----- Original Message ----- From: "J Cullen" <jcullen at austin.rr.com>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Michael Pollak" <mpollak at panix.com>
>The most promising reform in my mind is instant-runoffs, which would allow
>third party messages to get out without threatening greater-evil victories.
>San Francisco has it on the upcoming ballot for local elections and would
be
>a good thing.
- I agree with Nathan that a more achievable reform is instant runoff -voting. So you have to figure out how to convince Democrats that it is in -their interest to support electoral reforms in a way that does not -allow the election of Republicans in the meantime.
Instant runoff is appealing to Democrats in many local election situations, because whenever you have nonpartisan races that require real run-offs, voting turnout by Dem constituencies drop far more in the run-off than GOPers. So that's one reason why fighting for instant runoff is more likely to succeed at the local level at first, but once it's in place, moving it up ballot once people are used to it will be easier to sell.
That's the strategy in SF and it makes sense.
One of the things that pissed me off most about Nader is that he had a month after the election when he could have barnstormed for instant runoff, noting that his massive number of voters could have played a decisive role in the election with instant runoff in place.
A massive lost educational opportunity.
Nathan newman