Prior to running for City Council, I served as founding chair of MassVOTE â because I know we must reform the electoral process to bring new people into the fold. And this November we will have the opportunity to vote for an electoral reform that does not address every problem in our terrible system but does make room for voters to clearly specify why they are voting for a candidate that too often tends to be the lesser of two evils. We have to get away from either/or propositions. I want Instant Runoff Voting and I was a plaintiff in the clean elections law suit, I want redistricting reform and I think we should look at proportional representation â but the difference between these and cross-endorsement is that cross-endorsement is on the ballot now!
Let us be clear about this: a Working Families ballot line helps us get back the corner office, and we keep the two US Senate seats that are bound to become vacant. We get to do this while pushing candidates on a platform for working families. Now, we can do all this and continue to go about our work in legislative races as if nothing had changed OR we can find places to strategically use cross-endorsement and highlight our agenda. It might not be your first priority, but it sure is a good thing, and it definitely makes your vote stronger. If we donât give new ideas a chance â who will?
and welcome. It’s Joe I met you at schott last summer. Nice to see you here and look foward to your insight.
Why not go straight to Condorcet? It’s more thorough, and inlike IRV, isn’t subject to tactical voting.
<
p>
I hear folks brandish IRV constantly, and I even lived in a place where IRV is used for all elections. It’s rare that I run into someone in tUSA who (a) supports IRV, (b) really understands the math behind it, and (c) can make the claim that it would benefit democracy substantially, particularly in single seat (mayor, Senator, etc.) races.
<
p>
So — how about it? Make your case bro.
Gibran’s post is on cross endorsement, he only mentioned IRV in passing.
Will suggests that a discussion of voting systems is out of place on this thread, and he has a point. I’m up for such a discussion, but I’ve just posted two diaries and it’s someone else’s turn. Stomv, I’m glad you inspired me to read the Wikipedia article on Condorcet, and if you’ll post a diary I’d love to discuss it further. My initial argument would be that people will not have confidence in a system they don’t understand, and I don’t see any simple-to-explain system that resolves situations where there is no Condorcet winner.
eom.
You can read my post on Condorcet here: http://bluemassgroup.org/showComment.do?commentId=13922
<
p>
Also, you’re statement that Condorcet isn’t subject to tactical voting is false. It is subject to burying.
What are the five things? I’ve seen “five things” mentioned a few times now but never a list of what they are. Are they a secret?
Democracy works when people can come together around a vision for the society they want to build. There are structural limitations that make this more and more difficult, electoral reform aims to address these limitations, but there is no single reform or collection of reforms that can make up for the real life work that is true organizing. It is good for us to seek the best ways to reform the electoral process and it is important to debate it. Cross-endorsement makes your vote stronger, it is a good reform and it is on the ballot right now. It will allow people to tell politicians in the dominant duo-poly why it is that they are voting for them.
<
p>
The five issues of the MA WFP have not yet been defined, we have a process for that, and it is centered on constituency based organizations â labor unions and community organizations will be a part of the process. There is a Communities of Color Caucus and an emerging Womenâs Caucus. We will focus on bread and butter issues that directly affect working families in the Commonwealth. Real issues affecting the real lives of real people living in a nation that finds itself amidst a terrible values crisis, this is where we start.
You don’t know what the “five things we can agree on” actually are. Just checking.
<
p>
Look, I don’t disagree with your platitudes. But you brought up the five things…and you don’t have them.
Hey, Gibran. I did some work on your campaign,a nd it’s good to hear from you. A question, though, on the Mass Ballot Freedom campaign–on the webpage, there’s a list of links which includes some conservative blogs. One of those is MassResiistance. I have to ask you–why on earth is that hateful site listed?MassResistance is not just conservative–it is deeply hateful.
<
p>
Their tagline at the top of the blog refers to “homosexual activist recruitment of our children in the public schools.” They have headlines like “Fascist Homosexual Intimidation Tactics & Macy’s Window” and sentences like “State Senator Jarrett Barrios, who claims to be “married” to Doug Hattaway…has adopted several young boys.” They refer to same-sex marriage as “sodomy marriage.”
<
p>
I know that the folks involved with the ballot freedom campaign don’t support this kind of crap, and I suspect that someone put up the link without looking at it. (I’m not sure why a progressive party would have links to conservative sites, but that’s your call). But please–take it down. Any net-savvyqueer activist involved in the campaign would have recognized this blog and called it out long ago; it’s hard not to conclude that LGBT issues are of much relevance to those who did the campaigns webiste. I hoep that others in the campaign are more aware.
…and apologies for linking to it in the first place. But the reason that the Ballot Freedom Campaign website links to conservative blogs is b/c, although many of our supporters want to use the re-legalization of cross-endorsement to create a progressive indepenent party that can pursue an “inside-outside” strategy with the Democrats, the tool itself is non-partisan and can be used, as it is in New York, by the left, the right, and the center. And in Massachusetts, we’ll pass this initiative with the support not just of progressives but by appealing to the large majorityt of the Massachusetts electorate that is currently unenrolled.
<
p>
Thus, my quote in The Boston Phoenix:
<
p>
âAs far as Iâm concerned, this is a campaign directly aimed at the 49 percent of Massachusetts citizens un-enrolled in either party.”
<
p>
Regardless, thanks for the note about MassResistance. We don’t want that sort of stuff up there.
I’m glad that you took it down, and I understand that you want to appeal to a wide range of folks. And I like your campaign! But groups like MassResistance are beyond the pale, and I don’t understand why it was linked in the first place. It’s disappointing.