A New Kind of Third Party

We are Polarized!

2012-01-30T11:28:00.001-06:00

The question is whyand what can be done about it.Obama is not the answer.American forms of Proportional Representationthat keep any party from dominating US is.dlwps, check out Rob Richie's editorialon adopting a fair vote plan.

Quick Update: Michelle Alexander and Me

2012-01-29T09:08:00.000-06:00

I got an email yesterday from civil rights advocate and litigator Michelle Alexander,the author of the New Jim Crow, which shows how our system for mass incarceration has been gamedto keep the black vote down.She agreed with me that PR mattersto restructure the US's political system(In fact, I learned that the main reasonBill Clinton's nominee Lani Guinier was not confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice was her advocacy of the use of PR to combat discrimination of minorities.)but believed that it was more fundamentalfor there to be an awakeningto the basic humanity of the "other".
I argued that it was possible to push for the use of PR without also pushing for an endto the US's 2-party system,And that the use of PR in part of our electoral system was a critical wayto make concrete an affirmation of the "other"..
I will meet her this coming Wednesday nightand will share here about our exchange.
dlw

A New Model of Government

2012-01-26T07:54:00.001-06:00

A Russian Independent Scholar Nicholas Popovshared this with me.Smart people all over the worldare imagining electoral reformsthat will make democracy work!dlwps, the GOP's FL primary was supposed to become a Proportional Representation,rather than a winner-take-all electionas a penalty for taking place before March 6th.This will not be trivial if Gingrich were to win there...

Dale Sheldon Hess Posts on Proportional Representation!

2012-01-25T20:25:00.001-06:00

It's about time!dlw

Hiatus

2012-01-20T11:14:00.002-06:00

I'm off till March.I thank God that the US's democracyis on the rebound.dlwps, here's a blog-article that talks about lessons from studies of democratic transitions by a political scientist, Jay Ulfelder. The last lesson is:9. The most likely outcome of a democratic transition nowadays is a competitive authoritarian regime, either because initial elections will be unfair by design or because the party that wins those elections will quickly use state resources to advantage itself in future contests. Highest confidence. Democracy is hard to produce and relatively easy to undo. Just ask the Iraqis, or the Nicaraguans, or theHungarians, or…
Methinks that the Tri-election Triagecould fix this tendency by making the system tend towards two major parties,neither of who are able to dominate.dlwpps,I got into an email exchange with the blog-author,I made my point that less-is-more PR solves a problem in "more local" elections,He wrote back, "I think your point about the power of successful examples is a good one. This is more like evolution than engineering, I think, so perhaps the effects that look negligible within a few years will become quite significant over the long run. -J"To which I replied, "This is probably why we need to review the trickle up effects of the use of cumulative voting for state reps elections in IL in IL and surrounding states both before and after it got removed in 1980.... That's as natural of an experiment as I can think of..."dlw

HOPE!!!!

2012-01-19T23:09:00.004-06:00

tonight's CalaMITTous GOP debate will open up the Republican primaries and the throbbing wound tearing the GOP apart. And maybe, just maybe the party will fall apart and we'll have two different major parties, both hopefully committed to election reform, and thereby given the right incentives to cooperateon working out solutions to our many problems in the USAin the near future from its aftermath...dlw

The Dragon and the Bear

2012-01-18T08:19:00.000-06:00

I continue to debate electoral analystswho often are convinced that the root of the problems with US politicsis its two party dominated system,which they blame for the $trength of $peech.I inspired Jameson Quinn to metaphor

You: Let's go into this forest over here.
Me: There's a bear in there.
You: But it's a small one and seems peaceful
Me: It's true it usually doesn't attack. But it did take a swipe at Fred Burlington that one time. And actually I think it's huge.
You: Fred didn't get hurt too badly. And there's a silver lining; he's nicer to folks now that the bear showed him where his meanness got him. How could it be a bad thing to be mauled if it makes you nicer.
Me: gah.... guh... getting mauled is really bad!
You: Well, we can disagree on that one.
Me: Why don't we go into that forest over there?
You: There could be a bear there too!
Me: Well, I can't prove there isn't. But some people have looked one time, and they didn't see any signs of one. Also, I think there's a treasure.
You: I don't think that treasure would be very big, and I don't think we'd find it.
Me: I think it would be pretty sizeable, but I can't say how likely it is that we'd find it.
You: Meh. Sounds as if the forests aren't too different. And this one over here is closer. I'm not sure we can walk all the way over there. Probably some of the group would get distracted and wander off.
Me: If we can't get over there, who's to say we can even make it to this one here? And if we can make it to this one here, I think that means that with a bit more time, we could make it over there. After all, my forest is safer, prettier, may have a treasure; that should help people wander off less than on the way to yours.
You: All you have is pure speculation. The one thing we know for sure is that my forest is closer.

I replied,
"Methinks the dragon of single-party rule is much, much worse than the bear of two-party rule so long as we get scope for minor parties/ltps. God knows, we're trending towards the dragon right now in the USA...
IMO, Your fear of the bear blinds you to how your perfectionism might sacrifice us to the dragon.
dlw

Two-Party(+LTPs) State Needed for (More than) West Virginia??

2012-01-17T16:04:00.000-06:00

Our system tilts too easily to single-party ruleat both the state and the national level, but it's more apparent at the state leveland it's a lot more apparent in stateslike West Virginiawith relatively high levels of povertythat help party machines get a fix on power.
From a recent editorial in W VA,"It would be difficult to find a state more thoroughly controlled by the Democrat Party than West Virginia. The party has dominated both houses of the Legislature for decades. Democrats hold a nearly two-to-one edge over Republicans in voter registrations.
...
Democrat domination of state government has had several undesirable effects, among them control of the bureaucracy by party loyalists who can feel secure in their jobs whether they are doing them well or not.
...
If there is a bottom line, it is this: Competition almost always improves the performance of those involved, in part because it makes them more accountable to their customers. In the case of politics, all West Virginians are, in effect, customers of the political establishment.

And for decades, there has been no real competition for power."

They need a two-party + system, not a different party in power and to get thatwhat they really need isAmerican forms of Proportional Representation so no party can dominate their state gov't and minority rights can be defended against the tyranny of the majority.dlw

I have a Nightmare!

2012-01-16T21:37:00.001-06:00

What if there were six present-day reincarnations of MLKjr, each pushing a pressing issue that requires strong support from almost all progressivesunder our current system to get CHANGE.What if we got caught between the six?What would we do?Fail in all six?
I think the answer would be that we need to focus on changing our current system so thatwe don't need to agree on what is most pressingto get CHANGE. We need to make it easier for a small, but committed, group of people,pushing an issue with broad appeal,to prevail.
I believe that Electoral Reform,focused on American Forms of PR and IRV,is the issue that will avert my nightmare.This is because it handicaps the rivalry between the two major parties, checks $peech naturally with more competitive elections, and spreads out widelywho will be the likely swing-voters. These three effects combine to make itmuch easier for a wide number of smaller, poorer groups to play the powers that be in the two major parties off of each other to move the center, without having to coordinate or to follow the same charismatic leader. dlw

To Have A Dream!

2012-01-15T22:12:00.001-06:00

My 3 biggest dreams for this coming year are:1. Convince electoral analysts that it's infantile to bicker over which of very many single-winner election rules are the best when

a two party-dominated system is here to stay in the US for the foreseeable future and
what matters much more is to improve the mix of single-winner and multi-winner elections.

2. Get progressive to see that the best way to secure ethnic/economic/ideological minority rights and to subvert the military-industrial-congressional complexto deter future wars is to improve the mix of single-winner and multi-winner elections in the US.
3. Convince Campaign Finance Reform advocates that you can't trust the foxes to guard the hen-house... so Election Reform needs to precede serious Campaign Finance Reform and the money donated to CFR advocates wouldbe better spent if transferred to FairVote for their upcoming campaign for American forms of Proportional Representation.
dlw

MoneyPolitics!

2012-01-14T09:01:00.001-06:00

I just watched the movie MoneyBall last night.I have also read on Wikipedia about the bookMoneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game.It seems that so long as only one team gamed the system by the numbersthat it was golden for them,but when everyone tried to do the same, it was nowhere near as effective.
Moneyball is like Monsanto.We can let the numbers dictatewhat we do for an immediate gain,at the risk of long-term catastrophe,but we can be certain that there will be change.
Analogously, I've recommended forAmerica's Third Partyto game the system.Here's what I wrote for Sarah Hart. I do think it'd be better if you and David [Sponheim] made a point of how flawed our Electoral College System is by gaming it thru trying to register on the ballot in only competitive states and committing to maybe calling on your supporters to vote strategically on the day before the election.... Third parties have got to stop playing the game of politicsas if they were the NY Yankees!!!
We gotta Game the Gameto Change the Game,which is also what third parties majoring on American forms of Proportional Representation would do!dlw

Hope for Reform!

2012-01-13T10:14:00.001-06:00

Whatever center-right party exists after this year,I think we can count on it being far more positive towards election and campaign finance reform!
The combo of First-Past-the-Post primariesSuper Tuesdays and Super PACs is making the Prez primaries a game of bloody the leader for a bloody long time!
A quick roundup of proof:Nate Silver at 538 thinks attacks on Bain harm Romney's brand, more so among independents.
Carl Pope says Citizens United (and the primary schedule) has empowered the .01% to under cut party leaders to keep things competitive for quite some time. He suggests a higher tax rate for corporations who engage in $peech, not unlike what is done with nonprofits currently. dlw

Defanging Citizens United LTP-style!

2012-01-11T21:52:00.001-06:00

I'm hoping to collaborate with friends about developing a process whereby many small groups of individuals could monitor, assess and aggregate the negative campaigning in their area during the last two months of the campaign and then commit to vote strategically togetheragainst whichever viable candidate received more support from negative campaigning.
I think there's a lot of folks who aren't personally supportive of the two major partiesor their candidates who would support such an endeavorand if it were done by many groups then I think it could really get taken seriouslyand avert the use of "Daisy" or "Revolving Door" ads.dlwdlw

A Qualified Endorsement of my Hybrid approach to Instant Runoff Voting!

2012-01-09T15:56:00.001-06:00

I've been a part of an electoral methods list-serve since October.

I've been arguing there that FairVote's Instant Runoff Voting(IRV) isn't so bad,

even more so in a 2-party dominated system,

which isn't necessarily bad.

I've also argued that IRV can be improved upon

by hybridizing it with Approval Voting(AV)

as an IRV3/AV3 election rule that lets voters rank up to three candidates.

IRV3/AV3 takes a 2 stage approach.

The first stage treats the up to 3 rankings initially as approval votes. The three candidates who get the most rankings, or approval votes, go to the second stage.

In the second stage, the rankings are used first to eliminate the candidate who is top ranked by the least number of voters. Then, the rankings are used to transfer as many of the eliminated candidate's votes as possible to the remaining two candidates. Finally, the preferred candidate between the remaining two candidates is elected, most often by a majority of the voters.

It has been an intense and, now, we may have made a break through.

One of my most talented antagonists, Jameson Quinn, shared the results of a pseudo-experiment he designed to show that IRV3/AV3 doesn't necessarily work. It's worth sharing because it turned out to be very hard to design a situation where the 2nd best candidate beats the top candidate when IRV3/AV3 is used.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jameson Quinn
To: election-methods list serve.
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2012 19:03:29 -0600
Subject: [EM] A problem with IRV3/AV3
JQ: Imagine a scenario of an ABCD one-dimensional continuum:
There are 100 voters total.
41 voters with preferences: A>B>C
19 voters with preferences: B>A>C
20 voters with preferences: B>C>D
20 voters with preferences: C>B>D

If the [entire first group of] voters [strategically] vote 1st rank A and second rank D [with no other candidates ranked] then A [may] win. By raising the turkey D over the true Condorcet Winner B, they have stolen the win. Even if their strategy fails to keep B out of the top 3, they lose nothing; B will still win.

dlw: thanks for doing this. In the first stage wouldn't B and C tie for 3rd place if only the first set of voters all voted strategically together in the same way? They'd both get rankings from 59 of the voters. So if it came down to a coin-toss, there'd be a 50-50 chance of the CW winning vs the 2nd place candidate given a massive coordinated strategic vote by only a subset of the sample (We assume none of the 3rd or 4th set of voters decide to strategically leave off D rankings)?

JQ:To be honest, it was harder to tune this scenario than I thought it would be. Thus, having taken the time to write this down, I am no longer opposed to IRV3/AV3. (For IRV2/AV2[other hybrid], it's easier to get this problem. It's also easier to get the problem if there are clones involved, but real-world clones beyond 3 candidates are unlikely.)

dlw:Thank you again. The MSM+Blogosphere shd help identify clones in real world.

JQ: Since I'm now not opposed to IRV3/AV3, I consider it one of the 3 reforms (along with [JQ's creative multi-stage single-winner election rule] SODA and IRV) that would be most acceptable to incumbents, because it avoids the weak Condorcet winner problem [IOW, it doesn't trim the incumbency advantage as much as some other election rules.]. Still, it is basically just as bad as IRV for nonmonotonicity and spoilers; all the spoiler scenarios I consider realistic are essentially 3-candidate anyway. As such, I see no reason to believe that it would not lead to lesser-evil voting and 2-party domination, as IRV does. Since I see 2-party domination (as opposed to just having 2 strongest parties, a logical necessity) as a source of the most-serious problems with Plurality, I still feel that SODA is a much better option than IRV3/AV3.

dlw: And our difference is that I see the near exclusive use of Plurality voting rules as a key source of my country's current evils, since it's not hard to imagine a 2 party dominated system that is a lot better. All it takes is for there to be better checks and balances between the two major parties, along with increased scope for outsiders/dissenters to express themselves via minor parties and Local Third Parties (LTPs). The natural result of such a system would be two different than the current major parties who together would be a melding pot for the US's democracy.
dlw
ps, I'm going to repost [cleaned up version] this on my blog.
dlw

Could the Republican Civil War Make the Party Implode?

2012-01-09T09:13:00.000-06:00

It seems there's a civil war going on in the Republican party.A long time friend of Gingrich just gave 5 million dollars to render unto Romney in S Carolina, as Romney's Super PACs rendered unto Gingrich in Iowa.That much negative campaigning's going to really hurt.I think the party could fall apart.By contrast, I'm guessing that so long as Obama and Clinton get alongthey'll hold their party together.Though, there might be an exodus of progressives who won't be afraid to leave with the current GOP in tatters.But smart politicians will know that they can stem the out-flowby sweetening the pot with a new left-ward shiftthat'll retain key progressives.
We could get what Obama wanted.He pragmatically moved to the center economicallyto get his party a "permanent majority" so that they could then tilt back to the left, under another Democratic Party Machine.
But ironically it'd be the Tea-Party-esque activist spirit(and the freedom of $peech) who gets the job doneby turning on the Republican Party establishment.
This means it'll take a coalition of folks outside the Democratic party to push for American forms of Proportional Representation (PR). For why would the dominant party remove its ability to win disproportionate representation with First-Past-the-Post? It's going to take strange bedfellows to make the real changes we need.We're going to need funds from economic conservativeswho want to spite the rising Democratic party machine.So we gotta convince them that PR is the only right way to guarantee more centrism in our politics.This also means taking a less-is-more anti-perfectionistic approach to PR, for there's no way in hell they're going to support the adoption of an EU-style PR in the US.
Let's hope that enough people see how crucial is electoral diversification for the long-term health of our democracy to pragmatically support a PR that does not render unto each party as the party deserves.dlwPS,Methinks if the freedom of $peech to soil is demonstratedin both Iowa and South Carolina versus the different sides of this Civil War,there might be more broad support for Campaign Finance Reformor common sense regulations of $peech.PPS,Andrew Sullivan quotes a prediction of more or less gradual change within the GOP, depending on whether Romney gets the nomination and loses or Santorum gets the nomination and loses. If Santorum gets the nomination and loses by a landslide to Obama then the writing will be on the wall... I suppose there's precedent to presume that a major party isn't going to fall apart over raucous primaries, but I think there's much more pent-up energy and longing for serious change in the USA today. Single-party domination that leads to a dramatic change in which two major parties are in power is the most likely change. dlw

Where, oh Where, Has the Center Gone?

2012-01-08T19:03:00.002-06:00

D.Eris at Poli-Tea has posted a follow up post on responses to a NYTIMES letter to the editor calling for a centrist third party. He summarizes the nine reader response letters. I'm summarizing his summaries below (w. comments).

1) Historical determinism: Third parties have failed, and therefore will fail. It is better to work within the two-party system. (change. the. election rules.)
2) We need a diversified multi-party system with campaign finance reform. (pragmatism, not perfectionism)
3) Third parties need to focus on making concrete "less-is-more" victories rather than focusing on the presidency. (not enuf focus on election rules.)
4) The establishment would corrupt third party representatives, but not Democrats and Republicans trying to reform their respective parties and institute campaign finance reform.
5) The problem isn't lack of centrists, it's obstructionism on the part of Republicans. We need a progressive third party to change the system. (How about trying to force a schism in the Republican party and then hoping for a Progressive-Green-Democratic and a Libertarian-Republican party to replace our two major parties?)
6) Our current system makes Third Party presidential candidates not electable, independents must moderate the major parties through their primaries. (Independents need more options.)
7) We need to give voice to our marginalized third parties so voters get real choices. (We also need our marginalized third parties to play smarter politics.)
8) The Democratic Party is already "the" centrist party. Republican obstructionism is the problem. History implies that third parties will not win and act as spoilers. (History implies that if you change the election rules then we shall change all three of the above.)
9) The Democrats are already "the" centrist party. We need multiple viable alternatives to the major parties. For that to happen we need serious electoral reform: campaign finance, voting systems, etc. (We also need to prioritize and to set realistic short-run goals for our system.)

I also wrote my own letter today.

The problem is that currently the two major parties are centered around the de facto center, instead of the "real" center and they are unable to cooperate because of how much both of them want to game our first-past-the-post system to dominate the other.

With better election rules, the de facto center would be much closer to the "real" center and with FairVote's American forms of Proportional Representation, we could handicap the rivalry between the two major parties so they are given more incentives to cooperate to maintain their privileged major party status against potential contenders.

Thus, true centrists should want better election rules that would lead to the development of two new major parties who must re-position themselves regularly around the changing, real center to keep their privileged, duopolistic positions.

If I could write it again, I would add that through American forms of Proportional Representation, we could give third parties a more constructive role in our two-party dominated system. Elevated voice and some representation for third parties would tie us to the mast to redress our many terrible, historical failures in the protection of ethnic, economic and ideological minority rights.

dlw

Dale Sheldon Hess of The Least of All Evils will resume blogging...

2012-01-06T17:20:00.000-06:00

This, along with his recent home ownership, marriage and involvement with the occupy movement,is good news.
I've posted a comment, updating him on me.

I have been a part of the Election Methods listserve. I've been arguing that we need to value the X*P of election rules and that in the short run, |Xirv-Xoth| << Pirv-Poth, especially if we hybridize irv with approval voting, couple it with an even stronger push for American forms of Proportional Representation, learn the lessons from Burlington and prevent ourselves from getting divided and conquered like what happened there.

I've also been arguing that we don't need to move away from a 2-party dominated polity so long as we move away from our tendency to be 1-party dominated. This is part and parcel of my defense of IRV, since the diffs in election rules are less important when there are fewer serious candidates and arguably IRV does tend to keep a system 2-party dominated and to give the two biggest parties strong incentives to realign around the moving center. Cases like Burlington happen when there is a transition as to which 2 parties are dominant and one of the bigger parties has not aligned itself near the true political center. The ability of a non Condorcet-Winner party to win under IRV is the stick that coerces the major parties to realign around the true center...

It's been interesting...

WRT CFR,
1. It's damn hard to get at the nat'l level. #OWS's ethos tends to be on more local/state issues.
2. It's damn hard to enforce well when the foxes are guarding the henhouse.
3. I think the answer likely to emerge from #OWS movement are networks of LTPs that specialize in "more local" and vote strategically in "less local" elections so as to check the influence of $peech. This need not end the existence of minor parties, but given our current dysfunctional election system, they're more fit and better continue the #0WS emph on decentralization

And, of course, I hope they'll rally around American forms of PR that increase the number of competitive elections (a natural, easier to enforce way to check $peech), remove the perverse incentives due to the tendency of our system to tilt to effective single-party rule, and that give economic/ethnic/ideological minorities better chances to be swing voters.

dlw

The Emerging Majority?

2012-01-05T15:04:00.003-06:00

I was reading The New Jim Crow, a book on structural racism in the Prison-Industrial Complex (not unlike the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex), when I came across Kevin Phillips' "The Emerging Republican Majority"that argued that Republicans could replicate Richard Nixon's success of turning poor white's resentment over improvement in African-American conditionsinto election successes.This might be what led the recent backslidingof the US's democracy!
I'd argue that such a tragically successful racist strategy is a consequence from our country's nearly exclusive use of First-Past-the-Post elections.Why? If you're an economically-disadvantaged minority group, it doesn't give you any exit-threat from the center-left major party. Since to vote for a third party is to throw away your vote, and historically this group could hardly afford to throw away their votes, you gotta vote center-left, which leads them to take your votes for granted, and which reduces your motivation to vote, which even further reduces your sway... It's a vicious cycle!
But the consequences are even worse when the overall system tilts too easily to give one party a permanent majority. This raises the stakes and gives the center-right partystrong incentives to strategically push for racially biased policies,like the Jim Crow laws of the South, that reduce the number of disadvantaged minority voters, especially through increasing their chances of becoming felons who cannot vote.
Does that make all Republicans "racist". No.It's the system and its perverse incentives. If we change our election rules so no party can dominate any state's politicsand third parties are given a constructive role to playin the defense of economic/ethnic/ideological minority rightsthen these perverse incentives will be removed andthe Soul of our Democracy will begin to heal.But until we make electoral reform a key part of progressive-centrist-civil rights movements,the perverse incentives will remain and it'll be hard to talk honestly about the reality of racism and its effects on usdue to how polarized our politically environment will remain orhow heavily the single party in power will dominate the discourse.This is true, regardless of the skin color of who occupies the oval office! dlw

The Soul of Democracy is at Stake!

2012-01-04T17:33:00.000-06:00

One bitter fruit of our broken electoral systemis how it gives the party who's cornered an incentive to go very negative.We see this with Mitt Romney's saying the Soul of America is at Stake!This is a blatant twisting of God-speak to manipulate our fears, what the Chancellor of Germany would do.I'm reminded of how I was asked a question about my views on presidential politicsin conservative Idaho four years ago. I told them I could live with either and that the real change I looked for was going to come from the bottom-up, not the top-down. No doubt, we'll get lots of claimsfrom both sides that we gotta get their guy in the White House.
Yet, we may just not get it...what really matters is the need to subvert this cut-throat competitive struggleto be the top-party. Do we tend our Democracy's Soulor do we go the way of the DINOs?Democracy In Name Onlydlw

WWGWW?

2012-01-03T15:09:00.002-06:00

What Would George Washington Want?
1. Keep constituent-legislator relationships. 2. Keep any party from getting too much power.3. Make the two major parties hug the moving center.
This is the intent of the Tri-Election Triageor FairVote's American Forms of Proportional Representationdlw

Seven Top 2011 Insights from FairVote blog

2011-12-30T20:35:00.000-06:00

here.I can't wait for 2012.Best of years, worst of years...dlw

The Two Party State and Proportional Representation

2011-12-18T22:46:00.000-06:00

D.Eris harks the good news thatapparently both the Republican and Democratic partieswant to use Proportional Representationfor their presidential primaries. As he puts it,"The fact that the duopoly parties have begun using this method allows for args such as: if proportional representation is good enough to elect a presidential nominee, it is good enough to elect a congressional/state-legislative delegation."dlw

FairVote: What 2011 Says about 2012!

2011-12-16T15:58:00.002-06:00

From The FairVote Reformer of 12/16/2011

As we come to the end of 2011, it's a time to reflect on what we've learned about democracy this year -- and what it means for the 2012 elections and beyond.
What we've learned is that Americans are upset with their government.
Congressional approval ratings are at an all-time low. -- nine in ten Americans disapprove.
When candidates are on the ballot, eligible voters abstain in record numbers -- voter turnout in Louisiana dropped in half from 2008 in its race for governor, and dropped even more in West Virginia's gubernatorial race.
Rather than create new electoral opportunities, redistricting shuts down competition in even more districts -- fully 72% of seats were uncontested in Virginia's "elections" for the House of Delegates.
Americans hunger for more choices, but have fewer meaningful ones on Election Day than ever. They worry about special interest money pouring into politics, but it only keeps rising. They care about the right to vote, but face new restrictions in many states that are likely to dampen participation.
That's the downside. The positive news is that change is coming. Consider these highlights:
Six cities had ranked choice voting ("IRV") elections this November, with voters being able to rank candidates in order of choice without fear of "spoiling" elections. Every election went well. As one example, the mayoral election in Portland (ME) drew 50% more voters than expected. In a 15-candidate race where no candidate earned more than 30% of first choices, we saw a consensus winner, civil campaigning and applause for the new ideas and participation generated by the election.
Two more states approved the National Popular Vote plan for president: our biggest (California) and one of our smallest (Vermont). States in the NPV compact now have half the electoral votes necessary to activate the agreement and guarantee that the winner of the most votes in all 50 states and D.C. becomes our next president, with every vote equal.
Proportional voting had a big year internationally, including being adopted by most Arab nations moving toward democracy. In the USA, FairVote introduced the idea with a series of high-profile commentaries and sample plans as an alternative to the latest round of gerrymandered districts. American forms of proportional voting are being used in American cities -- and directly address the polarizing realities of winner-take-all politics.
Legislation to establish a constitutional right to vote has 48 sponsors. FairVote leads the nonprofit community in backing this legislation and in promoting big ideas on voting in its spirit like a voter registration system that establishes full and accurate voter rolls, a "public option" for voting equipment and performance standards that guarantee all Americans can trust their electoral process.

dlw

Fighting the Duopoly: Vermont Progressive Party, an LTP!

2011-12-14T09:01:00.000-06:00

Liberal Arts Dude at the ThirdPartyIndependent

interviews Vermont Progressive Party director Morgan Daybell.
Here's the money quote:

Q: What would you say are the key factors to the VPP's approach to electoral politics that has established it as a force in Vermont state politics and which sets it apart from other efforts by third parties who have not been as successful?

The major difference between our approach and those of many other third parties is that we have stayed focused on local/state races. In those elections corporate money has a smaller influence, and over many one-on-one conversations with voters, you can begin to overcome the brand-awareness the Democrats and Republicans enjoy. You can't do that at the Federal level without huge amounts of money.

Here's hoping that others will replicate the VPP's success. Perhaps even going more local...dlw

Redistribution of Power and Third Party Threat

2011-12-13T15:27:00.001-06:00

D.Eris at PoliTea has a great post.

"If you hear someone talking about the need for a third party or independent candidate for office, in most cases it is likely a safe bet that they are talking about the presidency. Presidential fetishism and the cult of the executive in the public at large and the media in particular are two major hurdles to effective independent activism and advocacy.... As noted here last week, only "a few dozen successful third party or Independent candidates to the House and just a handful to the Senate" would have far-reaching consequences for the redistribution of political power away from the most dangerous factions in the United States. The idea may be gaining traction. From an opinion piece in the Wichita Eagle today:

If there’s a third-party answer to our dilemma, it lies closer to the people, in contests for the Senate and House. Imagine a third-party congressional effort founded on the principles of compromise whose candidates don’t take pledges about never raising taxes or promise not to touch entitlements but who will relentlessly work at conciliation.

Breaking the traditional parties’ headlock would not require a mass takeover, which is by any accounting quite impossible ... In fact, three or four third-party wins in the Senate and only a couple dozen in the House, even if in truly swing districts, would deny either party a certain majority and thus command respect and attention from the ideological hard-liners on both sides, and from the president.
Their presence would provide a rallying point and haven for the relatively few remaining moderates of both parties. Their votes, needed by both sides, could be leveraged against hard-line ideology and form the basis for addressing the nation’s deepest problems.

dlwps, he commented agreement with me...

A New Political System for US!

2011-12-08T08:37:00.001-06:00

Are we in the middle of a major political transition? I believe so...

I think the Romney-Gingrich, Establishment-Populist schism that is being supported by the Democratic party could end the GOP as we know it, so the question is what comes next? Effective single-party rule? Without electoral reform, that is the likely outcome. Although, there could be a split in the Democratic party as well, leading to two new major parties. In the past, I've predicted there'd be a Green Democratic party and a Libertarian Republican party but not an end to the two-party system in the US. However, this could be a matter of wishful thinking...

According to Dale Sheldon Hess' study of major transitions in US politics there needs to be a,

major issue which cuts across the constituencies of both existing major parties. Only once did it completely collapse a major party, while the other three times it caused a major swap of supporters.

He sees from a recent Pew study that there is not such a theme. And so I'm wondering whether we might end up with effective single-party rule in the US in the near future...

The optimist in me wants American forms of Proportional Representation plus IRV to be the major realigning issue, but it all depends on marketing and the empire is striking back against IRV/Election reform... I'm guessing they think we can be made to play defense, but sometimes the best defense is a good offense. As such, perhaps the best way to improve IRV, apart from my idea, is to complement it with the use of American forms of PR, or 3-5 seat (quasi)proportional elections. There's nothing wrong with IRV, it's just not enough on its own to make a democracy thrive! With more competitive, more local elections, it'll encourage folks to get interested in the issues they have the most potential say-so on. It'd handicap the rivalry between the major parties, open them up to being challenged by minor parties and encourage the proliferation of LTPs, Local Third Parties that specialize in contesting "more local" elections so they can take advantage of how it's easier to decentralize decision-making and resist the corruption of $peech in a smaller organization with less hierarchy slash over-head....

But the realist in me keeps asking Who'd Benefit? or more importantly who'd benefit enough to supply the start up capital for pushing for such. And the answer is it is not clear. Too many would benefit and so it's hard to find a specific group willing to change their strategies. So many like my peace-nik friend, just can't get excited about election reform. My arguments for how it would deter war are too abstract. He and others are driven by their opposition to specific wars. The same is true for many other activists. They're too invested in their issues and election reform seems too abstract and remote for them to put time/energy into it. Or it just isn't as sexy as campaign finance reform that seems to go more directly to the root of the problem, even if it fails to change things much for the better due to problems with enforcement, since you can't trust the foxes to guard the hen-house. (Ie, you need to first get a 3rd party presence or balance between the two major parties to get enforcement of CFR that subverts the ability of one party to dominate a state politics.)

This is going to be my last blog-post for this year. I got other writing projects to work on. But I look forward to this coming year, even though it's likely to be ugly year for our politics and a hard year for many people in the US and the world...
dlw

Stop the Subversion of Rank Choice Voting

2011-12-07T13:32:00.001-06:00

I just got an anonymous comment to my last post that is of the quality of writing and thinking that I expect from Rob Richie of FairVote.

Shane Shifflett's article is a gross distortion. His fundamental premise is false. It is not incorrect to only mark a first choice. There are good reasons why a voter who understands ranked choice voting (RCV) would do so.

Apparently Shane Shifflett and the New York Times do not understand the basics about RCV. As a news article, this could have only been fit for a supermarket tabloid.

Shifflett should have at least consulted and quoted RCV supporters to provide some balance. David Latterman is a professed RCV opponent and political consultant who likes making money by helping to "reconfigure" (his word) candidates after a primary in preparation for a runoff.

Shifflett also misleads about the purpose of the voter education campaign which was to change the behavior of the very small number of voters who marked more than one candidate for a choice and the voters who marked the same candidate for more than one choice.

Also, no ballots were discarded. Shifflett is using inflamatory language to describe voters who did not fully participate in deciding the winner. If the mayor contest had used delayed runoffs, the number of voters who would not have fully participated would have increased by at least 40%.

dlw

IRV matters. IMO, it deserves it's position in the US as the main alternative to First-Past-the-Post. Those who belittle it are either being disingenuous or naive. For electoral reform in the USA is first-and-fore-most a marketing problem, not an analytic problem. Analytic folks like myself play a supporting role in the drama of democracy, we should not try to pronounce what is the summum bonum or greatest good for election rules, although we can make suggestions of ways to solve problems.

dlw
ps, I'm debating the Dividist, MW at his blog about IRV.

Sad Anti-IRV propaganda!

2011-12-02T16:06:00.001-06:00

By SHANE SHIFFLETT (commentary interspersed by dlw)
Published: December 2, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/02/us/analysis-finds-incorrect-use-of-ranked-choice-voting.html

The results are in: San Francisco voters have trouble with ranked-choice elections.

dlw: The US main stream media, vanguard of the common man, has trouble with IRV.

Despite a $300,000 educational campaign leading up to last month’s elections, including a new smiley-face mascot, publicity events, and advertising on buses and in newspapers, only one-third of voters on Nov. 8 filled out all three choices in all three races, according to an analysis released this week by the University of San Francisco.

dlw: And only 9% ranked one candidate so that means more than half of the voters ranked two candidates, more than they would have been able to do with a FPTP....

Under the city’s system, voters were asked to rank their top three choices for mayor, sheriff and district attorney.

Perhaps the analysis’ most troubling finding is that 9 percent of voters, mostly in Chinatown and southeastern neighborhoods like the Bayview, marked only one choice for each office, either because they considered only one candidate suitable or because they did not know how to fill out their ballot correctly.

“Some people just prefer to rank one,” said Corey Cook, a political science professor at the university who wrote the report with David Latterman. “But the geographic component suggests it’s more systematic.”

dlw: people who don't speak/read english or have been failed by a bad public education system in high-poverty areas are less likely to learn how to use IRV? Clearly, the advocates of IRV hate democracy.

Although Edwin M. Lee did not receive a majority of first-place votes, he became the city’s first elected Chinese-American mayor based on the ranked-choice system, which was first used in San Francisco in 2004.

wow, a minority gets elected. IRV is terrible.

The findings indicate one of two things, Mr. Latterman said: Either campaigns tried to manipulate the results by focusing on specific groups of people or there is not a clear understanding of how to use the system.

just 2 things (talk about a lack of rigor or imagination)? 1. all campaigns target voters who are more likely to vote for them. With IRV, this tends to be a broader set of voters and disadvantaged minorities are more likely to be among them. 2. Or they don't want to rank more than one or two candidates?

A recent Bay Citizen analysis revealed that 16 percent of ballots in the mayoral race — those of more than 31,500 people — were filled out correctly but were discarded when all of their chosen candidates were eliminated from the race. San Francisco does not allow voters to rank all the candidates on the ballot.

dlw: Hmm, maybe there were lots and lots of candidates for a single-winner election? When you force people to rank all of them the number of permutations rises very fast, even more so when you permit ties. When people get more used to IRV and more of them start ranking 3 candidates(and fewer candidates run for offices), this number will go down.

In June, a voting task force created by the Board of Supervisors recommended that the Department of Elections consider allowing voters to rank all the candidates to avoid this issue.

The panel urged the department to work with city supervisors to increase voter education.

dlw: if most people didn't want to rank 3 candidates, why do we need to let them rank umpteen candidates?

Hence the mascot. “We made the conscious decision to have an image of a correctly marked ballot and to have a smiley face to draw people’s attention,” said John Arntz, the director of the Department of Elections.

When asked whether ranked-choice voting has worked well for San Francisco, Mr. Arntz said, “I guess it depends if your candidate wins or not.”

dlwHow did the election fare in terms of turnout and other indicators relative to a CA election that does not use IRV or uses FPTP?

This is crap!

dlw

The Murdoch Primary???

2011-12-01T16:40:00.001-06:00

TPM points out that there's a Rupert Murdoch primary in the GOP.It seems Mitt Romney has lost it.And now the DNC is piling on in hopes that the nominee is someone less electable in the general election.
But the deeper point here is that First-Past-the-Postenables heavy-weights to KO contendersby hurting them enough so that their supporters abandon them in favor of voting for a likely winner.
This is why I'm glad the Democratic party uses Proportional Representation for its presidential primaries. Without it, we'd never have gotten a Presidential Obama, or what I view as a criticalcirculation in their political elites.dlw

Free and Fair Elections and Their Discontents

2011-11-21T17:42:00.001-06:00

D. Eris at Poli-Tea makes the simple point that those who benefit from the status quo are against anything that makes our elections work, which in San Francisco includes the use of IRV.The vote-counting procedure of IRV is criticized as too complicated.

I think it'd be easier if a two stage approach were used.

Like before, let folks rank up to three candidates.

Then, in the first stage, count up the number of times each candidate gets ranked by voter(if voters ranked the same candidate more than once, it would only count once). Publish these results on election night. Make the three candidates who get ranked most often be the finalists.

Then, for the second stage, use an instant runoff vote. First, tally the number of times the three finalists are the favorite of voters. If one is preferred by a majority of voters then (s)he is the winner. Otherwise, eliminate the candidate who is preferred by the fewest voters and transfer her/his votes as much as possible to the other two candidates. Then, after tallying the votes for the two finalists, the one with the most votes wins.

dlw

Paradoxes in Proportionality

2011-11-21T16:59:00.001-06:00

I just sent this to the Electoral Methods list serve.

This is based on what I've culled from empirical findings reported in "Choosing an Electoral System".

1. While all forms of PR fall short of proportionality in representation, the best predictor of proportionality is the number of contested seats. Yet, PR with fewer seats induces more turnout than PR with a greater numbers of seats. So the election rules that give us more proportionality tend to make it so there are fewer competitive seats and less uncertainty about election outcomes and consequently lower voter participation.

2. Proportionality in representation does not entail proportionality in power and the latter is desired more than the former. As such, it seems that minority dissenters will need to use extra-political methods (not unlike #OWS) to move the center, regardless of whether PR or another system is used.

3. If both PR and single-seat elections are in use and the latter favors bigger parties then does PR need to be perfectly proportional or could it be biased somewhat in favor of smaller parties? Might not the opposing biases tend to cancel each other out?

These seem to imply that we need not strive for proportionality in representation as the gold standard for electoral reform. If the two major parties, with a somewhat disproportionate amount of representation, are more dynamic then they'd tend to represent well the majority of the population and heed minorities that frame their issues respectfully.

dlw

PR Myths Busted

2011-11-18T19:36:00.001-06:00

Lewis Baston and The Electoral Reform Society has a rebuttal to misleading args against PR.PR mythsThe facts and the fiction on Proportional RepresentationI will write out the myth, ~~cross out the wrong parts~~ (and add in parenthesis the right parts).Then, below in normal sized font, I will add my commentary or synopsis...
Myth 1:~~Small~~ (Major) parties (still) rule the roost under PRBut they must heed non-extremist minor parties that appeal to the center...
Myth 2:FPTP is tried and ~~tested~~(found highly flawed)Apparently, Two-seat elections were the norm before 1885and single-member dates from 1950 during the Cold War.
Myth 3:PR is incomprehensibleMore so, if the incredibly large number of PR rules is limited.
Myth 4:PR(and FPTP) ~~doesn’t~~ (may not) ~~let you~~ kick out an unpopular governmentWe need the right mix of single and multi-member elections to circulate the elites.Myth 5:FPTP is ~~best~~ (not enuf) for representing a constituencyDemocracy cannot live on single winner elections alone...
Myth 6:PR (Non-competitive elections)does nothing for turnoutMore potential swing voters who might make a difference increases turnout.Myth 7:PR creates ~~weak~~ coalitionsNon(or weak)majority governments from FPTP elections are most unstable.
Myth 8:PR(Only FPTP may) lets in (rule an) extremist part~~ies~~yTransparency and Responsive government(from the use of PR) subvert extremism.Proportionality in Representation is not proportionality in influence.The election of an extremist or two is not a bad motivator for better governance.
Myth 9:The STV form of PR ~~is bad for~~ (reduces) party ~~cohesion~~(hierarchy)and therefore (increases) ~~government~~ (Democracy).One PR election rule does not fit all elections.There must always be a rebalancing between intra-party discipline and democracy.
Myth 10:PR (Bad Ballot Design) caused the problems in the 2007 Scottish electionsNot unlike the hanging chads in the 2000 presidential elections in the US.dlw

What's Occupying My Mind

2011-11-17T09:05:00.001-06:00

I've been busy with work and debate on the Electoral Methods list-serve.I'm trying to persuade them thatPR in"more local" elections and IRV in "less local" electionsand the Politics of Gandhi/MLKjrwould go a long ways to make the US's democracy workso we don't need to push for an end to two-party domination or an EU-style democracyor to get a consensus on which single-seat election rule is best. I've had some success, but perfectionism is strong, while oft well meaning...
Another example of perfectionism is by Patrick Conway of the #OWS. His proposed US Constitutional Amendment:

Every election in the land shall be purely publicly funded. No private funds can be spent on any electoral campaign, of any kind, in any way. All candidates and individuals proposing ballot initiatives will be given equal access to the same publicly-owned communication and travel resources, such that the only differences presented to the voting public between the candidates or ballot initiatives will be their ideas.

I replied,

1. US Constitutional amendments are really hard to make. The consensus recommendation of #OWS was for state and local based reforms.

2. We need to incorporate some use of PR into our electoral system first so that third parties can administer Campaign Finance Regulations, otherwise we'd be asking the foxes to guard the hen-house.

3. Why not consider a combination of transparency, a progressive tax on $peech and partial public subsidies, along with common sense regulations? Why do we need to end all $peech in our politics to make our current defunct system work a lot better?

I also decided that in light of the crackdowns on the #OWS et al. movements,

to email the writers of People before Parties at
politicsandelectoralreform at gmail dot com.

a suggestion to strike back against City Hall.

How do we beat city hall?
By pushing for municipal electoral reforms that would force a good number of them out of office and make more of their elections competitive.

Let's say there's a city with fifty-one city council members [NYC], which typically get gerrymandered so there are relatively few competitive elections.
But what if, instead there were 16 super-districts, drawn based on census findings with ten north-south or east-west segments, and each district had three seats and then there were three at-large candidates, possibly with one reserved to be held by a female and another by a non-white person and another by someone without a college education. Let the three seat election be a form of PR, I'd prefer 3 seat Largest Remainder Hare, because it is simple(one vote per voter and one candidate per party) and it helps to elect third party candidates. This would then likely result in a competitive seat per super-district or 16 competitive seats. And the three at-large seats would be more likely to be competitive, especially if they used an alternative to FPTP.

And then, you could make the mayoral election a two-stage election with the second stage, consisting of the top three candidates from the first stage, held publicly by the newly elected city council.

This is what I think would be a good way to make our "most local" elections more meaningful so that city hall cannot act with impunity and movements like #OWS that move the center can help to make all sorts of reforms happen.

We'll see...dlw

Krugman vs Summers: The Bottom-Line is It's About Expectations!

2011-11-16T09:51:00.001-06:00

Andrew Sullivan points us to a debate between Paul Krugman and Larry Summers.They agreed on most things,what they didn't agree on are expectations of whether the US will resolve its political problems.

"Krugman, by contrast, sees political gridlock as far as the eye can see, and says that it doesn’t matter how innovative or philanthropic or demographically attractive the U.S. is — if you don’t fix the magneto[economic engine], the car[economy] won’t start, and America’s magneto ain’t gonna get fixed any time soon."

It's the Election Rules!

You wanna end gridlock,

you gotta end

how we tilt

to single party rule.

dlw

Constitutional Challenge to First-Past-the-Post in Canada

2011-11-15T18:35:00.001-06:00

Check it out!

"“The essential question that we’re asking of the courts is that the first-past-the-post system does not respect the charter rights of effective representation, and of meaningful participation in the electoral process,” Gibb said.
A favourable decision from the court would end first-past-the-post in Quebec and would affect its use across Canada. The legal challenge began in Quebec in 2004, where it was unsuccessful at the province’s superior court and its appeal court.Gibb said he expects the Supreme Court will decide whether to hear the case within the next six months."

Wow!I'd argue only using FPTP prevents effective representation...but this is serious stuff that would also hopefully affect things in the US.dlw

Ides of Irony: Could Democrats Help Gingrich Get the Nomination?

2011-11-15T14:22:00.001-06:00

In George Clooney's Ides of March,Republicans vote strategically in the Ohio Democrat "open" primary.They vote for the Democratic party candidate they think they can beat later.But what if Democrats turnout (when they can)in Republican primariesto help nominate Newt Gingrich?My curiosity was piqued in part byhow over at TPM, a reader frames the Republican presidential primaries starkly.

if the Republican power brokers can prevent a candidate who can’t beat Obama [Newt/Cain/Perry] from getting nominated, then Romney will be nominated.

Now, I forecasted before that Romney would get the nominationand pick someone like Mike Huckabee as his Veep candidate.I still think the odds are in Romney's favor, and honestly I want himto get the nomination because unlike others he's competentand I like closer prez elections, cuz it gives outsiders like me a better chance to bring up our key issues!But I also agree Gingrich wouldn't stand a chance against Obamaand so I wouldn't put it past Democrats to game the system.
So, since...We need political cultural change in the USA,away from the flawed notion that changing who specifically is in power is enough.We need a greater awareness of our options for "the rules of the election".And maybe some gaming of the currentflawed rules will make this happen!dlw

Occupy the Occupation Party?

2011-11-14T21:11:00.001-06:00

Via D.Eris at Third Party Independent,I learned about The Occupation Party.They are a nascent third partythat is trying to Occupy our Political System.
They have a platform.It's a work in progress, but it has a section:Enact Campaign Finance and Electoral Reform.It's quite ambitious.It calls for the abolition of corporate personhood.It fully embraces the analysis and polyglot of proposals made in People Before Parties: Recommendations for Electoral Reform.
Now, I like to harp on how 3rd parties in the USAhave historically been successful at making issues important in elections.However, there are limits to this ability.One cannot raise up too many issuesand they have to be "mainstream" enough to get a major party to take them on.And so, I emailed them.I wrote,

What if there were a specific reform that would abet change on all of the fronts that you say you want progress on?

What if it abetted a proliferation of LTPs, Local Third Parties that specialize in contesting "more local" elections and who vote strategically toegether in "less local" elections?

What if the occupation party sought more to become a network of LTPs?

These are part of the vision that I have been blogging about at A New Kind of Party for more than 3 years.

I think a crucial reform would be the use of 3-seat Largest Remainder Hare in our state representative elections.I[t] would: 1. circumvent gerrymandering, 2. increase the number of competitive elections, which is the natural check on $peech and bound to enable better regulations of $peech and corporate personhood(not likely to be repealed in the near future). 3.it would help to elect third parties, so as to give people realistic alternatives to the big two and to make them give minorities more rights. 4. Because of its "more local" nature, it would support the proliferation of LTPs who could take advantage of the diseconomies of scale in forming community to maintain the ethos of #OWS-like decentralized decision-making.

O.W., things are bad enuf for existing third parties. It'd be hard to become a contender among them from scratch...

We'll see...dlw

People before Parties: Electoral Reforms Needed!

2011-11-09T16:51:00.004-06:00

Via D.Eris, the Politics and Electoral Reform group of #OWS has put together a consensus set of recommendations.

Free and fair elections inspire good citizenship and public service. They engage the intelligence, good will, and real interests of the people. Free and fair elections ensure that citizens can control their own political destiny, and make genuine contributions to society through sound self-government. Free and fair elections can remedy myriad ills and counteract the abuses of a government that has come to prey upon the resources and spirit of citizens.

The centralization of political power in the hands of two narrow political factions at all levels of government is neither democratic nor republican. Lawmakers representing these factions have rigged our electoral system to ensure their continued monopoly on public office in the United States. No party system whatsoever is mandated by the U.S. Constitution. Government of the people, by the people and for the people has been transformed into government of the people, by the parties, for entrenched interests.

Whatever our political differences may be, surely on this we can agree: our government does not represent the interests or will of the people. It is time to institute free and fair elections in the United States. ...

In the federal system, the states are the laboratories of democracy. We urge the people of states, localities, and General Assemblies nationwide to begin a series of bold new experiments in democratic self-government, to open our political system to the millions of people who go unrepresented by the entrenched factions.

Wow! They go on to describe what sorts of experiments are needed.The use of American Proportional Representation via the statesis not given the attention it deserves, as the way to1. make "more local" elections meaningful,2. prevent gerrymandering, 3. check the influence of $peech,4. force both major parties to change significantly.However, this is a consensus statement and must thereby be vague on specifics.But it certainly sounds very Constitutional!dlw

Obama's Answer to US's Political Woes: Get Democrats in Power!

2011-11-09T08:37:00.001-06:00

Via the Think 3 Institute,In Obama's fundraising letters is revealed his vision for Change....

"To get folks believing in what America can be, we need to show them a real vision ... and we need to prove that Democrats can achieve it [ellipsis in original].

[Obama] insists that "to build on our successes and prevent destructive steps backward, we need strong Democratic representation at all levels of government."

The answer to our many woes and growing apathy is:

a permanent majority for

the Democratic Party.

This is so very wrong.If power tends to corrupt then what we really need are:Election Reforms that lead to:-2 reincarnated major parties, neither dominating the other,-Multiple minor parties, trying to make it into the big leagues-A whole host of LTPs (Local Third Parties)who check the influence of $peech on both Major parties.
Now, I am not going to decry Obama for being the leader of his party.But do not buy his message of Change,it is severely lacking in visionand will have a major credibility problem,which will make this election year go tragicif alternative visions do not emerge.dlw

What should be done about Our Broken Two-Party System?

2011-11-07T17:56:00.001-06:00

is Proffered by Jon Walker at FireDogLake. "15 %–think our two-party system works fairly well. Fifty-two % say it has real problems but can work with some improvement, and 31 % think it is seriously broken and that we need a third party."The causes:(His solutions)Money(public financing),Lack of Accountability(independent redistricting)and its a Zero-Sum game.(Solution: Election Reform)"The only way to deal with safe seats and zero-sum politics is to allow for victories by more than the two major political parties. Multi-member districts with proportional representational would deal with both issues but can’t be used for Senate races. Instant runoff voting, or even quick runoff elections, would increase viable third-party and independent candidates by eliminating the fear of the spoiler effect. It should also help reduce the safe-seat problem by enabling challengers in areas that are too overwhelmingly conservative or liberal for the other major party to compete."
Jon then goes on to more or less say the odds of any of his proposed changes being adopted are very low. But I think this is because of his perfectionism wrt Proportional Representation.
For American forms of Proportional Representation would go a long ways to dealing with the first two problems. It's better that we get more PR now(or the next five years) than push for what might seem best(A Parliamentary form of PR)way down the road.dlw

Chicago Protests

2011-11-07T14:51:00.001-06:00

I took part today in a protest against Federal budget cutsthat hurt the elderly and disabled today in Downtown Chicago.I then enjoyed some good conversation at the Occupy Chicago site.At the protest, I got a flyer about thePath to Prosperity for US AllP2P4USAIt's a call for a constitutional amendmentthat would right all the wrongs,raise the valleys and lower the mountainsin our economic system.Here's one of their demands:"End corporate personhood, end ignoble privilege, and end the oligarchical control of all corporationsby democratizing all corporationsand ending ownership of corporations (to own a corporation is to own a collective slave)!This is the sort of extremismthat hopefully will encourage"the powers that be"that we need(something like)the Tri-Election Triage!dlw

Dialogues on Election Methods

2011-11-02T11:42:00.002-05:00

I recently joined the Election Methods Electorama.It's an electoral-geek list-serve.I've been defending the use of IRV and American forms of Proportional Representation.It's been vigorous and pretty civil debate.I've gotten some to start to come over to my viewpointin support of FairVote's leadership of Electoral Reform in the United States.dlw

Of What Use is a Movement???

2011-10-30T13:09:00.002-05:00

Liberal Arts Dude gives a blog-offeringthat reflects on the future fruits of the #Occupy movement.He argues against Kevin Drum's predictions of irrelevance.He essentially asks, "Of what use is a baby?"And predicts that there'll be critical political cultural changes emerging (tTt) from it.Hope lives.dlw

The Wall and the Bull Dozer!

2011-10-28T09:34:00.004-05:00

D. Eris at Third Party Independentasked me to clarify how PR would redress the problem with gerrymandering in the South.So I did.I later also commented on a post about electoral reform ideas batted around among #OWSers.I also told the story of the Wall and the Bull-Dozer. It's like you got a whole bunch of people trying to push down a concrete wall together, while behind them is a bull dozer. When you suggest that they at least both try to get the bull dozer and continue to push down the wall, you get the response, "Oh, they'd never let us use that! We got to focus on this wall to be effective." But the truth is that if they focused moreon getting the bull dozer, they'd have more success in pushing down their wall and others' walls. dlw

passionate #OWS-inspired blog-entries!

2011-10-27T15:11:00.004-05:00

Here and Here's a couple good ones by Liberal Arts Dude

from over at Third Party Independent.He's concerned about the Democratic party's inevitable attempts to coopt #OWS.
My thoughts:1. Be wary of co-option, but do not view the desire to co-opt you as a bad thing.Part of the politics of Gandhi is to change the hearts of or to make those with power accommodate you.
2. Vote strategically in "less local" elections based on simple rules.an example would be which side has significantly less negative tv ads in the last two-three weeks of the electionThis would free us from getting too caught upto focus on "more local" politics,and the changing of our political culture.
3. Yes, the American system is broken, largely due to the imbalance of wealth, power and representation.If we can all accept this, it'll be the right first step. The second step will likely need to be lots of "more local" reforms,including the use of more American forms of PR.dlw
ps, I doubt there'd be an #OWS if it weren't forthe Arab Springand I doubt there'd have been an Arab Spring if it weren't for President Barack Obama,and so Yes, We can!,but only if we all make it clear thatwe ain't using the royal We!dlw

Work Harder and Smarter!

2011-10-27T00:24:00.002-05:00

I went to a neighborhood activism meeting tonightthat informed us about the importance of the major governmental provisionsthat are on the chopping block and that called us to local civil disobedience actions.
It was targeted and professionally executed.
I did raise the issue of how our political system is riggedso that one party tends to dominate our state/nat'l politicsand that that was why it was so hard to get things done right now.We need more competitive elections,less polarized politics,and more voice for minorities,by letting them be the swing voters in more elections.I didn't pitch my electoral reform ideas, but I did coin the phrase thatwe need to work harder and smarterto turn around how our system's floundered for the past 40-odd years.
And hopefully, I planted some seeds that'll get to grow in the coming year(s)!dlw

Pluralism, Pluralism, Pluralism

2011-10-25T10:01:00.000-05:00

Political Pluralism was the political theory/philosophythat became predominant in the USA with McKinley's victory over William Jennings Bryan in 1896.According to Wikipedia, [it] is a guiding principle which permits the peaceful coexistence of different interests, convictions and lifestyles. ... Unlike totalitarianism or particularism, pluralism acknowledges the diversity of interests and considers it imperative that members of society accommodate their differences by engaging in good-faith negotiation. It is meant to mitigate factionalism by allowing for many factions to coexist and by preventing any one from dominating.In a pluralistic framework, the common good is not self-evident. It can only be found out in and after the process of negotiation. But there needs to be a minimal consensus regarding shared values, which tie the different groups to society, and shared rules for conflict resolution between the groups: The most important value is that of mutual respect and tolerance so that no groups can be forced to assimilate to anyone else's position. I believe political pluralism is worthy of revival,since it is very much a US_American political philosophy andour current politics does not well embody pluralismand it does not mandate taking all power away from the powers-that-be...However, we need to make a part of our minimal consensusthat most "more local" elections be American forms of Proportional Representation.For single-seat elections in "more local" elections are rarely competitive.They do not preserve pluralism,unlike with competitive single-seat elections in "less local" elections. For when elections are typically competitive,it allows different viewpoints to be expressed over time and place.As long as one party cannot dominate, due to the use of American forms of PR,then there should be scope for minority groups to influence othersif they are able to persuade/move the centerto see that their cause is just.dlw

2011-10-24T19:50:00.000-05:00

I'm now cross-posting to my blog on the thirdpartyindependents emagazine.

More of Political Pluralism, Less of Political Messianism!

dlw

More of Political Pluralism, Less of Political Messianism!

2011-10-24T09:44:00.000-05:00

My peace-nik friend I'm in dialogue with sent me an email with a quote from William Jennings Bryan's Cross of Gold speech
"The speech criticizes an early form of trickle-down economics, and appears to endorse an early form of socialism: 'There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.'"
This may be pertinent to your upcoming blog on OWS..PSR
The effects of Bryan's speech on the Presidential Election of 1896 were amazing...At the end of it, he stretched out his arms in a Christ-like manner for five seconds, after which everyone seemed to go mad at once and shrieked and rushed the stage. The result was "a realigning election that ended the old Third Party System and began the Fourth Party System."Ironically, the Political Messianism of Bryan empoweredhis opponent McKinley to move many to contribute heavily so he could outspend Bryan 5 to1, while pioneering many modern campaign techniques.He also four years later chose the Progressive Republican Teddy Roosevelt as his Veep,which enabled a form of progressivism to claim the presidency.And, also in reaction to political messianism, McKinley enshrined the political theory of Pluralism in US politics:

Classical pluralism is the view that politics and decision making are located mostly in the framework of government, but that many non-governmental groups use their resources to exert influence. The central question for classical pluralism is how power and influence is distributed in a political process. Groups of individuals try to maximize their interests. Lines of conflict are multiple and shifting as power is a continuous bargaining process between competing groups. There may be inequalities but they tend to be distributed and evened out by the various forms and distributions of resources throughout a population. Any change under this view will be slow and incremental, as groups have different interests and may act as "veto groups" to destroy legislation that they do not agree with.

We need to revive Pluralism in the USby more widely distributing power and influence in our system,so we remain open to "populist" movements,who practice the cultural politics of Gandhi/MLKjr,to move our hearts and the political center,and shake our stalwarts into making crucial changes.But to do this, we do not need a specific monetary policy, or to exorcise the influence of $peech from our system. What we need is electoral pluralism!! or something akin tothe Tri-Election Triage...We need to balance our use of single-seat winner-take-alland multi-seat winner-doesn't-take-all elections.We need to make it so neither major party can dominate, and their political duopoly is contested,and the ubiquitous influence of $peech is checkedby a plurality of LTPs (Local Third Parties).Who, like the Populists in 1896,might want to strategically support a major party in a presidential electionbut not in other elections.dlw

FairVote's Electoral College Series: III

2011-10-23T12:27:00.000-05:00

Key facts about the increasingly defunct Electoral politics in the USA, due in part to how polarized our politics are getting...

In peak season of the last general election, 98% of all campaign events and more than 98% of all campaign spending took place in only 15 states. Swing states like Iowa dominate presidential elections, but FairVote’s data show conclusively that the number of swing states is decreasing with each new presidential election.

Due to the winner-take-all rule in states, candidates only focus on states where the outcome is in doubt. Of our nation’s 15 smallest population states, only one gets attention in a close presidential election.

Even among the swing states, it’s the large states that matter most. Why? Because they offer the biggest reward! Candidates can receive 100% of the prize for only half of the popular vote in a state --regardless of the ballots cast by a significant portion of voters in each. That’s why in the general election, we hear a lot more about Ohio and Florida than Iowa.

dlw

Letters from an Electoral Skeptic!

2011-10-21T20:24:00.004-05:00

I remain in email exchange with my peace-nik activist friend, PSR, from before.Here's our latest: I reply to most paragraphs...PSR:Expanding upon my comparison to Common Cause, I became interested in this organization in 1976 when I was 32 and ran for US Congress here in Kansas. I attended a weekend conference in Lincoln, NE, in the spring of 1977, as I recall. Their main thrust, I think, was to "level the playing field" by imposing campaign limits and/or establishing public-funded campaigns. I'm not sure more radical election reform as you describe was on their radar screen.

dlw:I don't consider my reform "more radical". More practical, perhaps, since it's very hard to make and enforce campaign finance reforms at the federal level, while the sorts of electoral reforms can be pursued at the state level, which lets us cast a wider net so the chances of success in at least one state are considerably higher.

PSR:My impression at the time and still is, they are a progressive organization, but not very effective. Why? I think their issues are too esoteric, too abstract, not visceral enough, and they are beaten by "end runs" by corporate interests (Supreme Court decision to impart personhood to corporations for purposes of campaign contributions with no limits).

dlw: You are right that there is a marketing problem, which also applies to my approach. However, we got groups like FairVote that are very good at marketing electoral reform. And, in my experience, it's not hard to sum up the advantages of American forms of PR in less than a minute: 1. More competitive seats, leading to more accountability for our leaders. 2. Less Cut-throat competition between the two major parties, so they got to work together, rather than relentlessly attacking each other. 3. More Voice for More (Minority) Voters on More Issues, which should go a long ways to deter more wars like Iraq/GWII.

PSR:I grant you the point that our democracy is far from perfect, and that it is skewed to favor certain outcomes, but the fact that a majority of the Kansas Board of Education not long ago restricted the teaching of evolution in the classroom, and then that board majority was defeated in a subsequent election illustrates to me that our "common sense" will prevail in the long run. Prohibition and its repeal is another case in point.

dlw: Common Sense needs to evolve! When we adopted 3-seat state reps elections for IL, it lasted for 110 years so "common sense" took its time to revert things back.

PSR: There is a "celebrity" psychologist at Harvard, Steven Pinker, who is going around the country right now promoting his latest book:

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined

Pinker argues, I believe, that violence has declined since the Stone Age through Genghis Khan and the Crusades up to the Holocaust and the present, regardless of political structures, by the "humanizing" of culture and the rise of non-violent ways to resolve (or manage) conflicts.

So I would argue that accelerating these humanizing influences would reduce war-making more effectively than getting side tracked on election reform and pursuing the implausible task of perfecting democracy.

dlw:But what if electoral reform is a legit manifestation of such humanizing influences? What if it helps us to see that we need to make our elections less cut-throat competitive and stop our system from tilting to effective single-party rule due to the predominant use of winner-take-all elections? This exchange then led to another one shortly thereafter:PSR:Here is another attempt to make my point:Most of us do not have superior IQ's that make us worthy to earn phd's. I think that 100 is the assumed average IQ, which is about the level of a C student applying maximum effort at an average American high school. [That was probably before grade inflation.]

I think that "accelerating humanizing influences in our society" is something that even 100 IQ folks can do, if properly led and inspired to do so. David Sloan Wilson gives some cool examples from his Neighborhood Project, and I think social entrepreneurs (with above average IQ's) can invent many more.

dlw:I agree. But you don't need to have a high IQ to use the principles of Physics for stuff like playing pool. Likewise, folks don't need to be able to conceptualize electoral reform to internalize the practicalness of using multi-seat PR for "more local" elections. (They used 3-seat state reps elections in IL from 1870-1980 and lots of folks who remember it would like it back. Barack Obama tried to bring it back to IL in 2001. ) Just like in any sport, if you know the outcome of a contest then it isn't interesting. This is why folks don't care or invest themselves in most "more local" elections. But If 3 seats are contested then who wins the third seat becomes uncertain and potentially quite important.

While the collective consequences of [the above] are many, folks don't need to grasp all of them to get the basic gist in one form or another... What they do need is folks like you who are willing to bridge the gap between circa 140 [iq] folks like me and them...

PSR:I don't want to discourage you or squelch your good intentions, but I think your approach for election reform will only appeal to folks with 140+ IQ's. If this small "elite" can sway public officials to implement these reforms, then tell me, "I told you so" someday. How can you expect the current leaders of the status quo to voluntarily reform their system when it insures their continued success?

dlw: Like the alternatives are making that much of a diff right now? We need both bottom-up human influences and changes in the rules of the game, especially if the latter will help the former, which is inevitable when you gear folks attention to their "more local" elections where they can make a bigger difference.

PSR:But to build a mass movement of common 100 IQ folks around electoral reform seems to me an exercise in futility. Again, say "I told you so" if it happens.

dlw:Beware self-fulfilling prophecies, if you don't try, you're bound to fail. We've tried Campaign Finance Reform. We haven't really tried to get folks to push for election rules that'd make their "more local" elections more meaningful.

PSR:Genius, I say, is to dream up simple ideas with mass appeal. The iPod is a good example, dreamt up by extremely bright engineers and marketing executives, simple enough to use and instantly recognized for its inherent value by "everyone." Real moral genius, I say, is to dream up "social technology" with no expectation of personal wealth, not consumer items, that make people millionaires, and foul the environment and distract us from the burning issues of our times.

dlw:I may not be that genius, but I am surely trying to get other non-geniuses to help me network more so I can meet her or him.

PSR:Please, stay with me on speaking terms, even when I go on a rant!

dlw:No problem!

Tending Our Electoral Gardens

2011-10-21T11:30:00.000-05:00

There are inevitably unintended consequences to changing the rules of elections.This because there are so many consequences from these changes.This is why I take a less-is-more approach to electoral reform.I do not wish to end all corruption.I do not wish to make everything proportional in representation.
But I do wish to subvert the way folks obscure the need for experimentationso as to maintain the status quo.A good example of obfuscation is found in Einat Wilf's article, The Israeli Electoral System: Better than you think."Changing the electoral system is particularly attractive to engineers [or political economists], with little patience for people. Rather than trying to confront a multitude of problems, they dream of engineering a system that will solve all the problems at once. So many of the brightest minds in the country and caring philanthropists are mobilized to the sacred cause of transforming our electoral system.... We yearn for America and envy its political system. We admire its stability and regularity. Instinctively, we think that almost every OECD country has a better electoral system than our own. It was, therefore, amusing to observe in many of my recent meetings with officials from other countries to realize how many of them are convinced the political system in their country is a mess. Officials from [other] countries ... complain of...political ineffectiveness, short-sightedness, constant bickering and infighting, corruption, and politicians who think only about their narrow political interests rather than the common good. He goes on to describe the accomplishments of the Israeli Statein the face of much opposition and concludes, The achievements alone place Israel in the select company of 21 countries. Considering the conditions under which these achievements were made, Israel is in a category all of its own. So just for the sake of logic - it just may be that Israel has the best electoral system in the world. This might just be an objective statement. Of course, the longstanding, very, generous support received by Israel from the UShad nothing to do with these successes, it was because of its electoral system!!!He then raised the specter of Unintended Consequences: First, the US's primary system led to prohibitively expensive Prez electionsSecond, Israel's direct Presidential elections sapped voter interest in their PR elections.Oy Vey! What's to be done? Maybe Nothing?I'd be okay with fewer primaries in the USA...and maybe what has made PR in Israel sort of work is the link with its Winner-take-all Presidential Election...But wouldn't it be better to have more competitive elections in "more local" elections?That would be easy to do.We must take into account the Long and Short of Proportional Representation.I've proffered here the idea of a parliament with a multitude of 4-seat super districts.In each, 3 seats would be elected with Largest Remainder Hare,and one seat would be elected with an Instant Runoff Vote.The result would be at least one competitive seat in each super-district, either the third seat of the 3 seat LR Hare would be competitive, or the IRV-elected seat would be competitive. In either case, the presence of competitive seats would free Israel to have an independent presidential election...There would be other good consequences:the first three seats would give minorities more say-so,the fourth seat would give the party in power incentive to do a good job.The super-districts would enable the formation of constituent-legislator relationships.The 3-seat LR Hare elections would naturally raise the barrier tosmall parties winning some seats, which would check their proliferation. It would keep the debates local, among neighbors, which should reduce the ideological heat.The use of IRV for a fourth of the seats should encourage the rise of two major parties, attuned to minor parties and thereby minority rightsand able to get things done.
But when will such a relatively simple mixed system get its day in the sun?Or will it continue to be crowded out by a German mixed-member system?We will see...dlw

President Obama, Replace Biden with Nader!

2011-10-20T16:10:00.002-05:00

There's been talk of Veep Biden being replaced with Hillary Clinton in 2012.I'd suggest Ralph Nader.Advantages:1. Get Cred Back with OWS/Progressives.2. Piss Off the 1%/Wall Street Types Who've Turned On You.3. No Need to Worry About Being Assassinated by Big Business.Disadvantages:1. Would Nader Say "Yes We Can!" (for a reasonable "accommodation")?2. Could Nader then Stick to Your Script?3. Would the Democratic Party Swallow Its' Pride?I don't know, but if Nader did go along, I'd hope he'd pick his battles wiserand focus on Electoral Reform this time...dlwps,I supported MN Independence party candidate for governor,Tim Penny, in 2002.He did very well, but fell short in support towards the very end.I know from him that the DFL wanted himto be their candidate for Governor in 2006.He turned them down, but if he had made third-party friendly electoral reformsthe condition for switching back to the DFL, perhaps, things could have worked out a lot better for most of MN.
We must not forget that it was because of Jesse Jackson's relatively successful presidential primary/caucus performances in the eightiesthat the Democratic Party began to use Proportional Representationfor its State Primaries and Caucuses.If outsiders make strategic election reforms chief among their key issuesthen yes we can get real changes.So I hope Obama does try to coopt the grass-roots populism of OWS and that it emerges from the bottom up thata key demand is air support for grass/net-roots activism on behalf for American forms of Proportional Representation.
dlw

My Submission to Occupy Wall Street Journal

2011-10-19T13:33:00.000-05:00

After reading this Salon article on the various uprisings this past year...

I just emailed the Occupy Wall Street Journal at occupymedia@gmail.comHere's what I sent them...

I blogged recently about you all at "A New Kind of Third Party".

I'm an enthusiast for the use of 3-5 seat forms of Proportional Representation for US/State representative and city council elections. [Such has 3 basic advantages.]

1. It keeps the constituent-legislator relationship.

2. It increases the number of competitive seats, which is the natural and easier to enforce check on the influence of $peech on politics.

3. It prevents either major party from dominating our state/nat'l politics. I believe the root problem with our democracy isn't the influence of $peech, that's always been there, but how easily our system tilts to effective single party rule. I want to see two major parties, minor parties (trying to replace or force a major party to merge with them on their own terms) and LTPs (Local Third Parties) who specialize in contesting "more local" elections, while voting strategically together in "less local" elections.

I think this would:

1. Make "more local" elections get more attention.

2. Give Economic/Ethnic/Ideological minorities more voice, or chances of being among the likely swing voters.

3. Make the two major parties more dynamic and responsive to the politics of Gandhi/MLKjr/Jesus that seek to move, not capture, the center via a wide variety of self-sacrificial acts.

Here's what I wrote in response to a quote from Cornel West:

Cornel West, of Princeton U.:
"It's impossible to translate the issue of the greed of Wall Street
into one demand or two demands.
We're talking about a democratic awakening."

dlw:Au contraire, if the root issue is the principle of subsidiarity,

then we need to make our "more local" elections more important

and to do that we need more American forms of PR

that'll make such elections competitive and thereby meaningful.

(Similar could be said for "more local" markets.)

We need more Local Third Parties (LTPs) that

specialize in contesting such "more local" elections

so as to take advantage of the diseconomies of scale

in forming community.

For you need community for consensus decision-making

that'll resists the pervasive influence of $peech in politics.

The first is a demand. The second is a command.

We need a new kind of third party to check the influence of $peech on both major parties

to bolster the import of popular democracy in our "Democracy/Kleptocracy".

dlw

Roots and Implics of Occupy Wall Street

2011-10-19T09:30:00.002-05:00

The Chronicle discusses the Intellectual roots of Occupy Wall Street(OWS).It claims it's, "most defining characteristics—its decentralized nature and its intensive process of participatory, consensus-based decision-making—are rooted in other precincts of academe and activism: in the scholarship of anarchism and, specifically, in an ethnography of central Madagascar."As a long time House Church enthusiast,I would like to point out that in the first century of Christianity,it was similarly radically decentralizedand involved much participatory, consensus-based decision-making.Even if that wasn't the immediate inspiration for folks,it does provide precedent for bottom-up attemptsto subvert Empire.
At the end of the article, it provides quotes from intellectualswho interacted with OWS. Two who stick out for me are:

Michael Hardt, of Duke U. (writing with Antonio Negri):
"Indignation against corporate greed and economic inequality is real and deep.
But at least equally important is
the protest against the lack, or failure, of political representation."

dlw:If you're going to take a two pronged approach,

it probably makes sense to start with greed

and then move to the need for new wineskins...

Cornel West, of Princeton U.:
"It's impossible to translate the issue of the greed of Wall Street
into one demand or two demands.
We're talking about a democratic awakening."

dlw:Au contraire, if the root issue is the principle of subsidiarity,

then we need to make our "more local" elections more important

and to do that we need more American forms of PR

that'll make such elections competitive and thereby meaningful.

(Similar could be said for "more local" markets.)

We need more Local Third Parties (LTPs) that

specialize in contesting such "more local" elections

so as to take advantage of the diseconomies of scale

in forming community.

For you need community for consensus decision-making

that'll resists the pervasive influence of $peech in politics.

The first is a demand. The second is a command.

We need a new kind of third party to check the influence of $peech on both major parties

to bolster the import of popular democracy in our "Democracy/Kleptocracy".

dlw

An Uncommon Cause

2011-10-18T13:01:00.001-05:00

In my last post, I described a recent email interchange between me and a peace activist friend.I told him why peace-niks should push for electoral reform.He responded honestly.In his last response, he wrote,This will take more thought and a full-size keyboard. I will be back to KC tomorrow. Suffice to say, Common Cause has not been a resounding success. Yet.

I reviewed Common Cause.

Sadly, they do not push for the use of Proportional Representation in "more local" elections

as the natural way to subvert gerrymandering.

They want review boards to help determine boundaries.

And they emphasize heavily Campaign Finance Reform.

From my perspective,

this is trying to hard.

Why don't they mention PR?

Probably because they associate it with what's done in EU

and know that such is never going to be feasible in the US.

But there have been small-seated forms of PR

used in the USA to elect "more local" elections.

And it is tragic

this does not merit
mention by Common Cause.

Why has Common Cause not been a resounding success?

Perhaps, because they've been trying too hard.

There's lots of reforms that are much harder to enforce

when only First-Past-the-Post election rules are used!

So you gotta push first long and hard for Electoral Diversity,

a better mix of election rules,

and then it'll be so much easier to make all sorts of reforms...

Now, I could be wrong
about putting lots of eggs in electoral reforms' basket,
but there's no excuse for neglecting the use of
American Forms of Proportional Representation
altogether like Common Cause does now!

dlw

When Will Peace-Makers See the Light?

2011-10-17T18:53:00.002-05:00

I was at a Christian Peace-Maker Team conference this weekend.I met a lot of people and shared about electoral reform with some.One of the peace-activists and I got in touch by email afterwards.I shared with him some of my posts from this blog.
He told me he was a follower, not a persuader.Ie., he wasn't going to change tactics to include electoral reformin the causes he pushed for as an activist.He sent me an email, "This is how movements build. You need sociology to explain it."I replied, "Thankyou.

It's not just sociology. It's also some folks taking leaps of faith to stick their necks out to get the ball rolling."

He replied, "But some "nuts" do this all the time. What made the difference this time? That's why I say it takes sociology to explain it."

So I wrote...

Well, it wouldn't be a leap of faith if it couldn't simply be the political science ravings of a "nut"...

There's a whole bunch of comparative analysis that shows the correspondence between the election rules used in a country and the nature of its democracy. The long-and-short is that single-seat elections encourage "stability" and two major parties, while PR/multi-seats encourage pluralism and change. We need both, and with more of the latter, there'd be more scope for anti-war activists to subvert the ability of the iron triangle of the military-industrial-congressional complex
to lead our country into so many wars.

Let's say we view elections as not unlike "gambles"/investments by influential intere$t$, like those who profit from war. 1. Since LTPs don't need money to be effective in elections, then they will be more likely to make anti-war issues become significant in elections. Then, since third parties are good at affecting which issues matter in elections, more major party politicians will have to make promises to reduce military spending or avoid further Afghan/Iraq like wars to get elected. 2. If there are more competitive elections between the two major parties, then those who benefit economically from military actions would have to hedge more often. When you hedge, you inevitably get a lower on one's $peech and thereby can attract less capital, which would further weakens your ability to persuade politicians into supporting war or your intere$t$.) 3. In our system, the economic pressures from being out of power make it so that both major parties act like conjoined twins. Lately, this has been bad for anti-war and other progressive causes. However, if things began to tilt in the right direction then it'd become easier for anti-war activists to play the two major parties off of each other and thus they would get more attention to all of their activism.

Thus, it's just a matter of time before electoral reform gets adopted as an anti-war advocacy issue. I want to get help to make it happen sooner rather than later...

We'll see if/when he (and others) see the light!

dlw

FairVote's Electoral College Series II

2011-10-16T20:13:00.003-05:00

FairVote further responds to critics misinformation campaigns

against the use of a National Popular Voting system.

dlw

Proportional Representation vs First-Past-the-Post

2011-10-16T20:11:00.000-05:00

is the title of a Canadian article.I generally don't care for either-or approaches to electoral reform, but I understand that they are easier to market.I prefer a mix of American forms of PR, Instant Runoff or Alternative Voting, not FPTP,and a three-stage Revamping of the US's Electoral College system.IOW, The Tri-Election Triage.dlw

From the Bottom Up!

2011-10-16T09:58:00.002-05:00

D. Eris has a masterful deconstruction of David Brooks column rant against Occupy Wall Street.Coloring and Colored Italics are mine.

But what are the reforms that Brooks himself champions? He writes in his intro:
Do tax reform, fiscal reform, education reform and political reform so that when the economy finally does recover the prosperity is deep, broad and strong.
Let's put aside the fact that there are already organized working groups at Occupy Wall Street that are specifically devoted to fiscal reform, education reform, political reform and so on. Notice anything missing from the NYT columnist's list of necessary reforms? That's right, electoral reform.

If we are going to break free from the Republican-Democrat political straitjacket that has paralyzed our politics and emaciated our political discourse, if we are going to implement the ideas that can be found in the ideal "third party stump speech," it will require serious electoral reform. It will require experimentation with everything from alternative voting methods to ballot access reform to proportional representation to independent redistricting reform to open primaries and so on. Yet such ideas are nowhere to be found among the proposals forwarded by Brooks, though they are common currency among the real radical moderates in the third party and independent blogosphere. The operative flaw in Brooks's analysis becomes clear in the concluding lines of his article. He writes:
Don’t be fooled by the clichés of protest movements past. The most radical people today are the ones that look the most boring. It’s not about declaring war on some nefarious elite. It’s about changing behavior from top to bottom. [Emphasis added.]
False. It's about changing behavior from the bottom up! The notion that the types of reform advocated by Brooks himself can be accomplished "from top to bottom" reeks of authoritarianism and the delusional messianic faith in the imperial presidency common among Republicans and Democrats alike. Real change will begin from the bottom up. And it will begin with reforms that level the playing field for the 99% who are unrepresented by the two-party state and duopoly system of government. Brooks may fancy himself a radical but he fails to get to the root of the problem.

Of course, somewhat differently from D. Eris,I don't think the duopoly system is the root of the problem...It's the way our current system tilts too easily to being dominated by a single party.And so, we don't need to level the playing field for all political partiesto get reforms that level the playing field for the 99%.But we do need to prioritize the Tri-Election Triage!especially the strategic use of Proportional Representation in "more local" elections,which will expedite experimentation on everything else!dlw

Brainstorming Electoral Reforms

2011-10-11T14:56:00.003-05:00

D. Eris at Poli-Tea reports from Occupy Wall Street and recently Occupy DC.

There are numerous individuals, working groups and committees within Occupy Wall Street and Occupy DC brainstorming electoral reforms and developing policy recommendations to open up our political process to ensure adequate representation, at all levels of government, for the 99% of Americans who go unrepresented by the Democratic and Republican parties. More to come in that regard in coming days.

I'm not really optimistic...

1. It depends on what sort of reform is being proffered but it's hard to let a thousand flowers bloom for the sorts of national reforms that we tend to spend too much of our time and energy on.
2. US_Americans don't understand the import of mixing single-seat and PR/multi-seat elections to stabilize our democracy and so we may end up with a lot of wishful thinking about regulating $peech directly that don't take into account the difficulties of implementation without more third party representation.
3. It's hard for novices to take serious the need for political jujitsu in the politics of electoral reforms. We want to attack the two-party system, to attack all $peech but we lack historical perspective.
Our system has worked better with two parties and $peech in the past, we don't need to end either to make things work considerably better in the USA.

We'll see...
dlw

“Election 101: Five basics about ‘super PACs’ and 2012 campaign money”

2011-10-11T11:41:00.002-05:00

CSM reports.The experiment of democracy continues...dlw

Fair Vote's Electoral College Series: I

2011-10-08T10:21:00.000-05:00

Rob Richie and Katie Kelly have just started posting about the Electoral College and why our current winner-take-all system is not a fair way to elect the president.
IMO, an alternative to Americans Elect could draw attention to flawed current systemby getting their candidate on the ballot in 3-5 swing states and have him/her commit to potentially swinging the election.They could announce that (s)he would possibly publicly throw their support to either of the two major party's candidates on the day before the electionon the basis of specific criteria. Then, (s)he could campaign hard in those 3-5 states so that their chances of deciding the election would go up,as would also rise our awareness of the need to changethe electoral rules for our Electoral College.dlw

Why Not Proportional Representation?

2011-10-07T13:49:00.002-05:00

Here's an Aussie site

It is hosted and maintained by their ‘Friends of Democracy’ society.

We are a collection of concerned citizens who believe that in modern times the concept of democracy has become little more than an excuse for those politicians in power to justify their actions by the mere fact that they won the last election rather than by manifesting the true beliefs and values of the Australian people.

I hope to be in dialogues with them in the future.

dlw

Common $en$e???

2011-10-06T20:19:00.000-05:00

Wall Street Protestors haunt me.

Part of me wants to be out there with them.

Part of me knows I got too much else going on after my recent move.

Part of me is afraid they wouldn't listen to me.

If their common denominator is to subvert the influence of $peech then this has practical implications.

1. New regulations of $peech got to be both passed and enforced.

2. But it's stupid to trust the two major parties to enforce any regulations of $peech.

It'd be like trusting the foxes to guard the Hen House.

3. Thus, there needs to be a sustainable third party presence to regulate $peech.

4. To get a sustainable third party presence, we need to use (quasi)Proportional Representation(PR) in parts of our electoral system.

5. But to get American forms of PR in place, we got to play political jujitsu with the two major parties.

6. This entails a less is more approach to PR that, out of consideration for the politics of electoral reform, does not challenge two party dominance of our political system.

7. Point six may seem to contradict point three, but it doesn't. The US's federal system would permit us to give third parties easy access to state legislatures, while keeping the barriers more formidable for our national legislatures.

8. But would it play well with the folks protesting Wall Street?

9. I take it as a matter of fact that there is a constitutional freedom of $peech

that needs regulation to lower its' volume but my view is not common sense, yet.

10. So I look to FairVote for leadership to take advantage of what comes of the Wall Street Protests.

I will do my part, but I can only scatter seeds; I cannot make it rain.

dlw

Reason is a Cruel Mistress!

2011-10-01T19:25:00.000-05:00

Especially for American third party enthusiasts like myself.For it dictates that we must play a gamewith the rules slanted against us...And we can only forge aheadby letting go of our own golden calves:Getting Us into Power,Ending the Duopoly,Rendering Unto Each PartyAs Accords to Their Merit.This is the underlying theme in a debate over at Poli-Teawith D.Eris and TiradeFaction.
What say you?dlw

Do We Need a Constitutional Amendment to Ban TV election Ads?

2011-09-25T10:59:00.000-05:00

As I just pointed out, Denmark prohibits the use of TV Adsin its 3 week long election campaign.
Imagine if we did the same in the USA???
This is a very important question, since, as I've argued in the past, anything that requires a US Constitutional amendment to "work"should be ruled as beyond the pale.
But I find it ludicrous to say all forms of $peech have got to be on the tableto guarantee the freedom of speech.Clearly the writers of the US Constitutionhad no way of anticipating the development of televisionand its effectiveness in the manipulation of many people's emotions.For,The Constitution is not a suicide pact.Moreover, as Isaiah Berlin noted,Freedom for the Pike is Death for the Minnow!If we deny the freedom of some pikes to speak via manipulative tv ads,we do not deny them the ability to speak via other mediums (like blogs)that experience has shown are more reasonable.But if we continue to protect TV ads as $peech, we unduly crowd out the ability of less "well heeled" folks like myself to participate meaningfully in the remaking of the rulesthat govern them and their neighbors.
dlw

Democracy is Not Rotting in the State of Denmark

2011-09-25T10:13:00.000-05:00

As noted already at Ballot Access News, and American Third Party and Independent PoliticsR Spencer Oliver has praised Democracy in Denmark.The campaign season lasted all of three weeks. (constraining the influence of $peech)
There were no political ads on television. (constraining the influence of $peech)Voter participation was 87.7 percent. " (constraining the influence of $peech)
Which is not to say that there are no caveats, as noted in the comment section, there were:1. (surprise) election preparation activities prior to the last three weeks.2. And (surprise) not everyone who voted did their homework and some voted their ego/paycheck, rather than their conscience.3. And, as with Belgium, there'll be an ad hoc coalition government.
But Caveat 1 and 2 are not a big deal compared with the US's system.Caveat 3 may be why we need electoral diversity so as to balance the need for bothequality and hierarchy, change and continuityin how we work out the rules that govern us.
In other words,The Tri-Election Triage!(quasi-) PR in "more local" elections,alternatives (preferably IRV) to First-Past-the-Post in "less local" electionsand hopefully a (much better) multi-stage "least local" presidential election.dlw

Beware of Rotten Eggs/Args against PR.

2011-09-18T14:41:00.000-05:00

The first of my Sunday "blogging hiatus" hiatuses...

There are some truly rotten arguments against PR/IRV.They sow either Fear or Uncertainty or Doubtabout the crucial import of electoral reform in the USA.Here's one by a college political science student:

I wouldn’t put all your eggs in one basket. Even if the United States has proportional representation for Congress and IRV for President, it’s not likely that the government would become any more liberal than it is now. While FPTP tends towards a two-party system, getting rid of FPTP won’t change ideologies or voting trends all that much.

dlw: IRV will make our politics center itself on the true center. It will give progressives / libertarians more exit threat from the Democratic / Republican party, which will force both parties to give them more voice. The result may be the finger that keeps the dam from breaking. And as the parties start to deal with more important issues more often, it'll increase voter turnout/interest in politics, which would likely further move the center to the left.

The chief difference between FPTP systems and proportional systems is when coalition building happens.

If it is a "more local" election, like for state/nat'l reps, then the use of PR or quasi-PR can turn a chronically non-competitive election into a competitive and thereby interesting or important election.
For American forms of PR will likely not be PR writ large:

proportionality will be improved,
the legislator-constituent relationship will be preserved
the system will still tend to have two major parties...so the inevitable coalition-building will proceed in a compromise between our current system and an EU-style PR system.

With FPTP, it’s the voters who form informal coalitions.

That is crazy talk!!

You do it every time you vote for the Democratic candidate, even if they might not be as liberal as you’d like. With proportional systems, the coalitions are built formally by the political parties.

Coalitions either get formed relatively transparently among parties in a PR system or not-so-transparently with the US's current system. With American PR/IRV, there'll still be the accountability of two major party rule, but it'd be nigh impossible for one to get a permanent majority and there'd be a lot more transparency due to the presence of minor parties and/or ltps.

Liberals would still have to compromise with the center-left and right wing. We won’t get single-payer healthcare, lax immigration, and universal civil rights just because we switch our electoral system.

They're likely to get a lot more than they would otherwise... What smart election reform can do is to ensure that there are a more comprehensive system of checks and balances in our political system and that more attention is given to "more local" elections and minority rights. So it's a both-and-but... we need both electoral and progressive reforms but electoral reform is more pressing since there'd be more of a positive feed-back from it on all other areas that need reform than vice-versa.

We need to work smarter, not harder!

While it is absolutely a good idea to reform the electoral system, liberals shouldn’t place too much hope in a reformed system giving them a bunch of power. It simply won’t happen. To make a more liberal government, no matter what electoral scheme there is, you need to make a more liberal electorate.

It could be retorted that we shouldn't put too much hope in top-down Obama/DNC-led approaches to changing hearts to make for a more liberal electorate. For it's party elites (and lackeys) who'll talk smack against American forms of PR as part of a FUD Campaign on...the most crucial structural reform that we can make in the coming year(s)!I believe it's crucial because rivalry subverts our problem-solving ability.To trim our political rivalry, we need the right mix of single seat and PR elections. dlw

We Need Competing Visions

2011-09-18T10:40:00.004-05:00

Jon Walker posts a second time (here's the first)on why we need election reformto change the dynamics of our democracy."In a better democracy liberals should have a way to remove a failed Democratic Party from power without directly or indirectly endorsing conservatism and conservatives should have way to unseat a failed Republican Party without empowering those promoting liberalism."dlw

FUD: Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt

2011-09-16T13:40:00.002-05:00

I got a comment on an earlier post of mine on STV/PR in Cincinnati.It's of the quality given by Rob Richie et al at IRV Fact Check and worth passing along. "The anti-PR blog from Cincinnati about STV not counting all the votes is the sort of FUD propaganda that gets used against many reforms. That particular argument could have just as easily been used against 3-seated Largest Remainder Hare. It is used against the even simpler single-winner IRV.

The biggest obstacle to adopting PR is inertia. The biggest need is to educate people about the failures of the current system and why those failures are occurring. The failures have been so common for so long that most people have grown accustomed and resigned to them.

Raise people's expectations and focus on values first."dlw

Blogging Hiatus

2011-09-16T10:24:00.001-05:00

I'm breaking from blogging until November.If I do blog before then it'll be to point to the great things FairVote is going to be doing.
dlw

2011-09-15T20:44:00.001-05:00

The Evolving Rivalry of US Politicsis apparent in an email I received today.Credo Mobile sent me this email.

DOES YOUR PHONE COMPANYFUND THE TEA PARTY?

Imagine a world where Social Security has been dismantled, global warming is ignored, "intelligent design" is standard classroom teaching, reproductive rights are rolled back nearly four decades, and the federal income tax — now 45% of government revenue — is abolished.

How far would you go to avoid "President Perry" becoming a reality? Gov. Rick Perry is now leading the polls in the GOP presidential nomination race, despite defending such radical policy changes. Yet AT&T has contributed nearly half a million dollars to Perry since 2000.

And how about "President Bachmann"? If you're withAT&T or Verizon Wireless, you should know that AT&T contributed a whopping $386,000, while Verizon gave$35,500, to House Tea Party Caucus members in the 2010 election cycle, including contributions to Rep. Michele Bachmann, the Caucus leader.

It's time to vote your conscience — with your phone.Join CREDO Mobile, America's only progressive phone company.

Make the switch to CREDO today and get:*

snip/...

And with CREDO Mobile you'll also get one feature you won't find anywhere else: automatic donations to progressive causes. That's because we automatically donate a portion of your monthly charges to nonprofit groups. Since 1985 CREDO members have raised over $67 million for groups like 350.org, Project Vote, Planned Parenthood, and Media Matters for America.

So act now and get a fantastic deal — plus the satisfaction of knowing that your phone company is fighting Tea Party cronies like Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann, not funding them.

I don't have an AT&T phone.I have mixed feelings about mixing politics and advertising.My point is that we gotta change the incentivesdue to the near exclusive use of single seat election rulesthat are polarizing our politics,not shun the other side 100%.An Eye for an Eyewill make the world blind.dlw

2011-09-14T14:49:00.001-05:00

To Oppose, or To Propose,that is the question:Whether 'tis wiser in (electoral) reform to endureThe slings and arrows of a two party (dominated) systemOr to take arms against all of its injustices,And by opposing end them?
For it's natural to be angry at both of our major parties.But does that justify taking aim at a system that tends to have ~~two~~a dominant part~~ies~~y?~~No.~~Yes,We can! Through the leadership of FairVote,we can propose a much better systemthat can be pushed in all 50 statesand progressively adoptedto change the dynamics of US politicsfor now and forever!dlw

2011-09-13T12:22:00.003-05:00

The Wages of First Past the Post!

Recently,Bachmann slammed Perryfor his Crony Capitalism. Now, it's a good thing for there to be sunshine on Perry'sCronyism, Phonyism and Goofyismbut methinks Romney is weak enough, especially in the South, that the GOP presidential primary could go long and dirty. In which case, maybe they'll replace it,both in our primaries andin our general elections.dlwps, the Democratic party already replaced FPTP in their presidential primaries,due in large part to the candidacy of Jesse Jackson.

Lemonade for Electoral Reformers

2011-09-13T08:38:00.000-05:00

In Luke Lanciano's "The Election Issue Nobody Wants to Talk About", he takes the dysfunctions of our current system to heart...

our [Prez] elections are partially funded in secret through disingenuous organizations exploiting both the tax code and the 14th Amendment, and our electoral system is based on archaic rules suited for 19th century elections, which make it near-impossible for qualified third party candidates to compete. Democracy is supposed to be the rule of the demos, Greek for ‘the commoners’, but we’ve allowed our electoral institutions to calcify, creating a system whereby those with wealth can finance candidacies, and the two-party system get unofficial veto power in who gets the chance to run for President.

And asks a truly wonderful question!
Instead of focusing on the 2012 election, how about we focus on making all future elections fairer and better able to capture the real feelings of the country at large?
Now, IMO, his answer is naive,

Perhaps we can have multiple parties vie in a publicly funded election process that doesn’t drag on for years or privilege the votes of early primary states like Iowa and New Hampshire. Why not try a proportional representation system based on party lists which privileges policy ideas over showboating personalities?

But that is what the electoral blogosphere is for, for us to come together and reason about what is the right course of action. I left Luke a comment...

The best way to get things going in electoral reform, in our current system, is to support the biggest movements already in place. This is Rob Richie's FairVote. They advocate for 3-5 seat forms of PR for US/state representative elections(and city council elections) and the use of IRV for most single seat elections and a National Popular Vote for our presidential election.The goal isn't so much an even playing field among all parties, but rather to make it so neither major party can dominate our politics. This is what they both want: a perm majority. And because third parties have so little power and it's hard to change any electoral rule meaningfully, it's the way of wisdom to deprioritize the wishes of third parties. They will be better off, but they should focus for now on "more local" elections and MLKjr-like issue advocacy that seeks to move the political center through a variety of self-sacrificial acts.

But to get this issue to loom large, we need to help raise awareness and support of the efforts of those with the most clout as effective electoral reformers, which requires that we be willing to let go of our preferred reforms and go with the flow...dlw

I hope we can care enough about the need to make

serious changes ASAP

to put aside our differences and work together.

dlw

Proportional Representation in Cincinnati=>Equality for African Americans

2011-09-12T12:39:00.000-05:00

Theodore M. Berry was a prominent civil rights activist who pushed hard for the use of Proportional Representation in Cincinnatti, Ohio because he firmly believed it gave more power to black voters.

According to the TM Berry project: PR was adopted in 1924 for city council elections and used until it's repeal in 1957 after an aggressive campaign by the local GOP that plastered it with the swear word of socialism.

according to Kathleen Barber’s book Proportional Representation and Election Reform in Ohio, in the Cincinnati City Council election before PR was put into place Republicans won 55% of the overall vote, yet had 97% of the seats in council... [After] the first PR election ..., the Republicans won 27.8% of the overall vote and 33.3% of the seats on City Council, and the Charterite party won 63.8% of the overall vote and 66.7% of the seats on City Council.

The form of Proportional Representation used was the Single Transferable Vote. The chief disadvantage of the system was its' relative complexity. Here's an anti-PR post that takes advantage of the complexity of STV and panders to fears of extremism. If you ask me, I'd rather have 9 city council seats filled via three 3-seated Largest Remainder Hare elections, since it'd simplify things. There'd be one candidate per party and one vote per voter. And, there'd be 3 competitive elections, instead of just one.

But what matters most is that there are voices out there still pushing for the use of PR in "more local" elections, as a crucial part of ensuring that protection is given to minority rights.

dlw

Debatin' D'mocracy in Da' USA!

2011-09-11T10:00:00.002-05:00

Zach Minute has a short but sweet post for
Proportional Representation in America.

He asks a good question.
Why, when there are dozens of issues on the table,
are there only two different trains of thought
to represent all of those ideas?

His answer is a vague endorsement of party-list proportional representation,
He wants more options and party discipline/brand control.
But what he lacks in detail, he makes up for in pizzazz.
And the fruit is a lengthy discussion...

Albeit, their frame is
Our US system vs PR/Euro-system
when there's a third way:
The Tri-Election Triage.
But, hopefully, that'll change
as the debate continues...
dlw

Totally Breaking the Two Party System

2011-09-09T15:01:00.000-05:00

is the goal of Jon Walker

and why he's pushing for Proportional Representation or Instant Runoff Voting

as described in a recent blog entry.

It's becoming possible by how 34% of the US think

our two party system is seriously broken

and we need a third party.

Here's a money quote:

"If you are serious about the two-party system
being totally broken,

the solution isn’t just to have some billionaire run one time
as an independent for the presidency.

The solution is systematic reform of our election laws."

I hope we can break our current two party system

and bring about three types of parties:

2 (Better) Major parties

An Indefinite Number of Minor parties,

trying to become Major parties,

And a very large number of LTPs

who specialize in contesting "more local" elections,

vote strategically in "less local" elections

and practice the politics of Gandhi or MLKjr,

while trusting in trickle-up politics.

dlw

Electoral Humility and American Proportional Representation

2011-09-08T17:12:00.001-05:00

I'm google blog searching for
American + "Proportional Representation"

This has yielded 1290 hits from 08/08/11 to 09/08/11.

I do this because in email exchanges with Rob Richie,

I have been led to see the light.

I must set aside my subjective desire to dissent

from the working consensus in favor of IRV

and American forms of Proportional Representation.

I can do my bit as an electoral apologist,

or I can distract electoral reform leaders like Rob Richie.

I want to be a good soldier.

Electoral Reform is way too important

for the United States of America

and Our World to get muddled

in largely academic controversies.

And so I'm looking at how others broach PR in the USA.

VT Independent Charles Laramie is a great example

I want to dialogue with him 'cuz

His approach to PR is very EU-centric and not pragmatic.

By pragmatic, I mean he does not start off with

the US's electoral system as it is,

and focus on the way to get it to use some PR or quasi-PR

as soon as possible

via the path of greatest reward and least resistance.

So I hope Charles and I can have dialogues here

and at his blog

dlw

Black Votes Count II!

2011-09-07T20:41:00.001-05:00

I recently blogged on Black Votes Count by Frank R. Parker.

It opened my eyes to how the rules of the game

were/are often rigged to dilute

African-American/disadvantaged minority group political influence.

We did not overcome structural racism in the US

with the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

It took decades of activism to make our rules more "fair"

and it'll take decades more to make our democracy "just".

But part of this is to give more voice to independents/political outsiders

like former presidential candidate John Anderson.

In Black Votes Count, there were examples

of how independent African American candidates/parties made a difference.

This included the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party(MFDP).

It's an example of a minor party that later merged with a major party.

The merger occurred first nominally and then substantially.

For initially, the MFDP became part of

the Loyalist faction of the Mississippi Democratic party that
was recognized by the national Democratic party,

as opposed to the predominantly white Regular faction that

retained control of the party primary machinery and

was recognized as the Democratic party in state law.

Yet even when there was a substantial integration of Blacks in the Democratic party,
there were still Black Independent candidates,

who you could say had their own Local Third Parties (LTPs).
Black candidates ran independently because of
their disaffection with the national Democratic party
and to game successfully the First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) election rule.
Since they'd have a better chance of winning by bypassing the primary,
where they'd need a majority to win,
and ran in the general election
where they'd need only a plurality to win.
Ironically FPTP let independent African-Americans win by
how the two major parties could split the white vote.

But even with such tactics
(and the removal of lots of post-1965 electoral obstacles),
the use of only single seat elections
has held down the representation of African-Americans
below what they deserve.
This is why I believe Martin Luther King Jr would
support the use of a balance between
(PR) multi seat and (non-FPTP) single seat elections
as the way to commit our system in the service of
its ethnic/economic/ideological minorities.
We cannot just push for IRV or other good alternatives to FPTP.
We must also push for American forms of Proportional Representation,
in "more local" elections that otherwise are DINOs,
Democracy In Name Only.
dlw

Tired of partisan gridlock? Reforming electoral rules gives voters real choice.

2011-09-07T15:38:00.000-05:00

Former Independent Presidential Candidate John Anderson

has an editorial in the Christian Science Monitor.

I learned about it from D.Eris at Poli-Tea.

He comes out strongly in favor of:

runoff (instant or otherwise) voting in big elections like the presidency

and multi-seat elections for the "not-so-big" US/state representative elections,

almost The Tri-Election Triage.

"These reforms would make the two-party system more accountable, while allowing voters the choices they want. New technologies make them easy to implement, and their growing use in local elections demonstrates that Americans can make them work. Even if they won’t be in place nationally by 2012, the only real barriers are a failure of political imagination and fear of change."

Yes We Can

make our historic two-party system work,

not unlike as it did in the past.

dlw

Approval Voting for Referendas?

2011-09-06T19:15:00.001-05:00

Imagine a world wherein there'd be more than one version of each and every proposed change by initiative/referendum and we used Approval Voting to choose among them. I'm arguing with Dale Sheldon Hess that the politics of electoral reform makes it so that it's important that the legislators/likely incumbents who literally propose/adopt electoral reforms be permitted to keep (some of) their incumbency advantage. IM(Not-so-Humble)O, Approval Voting rescinds too much of the incumbency advantage in political candidate general elections and so it'd be wiser to push for its usage in other contexts, like referenda, where it does not matter.
dlw

ps, In deference to Rob Richie's experience, I guess it'd probably be good to have a runoff between finalist options in a referendum to ensure that a majority prefer what is selected.

dlw

How New Zealand may Change Its' Electoral Rule!

2011-09-05T20:28:00.000-05:00

Via Richard Winger's Ballot Access News blog,

I found out that New Zealand will have a non-binding referendum on November 26

on whether to keep their German-like Mixed-Member Parliamentary system

or to switch to a new electoral system.

They have a well designed program that explains the different alternatives

and helps people figure out which one is the best for them.

The four alternatives are:

First-Past-the-Post (FPTP), Preferential (IRV), Single Transferable Voting (PR), and

Supplementary Member,

which is semi-proportional:

3/4ths FPTP and 1/4th party-list form of Proportional Representation (PR).

The website has an electoral relativism.

It emphasize that all election rules have strengths and weaknesses.

It gives 6 sets of strengths and weaknesses

to determine which election rule we'd prefer:

Accountability, Effective Government (Stability/Decisiveness), Effective Parliament,

Proportionality and Representation(of minorities or geographic locations).

Seven Thoughts:

1. One must always be mindful of the politics of electoral reform.

Odds are the party in power wants to stay in power.

2. It seems the second part of the referendum is a FPTP.

This is not insignificant,

since it makes the selection of the options given

potentially determine the outcome.

3. For example, they cast FPTP and IRV as very similar.

This makes both of them unlikely to win.

4. STV is the only PR, but if most NZ folks turn away from MMP

then they're not going to want another PR.

5. As such, it seems those in power want SM,

the kinder, gentler FPTP election rule.

6. I like the two-part approach to the referendum,

but I think that an alternative, like IRV or maybe Approval Voting,
ought to be used for the second part.

This would make it so that the specific options given to them wouldn't matter as much.

7. I would proffer the replacement of FPTP

with an alternative form of MMP.

I would use "super districts" with 4 seats each.

In each, 3 seats would be filled with LR Hare

and one would be filled with IRV.