[lbo-talk] combined e-mail ;)

[Josh Narins]

> At 7:43 PM -0400 4/4/06, Josh Narins wrote:
> 
> >We can vote.
> >
> >We can change our politics locally. These things matter, and they count,
> >and they take effect (assuming you don't violate the Constitution of
> >your respective political administrative unit).
> >
> >
> >-- The Priority List
> >
> >I think #1 is voting system reform, which can happen on as small a scale
> >as a town or city.
> >
> >It might interest you to know that the very first novel written in a
> >Romance language, Blanquerna by Ramon Lull (1287), involved voting
> >system reform.  Lull was unhappy the way the voting for Pope took place,
> >and proposed a method which met the Condorcet Criterion.
> >
> >Outside of that, Duverger's Law says that any voting system like
> >Americans have naturally results in a two party system.
> 
> I agree that the US first-past-the-post system is quite backward, but 
> it isn't the only problem. The other thing that you have to 
> acknowledge is that the US doesn't have even a two-party system, it 
> has a no political party system. In fact, at the level of national 
> politics, the US can't even be said to have a system at all, in the 
> sense that national politicians are elected by up to fifty systems.
> 
> >Free the Voters to express their will for third parties.
> 
> In the American system political parties are fan clubs, with no 
> electoral mechanism provided for them to submit their manifesto to 
> the will of the people. Merely changing the voting system won't 
> change that unless political parties are actually allowed to 
> determine their candidates for election.
> 
> Here in Australia and probably in many other countries, elections 
> have been reduced to a spectator sport by the power brokers in 
> political parties. It becomes pointless to join any of the major 
> parties because members have no power in them. Over the last couple 
> of decades, people seeking an active role in politics have responded 
> by setting up new parties. Amongst other things.
> 
> But just because they can do that here and in most democratic 
> nations, doesn't mean it will work in the US.
> 
> What would be the point. Electoral politics in the US was reduced to 
> a spectator sport not by the hijacking of political parties, but by 
> the candidate nomination system being rigged to prevent political 
> parties playing any part. Changing to a preferential voting system 
> won't solve that basic problem. Not if new political parties can't 
> stand candidates.

I live in New Hampshire, as I mentioned. There is no way the elections
to State House have been hijacked.  Sadly, however, the position pays
only $100/year.

The point you missed is that a sane Ranked Ballot system will increase the
number of electable parties.  At that point, no one will be able to make
the argument as forcibly that party power brokers control things.

There are other ways to weaken the parties vis-a-vis the candidates, but
voting system reform is the most rational.  

A second factor which I often consider is that donations to candidates 
are limited, but donation limits to parties are much higher.  Huh?  This,
perhaps as much or more than the voting system which encourages a two 
party system, also helps the parties (and their powerbrokers) over the 
candidates.

-Josh