There are two ways to raise awareness: a good way and a bad way. This bill
is a bad way because it gets low information Voters think RCV is a
significant improvement when it is nothing of the kind. In other words, it
takes well meaning Individuals and distorts Their world view.

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 19:51 VoteFair electionmethods@votefair.org wrote:

--
P.S.: I prefer to be reached on BitMessage at
BM-2D8txNiU7b84d2tgqvJQdgBog6A69oDAx6

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Frank Martinez wrote:

As much as I dislike FairVote and their use of the term "RCV", in this case
it means "single transferable vote", which I understand to be a
more-or-less decent proportional representation system.  In single-rep
states, it devolves into instant-runoff voting, and using PR in lots of
5-member districts means it will still be two-party dominated compared to a
single 435-member district, but it's not terrible?

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 5:08 PM,  fdpk69p6uq@snkmail.com wrote:

Are you suggesting that it should be a single 435-member-district? If
so, I would worry that it would reduce emphasis on local
party-building and campaigning, and increase fragmentation.
Fragmentation is a threat to stability/predictability especially in
systems that rely on parliamentary majorities to form the government
(see months of negotiations in the Netherlands to form a complex
coalition between ~4 parties), though it might be less damaging in the
context of the US presidential system.

Erik

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 8:31 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:

No, I'm just saying it would be more proportional if it were.  (A party
with 1% support among the general population could win 4 seats, for
instance, vs 0 seats when there's a hundred 5-member districts.)

If

Agreed.  MMP seems better for that purpose, or maybe one of the new things
like GOLD.  I haven't researched multi-winner systems thoroughly.

Fragmentation is a threat to stability/predictability

Is that bad?  A government that has trouble passing laws until they're
modified to appeal to a diverse majority seems like a good thing to me.

All I know is this: never start with a compromised bill; push for ideal and
make Other negotiate You away from it. The Democrats saw that happen with
healthcare. Their ideal outcome was single-payer. Instead, they started
with a compromised bill which was compromised more to get out of committee,
compromised more to pass the House, compromised more to get to the Senate
floor, more still to pass the Senate, and compromised yet again to get out
of conference and into law. Starting from compromise is an inherently bad
idea in legislation.

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 20:09 fdpk69p6uq@snkmail.com wrote:

--
P.S.: I prefer to be reached on BitMessage at
BM-2D8txNiU7b84d2tgqvJQdgBog6A69oDAx6

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 5:40 PM,  fdpk69p6uq@snkmail.com wrote:

I think it's important to distinguish between political parties and
political opinions. Parties always contain within them some amount of
diversity, and fragmentation of parties may not significantly increase
diversity beyond a certain point of diminishing returns. Parties can
split because of personality conflicts and struggles for power that
have nothing to do with larger ideological differences in the general
population.

I don't know if this is harmful under all circumstances. It is IMO
definitely harmful if you generally want your government to be formed
with and sustained by an affirmative majority in parliament, because
you end up with lots of parties who, by behaving "rationally" within
their self-interested context, end up unable to form a government: "We
said clearly beforehand that we would never form a coalition with
party X, so we cannot now break this promise, or voters will punish us
next time around."

If, like Norway, you're comfortable with minority gov'ts and ad hoc
parliamentary majorities, fragmentation may be less harmful.

Erik

Here's the bill text as a google doc
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nfpFrGNXA8KJHw0Rd6YByyXyx2Gj_awi16apSUr9L0s/edit
.

It requires all states to use "RCV" for the House, which means IRV for
single-seat states and STV in districts of up to 5 seats for multi-seat
states. It also spends over half of the bill defining and requiring
independent redistricting commissions, even though with PR the issue of
gerrymandering is far less serious.

Here's a draft of the bill which I've rewritten to use GOLD voting
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AWhaCWxG2TkvsASkbYt6Gf4NihvzCupcJL5cM9Qu9BQ/edit
.

2017-07-06 21:09 GMT-04:00 Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com:

In Britain, the parties against STV, as in the Plant and Jenkins report
complained that STV was both too remote and too local. Jenkins was aware
of the contradiction but just soldiered on anyway, on the expedient that
any stick will do to beat the dog with. He had to do that because, as he
told Paddy Ashdown in confidence (The Ashdown Diaries 1997-9) "Blair
wouldn't give us Single Transferable Vote (STV)."
The preliminary Plant report, an in-house Labour party document avowedly
opposed STV for its "intra-party" competition in Ireland. Inother words
STV also acts as a primaries within the general election - too
democratic for them. That's why they have plastered MMP all over the
country, having confided in their report that it did not threaten their
incumbency. I have written about these and many more things in my free
e-books linked to "Democracy Science" site.

Richard Lung.

On 07/07/2017 01:40, fdpk69p6uq@snkmail.com wrote:

--
Richard Lung.
http://www.voting.ukscientists.com
Democracy Science series 3 free e-books in pdf:
https://plus.google.com/106191200795605365085
E-books in epub format:
https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/democracyscience