Choice Voting: the next step in electoral reform.

Daniel:

At the culmination of the Ontario Assembly there were many -- including (and especially) Wilf -- who talked about the OCA's design as a stepping stone to the system they really wanted in the end. The thing of it is you really have to make that intention clear to the people who you hope will endorse your proposal.

Otherwise, they will be looking at it as "the proposal" -- the solution to the problem -- which it ain't... per your intentions. The danger of keeping people in the dark is that if it isn't what they feel is "the solution" they won't vote for it -- I figure that's what happened in Ontario (or might of had Onatario been told what it was all about) -- and if it is their choice, then they won't want to change it later when you do want to upgrade.

On the other hand, if you tell people that this is a half-way compromise, a lot of the people you want to support it will say, "but if you know what the ultimate solution is, then why the heck aren't we implementing that now?"

Going for half measures is very problematic. I believe we have such a poor record of reform because PR is a half measure. It isn't enough. In their heart of hearts, people know this. And in a democracy, people matter most.

As I said, we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Daniel:

You're asking precisely the wrong question. And you're tackling the problem from the wrong end.

This is where the OCA went horribly wrong in the middle of their process.

Don't pick a system and then rationalize your choice (or try to argue for it). First, determine the fundamental requirements, make a yardstick of criteria by which to measure candidate systems and then measure 'em. Then there's no question of worrying about whether a proposal "has a realistic chance of ever being acceptable" -- you've already established what is acceptable by agreeing on the yardstick. Actually, you've done better than that -- you will have developed a template of what is desirable in an optimal system.

The usual suspects -- the textbook systems -- will certainly come up short. No matter. We can either accept the deficit in the best of them or use one or two of them as the basis for a custom system. Custom systems are nothing to fear. BC-STV and OCA-MMP were custom systems, not off-the-shelf designs.

A successful Charter challenge will certainly define a basic yardstick -- the arguments for rejecting FPTP will inevitably include statements of necessary first-principle conditions for a new system. We must apply those in any case. But there will be other characteristics with which we will want to complete the yardstick.

I figure that we should be actively working on these... just in case. And as our basic modus operandi.

Erik observes that there is significant dispute about our constitutional rights... and then refuses to discuss these. I would argue that if we can't agree on those rights then the locus of our democratic deficit is there, not in the electoral system, and that's where we should focus our efforts.

If the kids on the block go out to play pick-up hockey they have to agree on the basic rules -- raising or not, how big the goals have to be, how to choose sides, etc.  -- or else it won't be any fun or fair. Generally, settling on these rules isn't a problem. They're often relatively pragmatic. And once they're agreed you can play on and have fun. In fact they enable the game.

At this jucture we need to be enabling our democracy too.

Just an observation on the "dogmatics" -- this from the NDP policy document pointed to by Wilf in another thread:

New Democrats believe in:
a. Reforming Canada's electoral system through mixed member proportional representation
b. Ensuring electoral reform is based on a transparent process with wide citizen involvement
c. Assisting under-represented and marginalized groups to participate fully in the political process
d. Protecting the right to vote by ensuring that regulations on voter identity do not unduly restrict a
citizen from casting a ballot; and
e. Investing in public education addressing democracy and politics, primarily for young people.

These are people who believe they know the answer (and what's best for "us") rather than in striving to facilitate us reaching the best answer through a good process.

Statement "a" is at odds with "b" unless their view of participation and involvement is for citizens to do what Jack tells them to do -- choose MMP. Paternalism is for lemmings.

Yes... they're contradictory and illogical.

It's a very poor process indeed where you've reached your conclusion before you gather the evidence and weigh it to solve your problems.

As Holmes (Sherlock, not Mike) said, it's a critical mistake to do so. 

It may be "transparent" for the NDP to expose this (when other parties almost certainly hide key aspects of their dogma) but it also points to a flaw that makes them hard to vote for.

Addendum: The quote:

" It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."