I am not only a ‘voting method theorist’, but just as much, a want-to-become ‘movement evangelist’ advocating the utilization of high quality election methods, to enable the commonalty to wrest political power away from the elite power addicts. Before describing my proposed strategies, let me mention a problem this (high-dollar) website presents to low-dollar movements. CES demands that material on its forum be presented under a Creative Commons content license. That is likely to create difficulties when low-dollar movements attempt to get their material published in larger venues, something that the high-dollar organizations do not need to be much concerned with. So why not allow the low-dollar advocates just publish under the sort-of ‘common law’ copyright that is so prevalent on some other websites?
Note: This forum is planning to go dark soon. What all of the contributors need to do is open their own free WordPress.com websites, and (loosely) tie them together (blogrolls would provide a good start). (I really think Zoom will turn out to be the next sorry Facebook.) One of mine is:
About my proposed strategies. I do not prefer approval voting for the following reason: The approval method is not adequately differentiative of contenders, and therefor imposes a double bind effect upon voters, whereby the most collectively desired contenders might possibly never ever win, or only win on a random basis. Thus we could find ourselves governed by lesser evils as often as not.
Another strategy – Know it or not, there is a tremendously potent ‘semi-grass roots’ movement to implement IRV/RCV, which extends vastly beyond the drives in Maine, Oregon, and Massachusetts. Here’s the thing: I would be happy to support this IRV/RCV leviathan, with the provision that one very small enhancement be included. (I do demand hand counted paper ballots, since voting computers and scanners are always controlled by election managers who are beholden to power addicts.) In some prominent place on the ballot there should be a pair of ‘ovals’ where the voter can indicate whether the electoral contention ballots must be tabulated according to the ranked choice voting method, or according to the ‘simple ranked voting’ method.The will of the majority for IRV/RCV vs. SRV in each contention mandates which of the two tabulation methods will be applied. The salient problem with IRV/RCV is that it requires a vast amount of very insecure information traffic, and worse, individual ballots must be edited by election managers who are beholden to power addicts, so as to set-aside the weakest contenders, and transfer rank-place positions to the ‘surviving’ contenders. Simple ranked voting (SRV) tabulation, if mandated by a majority of the voters (why should they be denied this choice?), completely eliminates ballot editing by the managers. Here’s how it works.
For each paper ballot, the contender indicated in the highest rank-place receives 100 votes; the one indicated in the second-highest rank-place receives 99 votes, and so on. The lowest rank-place is twenty places down, so the lowest number of votes that can be cast for a contender is ‘80’. It’s futile to cast less that ‘80’ votes, and only makes hand counting much more difficult. And voters will eventually learn to use the hedge strategy: The voters could utilize hedge voting, mitigating total electoral leverage sacrifice which could invoke a spoiler effect, which could cause the greater evil to win. With hedge voting, voters could cast, say, ‘80’ votes to an elite-fronted lesser evil, and ‘95’ to ‘100’ votes their most desired contenders. Then, all of the votes simply get added up in just one pass, in precincts. SRV is quite simple.
I do not accept the ‘reiteration effect’ that insists that voters must be somehow ‘honest’, as it is impossible for a normal voter to commit fraud in a secretive voting booth. It is obvious to me that the so-called max-min ‘strategy’ is at best a totally losing strategy, whereas the hedge strategy is a winning one. I also do not believe that proportional ‘representation’ has been shown, ultimately to have realistically accomplished much for the proportioned camps. That is a social and cultural issue, where politics has proved, ultimately, to have led to futility.
A non-binding preliminary quasi-election should probably be held prior to a subsequent decisive election.