And it tends to be biased towards incumbents, since it has a divide and conquer effect on challengers, which is why it's easier to get incumbents to adopt it as a voting system... Rob Richie is a good marketer and strategist and he knows that to keep FAIRVOTE flush, they need victories. Thus, keep the idealistic rhetoric but advocate for a pragmatically constructed election rule.

I'm not against the use of IRV3 in local municipal elections, but think it wdn't work well in bigger elections. And it's effects are over-stated. If you really want to change things, what matters most is not the no. of options you give (mostly low-info) voters but rather to work out a better mix of winner-take-all and winner-doesn't-take-all elections. And the latter is probably best used in more local elections or the primaries of the former.

dlw

thanks!

Yes, the primaries will be more important, they'll be closer to what they were supposed to be initially. But that doesn't mitigate how it'll also reduce the entrepreneurial nature of our political system, strengthening intra-party discipline.

As for the general election, if it's a close two-way race then it cd still be significant, especially if third parties, committed to vote strategically in advancement of issues otherwise unlikely to get attention....

If the primaries are more interesting then they'll also get better turnout. God knows the parties will have a stronger incentive to increase their turnout, as will third parties, hoping to gain influence thru strategic voting. And so you really can't presume that the current sorry state of primaries will persist. But it does depend somewhat on the state of civic activism whether things will happen or not...

I think this is why third party activists need to make strategically voting for ongoing strategically chosen election reforms a priority, so as to prevent backsliding...

Did you check out my link?
dlw

First off, welcome to the site.

I think the biggest change under Prop 14 is going to be a shift from the general election to the primaries, in terms of importance. Because only the top two will advance, the general is going to become closer to a runoff election, in my opinion. The primary may be where all the action is. But far fewer voters turn out for primaries, meaning those that do will have a disproportionate influence on the result.

But I also feel that because both major parties hate the concept of Prop 14 (Abel Moldanado pretty much blackmailed them both into putting it on the ballot), they'll find a way to do away with it before 2012, or at the worst, 2014 -- the same way they did away with the REAL open primaries.

I'd prefer IRV in the general, but that's kind of a separate issue, I feel.

-CW

I think it's implics will depend more so on the habits of voters. What do we do next? Wallow in despair or do activist groups vote strategically on behalf of upgrades to the "top two" system?

My view is that since the FPP system was rigged in favor of the top two parties that not that much has been lost. This will tend to increase intra-party discipline, something lost in our largely entrepreneurial system, which in turn will expedite the ability of the parties to get things done at the state level. Similarly, third parties will need to refocus on local elections and strategic election reforms and civil issue-advocacy, which may be a better use of their time/energy than contesting state-wide elections.

And so, I'm not by any means a fan of using only a "top two" primary sytem. But I think it can be fixed and that how it'll work will depend for the most part on voter habits. It will disrupt the status quo and cd leveraged into making further significant reforms possible. One possible upgrade is an idea I developed called "top 3 IRV". http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/ankotp/2009/11/a-top-three-instant-runoff-vot-1.php

dlw

I wish we had the luxury of choice. Out here were stuck with FPL all the way.. :(

Michale....

"You get what you pay for." :D

Having lived in Palo Alto for a bit I an tell you I'd rather have Palo Alto power than PG&E any time. Cheaper rates, easier to make payments, much more competent and timely electricians. It was surprising to me just how much better run it was. Too bad I'm back under PG&E...at least prop 16 lost...that was sweet.

Fiorina and Whitman, as expected, skated home last night.

Prop 14 passed (which CA is going to regret, that's my guess), Prop 15 failed, and Prop 16 -- while it was a very close race which looked bad up until about midnight -- failed.

Prop results:

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/props/59.htm

-CW

Sign me up for some of that "socialism"! :)

There's another quote that might also be applicable here..

"You get what you pay for." :D

"Just a monkey in the wrench, Hans. A fly in the ointment."
-John McClane, DIE HARD

Michale.....

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/09/MNML1DOS0C.DTL

This may be a sign that even $46 million can't buy you love :)

This would be an amazing sign of the public seeing through the propagand of one company, PG&E, and their attempts to hold onto their monopoly. If they're willing to spend $46 million to back the effort, what must they think the returns on this investment would be?

My favorite quote from the article:
"Municipal utilities, such as those serving Sacramento and Palo Alto, typically have lower rates than investor-owned utilities such as PG&E."

Sign me up for some of that "socialism"! :)

-David

That may or may not be true...

But one thing we DO know to be true..

Running a good campaign doesn't make one a good president...

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Spill-reveals-Obama_s-lack-of-executive-experience-95819074.html

Michale.....

http://www.cnbc.com/id/30502091?slide=3

-David