How to pitch approval to incumbents?

[Jameson Quinn]

Last Tuesday, I went to New Hampshire to testify for a couple of approval voting bills for the legislature there. There was one bill to allow approval voting in primary and general elections at the municipal level, and one to require it at the state level. There were a half-dozen or so other people testifying on each of them; the only person testifying who was against them was deputy secretary of state Kevin Scanlon, who raised the old "one person one vote" false argument.

The testimony in favor was generally pretty good, but there was one thing that was probably a tactical error. Several people mentioned the advantages of approval for third parties; nobody mentioned its advantages for the two major parties. But most incumbents come from the two majors; and they're used to thinking of third parties as the enemy.

So, how do you make the case for approval to a major-party incumbent? I think there's an honest case to be made, and I have some ideas myself, but I want to hear what other people think first. 

[Clay Shentrup]

https://sites.google.com/a/electology.org/www/better-for-both

[Warren D Smith]

see
http://rangevoting.org/InOffice.html

for my old ideas on that topic

[Jameson Quinn]

OK. Clay and Warren have linked arguments, which I'd summarize as:
-Approval helps insure incumbents against spoiler wildcards. (JQ: Note that it also keeps you from using dirty tricks to promote spoilers of your opponent; but I don't think incumbents want to see themselves as reliant on that strategy, so that's OK. Warren also notes, and ultimately dismisses as relatively minor from the point of view of most incumbents, the "downside" possibility that the third party challenger wins.)
-Approval gives you a better option of what to do if your party gets taken over by radicals or somebody else who's inimical to you: run as an independent. This is true, but I don't think it makes a good pitch to an incumbent. Losing a primary is an unthinkable threat to an incumbent, and "but Approval would smooth the way for you to pull a Lieberman" is at best cold comfort, while also being a major turn-off for many (after all, as I think the Lieberman example shows, a politician who angers their own party enough to lose a primary will probably soon anger the rest of the voters too; most who voted for him the last time he ran ended up regretting it).

Obviously, if you're talking about using approval in party primaries, there's other arguments that Clay and Warren didn't mention: it helps the primary choose the best candidate, and in particular avoid being taken over by its most radical minority.

"One of the big advantages of democracy is that it allows a country to change directions but still keep an underlying stability. It's really in everybody's interests to avoid things like the French Revolution; that's obvious if you were a noble, but even if you were a peasant the terror disrupted trade and food supplies. US-style plurality voting does this job, but it can have a tendency to swing too wildly from right to left. After all, in the current election, all the major candidates from both parties come either from the more extreme side of their party, according to DW-Nominate scores, or from a place so extreme they didn't even call themselves part of the party until recently. I'm sure many people here have some one of those candidates whom they think is making good points, but even then, it's much safer if the way to win is to convince enough voters so that you're in the center, not to run up to one edge and hope your opponent falls off the cliff on the other side. And in approval voting, convincing the majority is always the best way to win. Using approval in their primaries, parties end up choosing the candidate that the majority of the party thinks is best for the general election, not the one who can hold together the most enthusiastic minority, or even worse worse, the one who can find the biggest pile of cash to fund their campaign. And using approval in the general election, both parties know that if they lose touch with the center of the electorate as a whole, they will be vulnerable to a challenge from a small party or independent. It keeps them honest, and keeps them more responsive to all the voters, whatever their partisan affiliation."

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Center for Election Science" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to electionscien...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Clay Shentrup]

I generally agree with what you said here Jameson.

[Andy Jennings]

On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Jameson Quinn <jameso...@gmail.com> wrote:

-Approval gives you a better option of what to do if your party gets taken over by radicals or somebody else who's inimical to you: run as an independent. This is true, but I don't think it makes a good pitch to an incumbent. Losing a primary is an unthinkable threat to an incumbent, and "but Approval would smooth the way for you to pull a Lieberman" is at best cold comfort, while also being a major turn-off for many (after all, as I think the Lieberman example shows, a politician who angers their own party enough to lose a primary will probably soon anger the rest of the voters too; most who voted for him the last time he ran ended up regretting it).

Probably true in general, but I actually see lots of exceptions here in Arizona.  Getting "primaried" can be a realistic threat for Republican politicians who are not "conservative" enough.  I'm sure many at-risk politicians can imagine themselves pulling a Lieberman if that happened.

However, many times there are sore loser laws which say you can't run in the general if you lose the primary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sore-loser_law

(I note that one of the footnotes there is: http://rangevoting.org/BallAccess.html)

[Steve Cobb]

Jameson, you probably frightened them with your suggestion that AV might smooth the way for the transition from one major party to a new one. ;)

>Obviously, if you're talking about using approval in party primaries, there's other arguments that Clay and Warren didn't mention:

> it helps the primary choose the best candidate"

IMO that is the most important argument, and it is included on the postcard flyer that we made a couple of years ago, which Keith distributed to the Elections Committee. Next time someone drafts such a bill, I might advise them to say, "Give parties the ability to use AV in their primary elections." 

[Jameson Quinn]

Steve: you may be right. But of course, "one party dies and a new one is born" is not the only way realignment can happen; alternately, a party can successfully transition to a new winning platform. And approval voting, by reducing the overall brittleness of the party system, can help that kind of transition too. I didn't say that, I guess, because it's not easy to say pithily. I'd love to see other people here attempting to hone that pitch.  

--

[esand...@gmail.com]

Good points, Steve. I wrote about why the Republican Party should use Approval Voting years ago, here: http://electology.org/blog/why-republicans-lost-failed-voting-system-primaries

Seems even more urgent today with Trump leading the primary.

[Steve Cobb]

I shouldn't let my political leanings show, but "urgent" is an understatement.

AV should also be pitched as a way to strengthen the primary for those states, like NH, with early-primary ambitions. This should be explained to New Hampshire's deputy Secretary of State, who is likely soon to take the top job.

[Warren D Smith]

I suggest accumulating (& posting here)
approval- and/or score-style poll data, in New Hampshire,
for the presidential primaries. Including (if there is any) exit-poll data.
Pollster name, URL, mode (e.g. telephone), date-range, sample type and
size, please.

This data will later be used as the basis for writing op-eds designed
to influence
New Hampshire to adopt approval or score voting, including in its presidential
primaries.


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

[Rob Wilson]

Maybe NH is a little different because their state representative positions aren't really paid. I think they only get a per diem salary so they may not be your typical career politicians.

I saw the video and I thought you did pretty well Jameson. I think that you should have made it more clear though that it is FPTP that diminishes the votes. The Hawaii special election in 2010 should be the first go to example of this. It is a much better example than referencing the plantsville animation.

[Toby Pereira]

I too thought you did well, but I have to admit to laughing when the woman asked that question at about 44:20.