Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 <at> gmail.com>
2013-11-19 01:45:25 GMT
I was saying, before, that the best strategy in our Vote-For-1
Plurality elections is to vote for the most winnable acceptable
For progressives, that means combining our votes on the most winnable
progressive. (And, if you think that a democat is progressive, ask
yourself if hir actions and policies more closely resemble the
progressive parties, such as Greens, Justice Party, and the socialist
parties, or if they're more like the Republicans).
That's true if its a purely 1-election situation. And it's true if we
assume (even if it isn't true) that people are going to vote for what
they want this next time (even though they've been never doing so).
But what if we give up that optimistic assumption?
Then we needn't try to combine all of our votes on one candidate in
the next election. Then the best strategy would be to all vote for
the nominee of whichever progressive party we like best--and at such
time as the progressive votes total a majority, then, in the next
election, we all combine our votes on the nominees of the party whose
candidates got the most votes in the previous election (the one in
which there was the first progressive majority).
It's certainly a lot easier to ask progressives to vote for their
favorite, than to ask them to vote instead for some other progresive
party, because it's claimed to be the most winnable. If progressive
votes ever add up to a majority, then that election will also show
which progressive party is the most winnble, by the vote-totals.
In fact, if the vote-able progressive parties had primaries, then we
could even do a little better than that: We could, in the primary, all
vote in the primary of our favorite progressive party. If the
progressive parties' primary votes total a majority of all of the
elecion's primary votes, then we know there's a progressive majority,
and, in the general election, we all vote for the nominees of the
progressive party whose primary candidates got, between them, the most
But, in some states, some parties' candidates can only be voted for by
write-in. Then that part won't have any primary votes there, and so
the primary-votes idea might not be very workable.
That's ok. The first of those 2 suggestions could (if we all were
ready to vote for actually want, and if we are a majority) elect a
progressive government in two elections, instead of just one. That's a
small price to pay for that strategy's greater workabillity (because
the primary votes strategy loses feasbility because write-in votes
don't count toward a party's primary vote-total).
But of course none of that will happen unless progressives will start
voting for what they want, instead of for a lesser-evil.
And, in fact, none of that can happen unless we have verifiable
vote-counting results. In order for any electoral success to have any
hope, it would be necessary everyone to demand verifable vote-counting
results to be in place in time fo the 2012 elections.
That's the only way that we'd have legitimate elections, and, thereby,
Of course I'm not saying that everyone, or many people at all, are
going to demand that.
And, in fact, I'm not even saying that, if people demanded that,
they'd be granted it. Referring to those who benefit from how things
now are--Why should they grant us legitimacy for the electoral system?
It would hardly be in their best interest.
But shouldn't we ask?
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info