Election Algorithm and Money Influence

[William Waugh]

There are two web pages that make the point that Choose-one Plurality Voting (FPTP) gives voters an incentive to seek a bandwagon, a popular candidate to support, and that the voter will use the news reports of amount of money support a candidate has to choose the bandwagon. One of these writings is by Smith, Jennings, and Shentrup; the other one seems to be by Smith by himself. I find each of these writings convincing in their indictment of FPTP as a money amplifier. I believe that this characteristic of FPTP gives FPTP the key rôle in how the rich (the people having net worths in the hundreds of millions of dollars) reserve to themselves all political power in the US and deny all political power to the general public, more important and effective than all the other mechanisms the rich use for that purpose.

I think what I see as the main point of these writings is very important for explaining to people, such as for example the ACLU-linked organizations specific to each State of the US (I am maintaining a soon-to-be-replaced web site of the Maryland one, and at this moment I have a work assignment to replace a logo related to voting rights, and so have an opportunity to say something about voting rights to the people in charge), as they assert the importance of voting rights, and other organizations that talk about voting rights, explaining to such people that a voting right at least as important as accurate tally and at least as important as not excluding voters based on skin color and ancestral condition of enslavement and at least as important as slaying the Gerrymander is to institute a voting algorithm/rule/system/method that does not amplify the effect of money.

But I think a problem with the two existing writings is that they are too long and do not get to the point early enough. Can you draft an elevator pitch arguing for the key rôle of the choice of voting system in upholding, or abrogating via the bandwagon mechanism, the people's right to political power?

[Warren D Smith]

> But I think a problem with the two existing writings is that they are too
> long and do not get to the point early enough. Can you draft an elevator
> pitch arguing for the key rôle of the choice of voting system in upholding,
> or abrogating via the bandwagon mechanism, the people's right to political
> power?

--could you?

--
Warren D. Smith
http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking
"endorse" as 1st step)

[William Waugh]

Here's what I ended up writing to my client's client, the ACLU of Md.

The new thumbnail now shows on the home page. You may need to tell your browser to refresh itself.

While we are on the subject of voting rights, I will inject a political opinion of mine, not necessarily endorsed by [my boss].

Organizations that advocate about voting rights often focus on discrimination, accurate tally, the Gerrymander, and maybe trying to restrict money used for advertising. However, even if those issues are resolved in a way favorable to democracy, it will remain the case that "one person, one vote" won't be in effect and mean anything unless every vote has equal weight. I hold that an equal vote is a political right of every Marylander, and I suggest that ACLU of Md. should come to the same opinion. Under the current law in Maryland and every other State for how the voter can mark her ballot and what kind of tally is done and how it determines a single winner, voters who oppose a candidate do not receive equal political weight to those who support that candidate. The opposing voters' votes are split among the opposition candidates, as illustrated in https://www.equal.vote/theequalvote.

Pieces I cite just below go further and argue that the current voting system amplifies the effect of political money. Even though these authors argue for a specific solution, Score Voting, I am not, by citing them, trying to get you to endorse that specific system necessarily. The current system is unfair and Marylanders have a right to an equal vote, and the argument about the money effect forms an additional indictment of the current system from a pro-democracy viewpoint.

• Duopoly Must Go: An Appeal for Score Voting, by Smith, Jennings, and Shentrup
• Why score voting should decrease the importance of money in elections, by Warren D. Smith
  

The simplest solution to the unfairness of vote splitting is Approval Voting.

Some people advocate Instant Runoff Voting, which they now call "Ranked-Choice Voting" even though that should be a broader term. I'm not super confident in IRV, but that's an argument among those with a special interest in the details of voting systems, and if I can get you to see that the current system denies Marylanders their political rights and should be substituted with some fairer system, the purpose of this screed will have been fulfilled. Thanks for your attention.

On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 6:39:11 AM UTC-4, William Waugh started https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/electionscience/JeMf6uqh25Y

[Sara Wolf]

I agree that eliminating choose one only ballots will have more of an influence mitigating the influence of money in politics than any of the other branches of election reform. More than campaign finance reform, maybe even more than citizens united... This point needs to be made clearly and it needs to be made often! I'm giving a speech on it tomorrow at a huge conference. It comes down to being able to vote your conscience, the right to an equal vote, and equal access to the media. 

It's because of the spoiler effect and the fact that voters strategically have to vote for the frontrunners. If we can vote our conscience regardless of money we can elect who we want and then hold candidates accountable. If you want to tie in voting system reform and social justice this is that link. Accountability. Voters are sick of being taken for granted. They are taken for granted because... 

​
William, your elevator pitch starts out super similar to mine on the topic! "Even if all these things were fixed we'd..."  

I'll take you up on this challenge this weekend and write up what I've been saying to people in the elevator pitch. In the meantime here's a new article on the Equal Vote and how it ties together all the major branches of election reform. www.starvoting.us/equal_vote

[William Waugh]

Here's a shorter version of the {screed with links} that I posted:

If voting is ever to empower the masses, it must be made equal. Unequal vote, via vote splitting, maintains two-party dominance and the oligarchs then have only two parties to buy. Moreover, the current system gives voters (individually, not collectively) a special incentive to obey money.

http://rangevoting.org/Cash3.html

http://asitoughttobe.com/2010/07/18/score-voting/

https://www.equal.vote/theequalvote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 6:39:11 AM UTC-4, William Waugh started a conversation that in its current state you can see it at https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/electionscience/JeMf6uqh25Y