending on the best answer to any particular problem. So I have no ideological ax to grind, with the exception of reform. Cheers, Jon Denn @jmdenn Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[EM] Introduction
Hello All, I'm the editor of aGREATER.US, an internet platform to find a greater political platform for the US. We are about a year old. I am also on the board of two different left, right, center reform groups. One is being formed by the Modern Whigs, Conservative Party and Justice Party; the other RebuildDemocracy.org will be announcing their national leadership (big names!) momentarily. I've pitched the former Ban Single Mark Ballots! as our first action, hoping to get past and present third party Presidential candidates to sign on. It has an excellent tripartisan rating on my site... http://www.agreater.us/billpage.php?id=400 Anyway, I'd be very pleased to engage with you folks. I found you through Richard Fobes, we met on the Continental Congress 2.0 forum. And he has been quite generous with his time explaining nuance. By the way, I'm a true centrist, conservative or progressive depending on the best answer to any particular problem. So I have no ideological ax to grind, with the exception of reform. Cheers, Jon Denn @jmdenn Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
