Dec 7, 2010

Strategic Election Reform, A Synopsis

Over at Daily Kos, I wrote a synopsis of Strategic Election Reform. It's gotten 50-50 reviews, but given the lack of familiarity of most US_Americans with electoral reform (and the lower ratings for earlier posts), I think it shows that it's a decent writeup of the idea. Here's a revised version of it.

Strategic Election Reform is a position in the electoral reform debate. Electoral reform is a debate about what sort of election rules we ought to use. Strategic Election Reform(SER) holds that there are two fundamental types of elections: winner-take-all (single-seated) and winner-doesn't-take-all (multi-seated) and that we need both to sustain a healthy democracy. An implication of SER is that it is because we only use winner-take-all elections in the US that our democracy has been so unhealthy in recent years. It makes our politics tilt to effective single-party rule at the state and national levels. If we used winner-doesn't-take-all 3-seated elections* for state representative elections then more elections would become competitive and neither major party could dominate our national politics. If neither major party could get a "permanent majority", it would make their rivalry no longer "cut-throat" and help to transform them both into better parties. The cumulative effects of the transformations caused by Strategic Election Reform would be to make our democracy more inclusive and dynamic.

No comments: