Re: [EM] hello from DLW of "A New Kind of Party":long time electoral reform enthusiast/iconoclast-wannabe...

David L Wetzell wrote: Hello Walabio, et al. On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:41 AM, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ > wrote: > 6. I advocate for FairVote's IRV3. I hate to break this to you, But FairVote.Org is Astroturf. The Republicrats and Democans know that

Re: [EM] hello from DLW of "A New Kind of Party":long time electoral reform enthusiast/iconoclast-wannabe...

> > . >> >> [wrt PAL]It's interesting. I'd rather just argue before the supreme >> court that the law that prohibits multi-seat federal elections is >> unconstitutional because of its harmful effects on minority voters and the >> fact that the specific election rule used by states should be up to

Re: [EM] hello from DLW of "A New Kind of Party":long time electoral reform enthusiast/iconoclast-wannabe...

2011/10/31 David L Wetzell > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: > >> >> >> 2011/10/31 David L Wetzell >> >>> 2. I agree that "who benefits" is a key question. But I think what >>> I'm talking about doesn't redistribute or decentralize power so much as >>> influence. And

Re: [EM] hello from DLW of "A New Kind of Party":long time electoral reform enthusiast/iconoclast-wannabe...

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: > > > 2011/10/31 David L Wetzell > >> 2. I agree that "who benefits" is a key question. But I think what I'm >> talking about doesn't redistribute or decentralize power so much as >> influence. And I'm willing to bet that those in power wou

Re: [EM] hello from DLW of "A New Kind of Party":long time electoral reform enthusiast/iconoclast-wannabe...

2011/10/31 David L Wetzell > 2. I agree that "who benefits" is a key question. But I think what I'm > talking about doesn't redistribute or decentralize power so much as > influence. And I'm willing to bet that those in power would be more likely > to be okay with that if it subverts the twin

Re: [EM] hello from DLW of "A New Kind of Party":long time electoral reform enthusiast/iconoclast-wannabe...

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: > > > 2011/10/31 David L Wetzell > >> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Jameson Quinn >> wrote: >> >>> The reason PR makes you sound more like a whiny loser than single-winner >>> reform is that PR is essentially a results-oriented idea. If y

Re: [EM] hello from DLW of "A New Kind of Party":long time electoral reform enthusiast/iconoclast-wannabe...

2011/10/31 David L Wetzell > On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Jameson Quinn > wrote: > >> The reason PR makes you sound more like a whiny loser than single-winner >> reform is that PR is essentially a results-oriented idea. If you say you >> want PR, people know that you mean you want different

Re: [EM] hello from DLW of "A New Kind of Party":long time electoral reform enthusiast/iconoclast-wannabe...

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote: > The reason PR makes you sound more like a whiny loser than single-winner > reform is that PR is essentially a results-oriented idea. If you say you > want PR, people know that you mean you want different winners, and they can > easily check

Re: [EM] hello from DLW of "A New Kind of Party":long time electoral reform enthusiast/iconoclast-wannabe...

On 31.10.2011, at 18.20, David L Wetzell wrote: > This is not about getting third party candidates elected, it's about making > our polity tend towards a contested(and far more dynamic) political duopoly, > rather than a (somewhat contested) political monopoly. I'm not sure what your targets fo

Re: [EM] hello from DLW of "A New Kind of Party":long time electoral reform enthusiast/iconoclast-wannabe...

> > 6b. I think that IRV3 can be improved upon by treating the up to three >> ranked choices as approval votes in a first round to limit the number of >> candidates to three then the rankings of the three can be sorted into 10 >> categories and the number of votes in each category can be summarized

Re: [EM] hello from DLW of "A New Kind of Party":long time electoral reform enthusiast/iconoclast-wannabe.

6b. I think that IRV3 can be improved upon by treating the up to three > ranked choices as approval votes in a first round to limit the number of > candidates to three then the rankings of the three can be sorted into 10 > categories and the number of votes in each category ca

Re: [EM] hello from DLW of "A New Kind of Party":long time electoral reform enthusiast/iconoclast-wannabe...

The reason PR makes you sound more like a whiny loser than single-winner reform is that PR is essentially a results-oriented idea. If you say you want PR, people know that you mean you want different winners, and they can easily check who that would be in practice. And that makes it easy for them t

Re: [EM] hello from DLW of "A New Kind of Party":long time electoral reform enthusiast/iconoclast-wannabe...

> Also, it is very easy to sound like a whiny loser when talking about PR > (either a third-party loser or local-minority-party loser). So there's no > way single-winner issues should be put on the back burner. We can walk and > chew gum here. (Gum on back burner ... eewww) > Jameson:Also, it is ve

Re: [EM] hello from DLW of "A New Kind of Party":long time electoral reform enthusiast/iconoclast-wannabe...

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote: > > > 2011/10/31 David L Wetzell > >> Hello Jameson, >> >> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 6:28 AM, Jameson Quinn >> wrote: >> >>> Others have already responded to most of your points. >> >> >> Walabi got to some of them. But that's it so far... >

Re: [EM] hello from DLW of "A New Kind of Party":long time electoral reform enthusiast/iconoclast-wannabe...

2011/10/31 David L Wetzell > Hello Jameson, > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 6:28 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote: > >> Others have already responded to most of your points. > > > Walabi got to some of them. But that's it so far... > > >> I just wanted to say one thing: >> >> 6b. I think that IRV3 can be im

Re: [EM] hello from DLW of "A New Kind of Party":long time electoral reform enthusiast/iconoclast-wannabe...

Hello Jameson, On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 6:28 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote: > Others have already responded to most of your points. Walabi got to some of them. But that's it so far... > I just wanted to say one thing: > > 6b. I think that IRV3 can be improved upon by treating the up to three >> ra

Re: [EM] hello from DLW of "A New Kind of Party":long time electoral reform enthusiast/iconoclast-wannabe...

On 10/30/11 9:33 PM, David L Wetzell wrote: So there's no cardinal or ordinal utility for any candidate out there and all effective rankings of candidates used to determine the Condorcet Candidate are ad hoc. what do you mean by that? do you mean that any of the Condorcet-compliant methods a

Re: [EM] hello from DLW of "A New Kind of Party":long time electoral reform enthusiast/iconoclast-wannabe...

Hello Walabio, et al. On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:41 AM, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote: > > 6. I advocate for FairVote's IRV3. > > I hate to break this to you, But FairVote.Org is Astroturf. The > Republicrats and Democans know that people want reform. IRV (Instant > Runoff-Voting) is a ref

Re: [EM] hello from DLW of "A New Kind of Party":long time electoral reform enthusiast/iconoclast-wannabe...

Others have already responded to most of your points. I just wanted to say one thing: 6b. I think that IRV3 can be improved upon by treating the up to three > ranked choices as approval votes in a first round to limit the number of > candidates to three then the rankings of the three can be sorted

Re: [EM] hello from DLW of "A New Kind of Party":long time electoral reform enthusiast/iconoclast-wannabe...

Welcome David, Richard Fobes wrote: > An excellent summary of the collective view of most participants > here is our recently created "Declaration of Election-Method Reform > Advocates". ... Mind you, most of us have yet to agree to this collective view. That doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong

Re: [EM] hello from DLW of "A New Kind of Party":long time electoral reform enthusiast/iconoclast-wannabe...

> 6. I advocate for FairVote's IRV3. I hate to break this to you, But FairVote.Org is Astroturf. The Republicrats and Democans know that people want reform. IRV (Instant Runoff-Voting) is a reform changing nothing. We need to take a step back and look at Duverger’s Law:

Re: [EM] hello from DLW of "A New Kind of Party":long time electoral reform enthusiast/iconoclast-wannabe...

Welcome! An excellent summary of the collective view of most participants here is our recently created "Declaration of Election-Method Reform Advocates". It doesn't yet have a permanent home; a temporary copy is here: http://www.votefair.org/declaration.html Your views overlap with many of

[EM] hello from DLW of "A New Kind of Party":long time electoral reform enthusiast/iconoclast-wannabe...

I just joined the list. I'm a political economist turned electoral enthusiast. My views are: 1. All modern democracies are unstable mixtures of popular democracy and plutocracy. 2. Electoral Reform is meant to bolster the former. 3. There are two basic types of election rules: winner-take-all (al