All this recent commotion about the 2008 election, specifically in regards to Republican candidate Ron Paul, has got me thinking. The reason Ron Paul has got me thinking is that there is definitely a wide base of either support for or interest in him… he polls wonderfully on the internet, and yet he polls terribly in “snail” polls. This kind of phenomenon is something that I, as a Libertarian supporter, am used to… but the thing that just struck me is that I found myself thinking that as much as I’d like to see him win, and as much support as he may have, Ron Paul has no chance of winning.
Why does Ron Paul have no chance of winning? Because of plurality voting. I have blogged about the problems inherent in our voting system before, so I won’t go into any detail here. But, I decided it’s high time to put my money where my mouth is about making some change. I’m extremely cynical about what it takes to enact any kind of change on a public, governmental level, so I’m doing this thing my own way.
– The Proposal –
I am hereby starting a voluntary organization which currently has no name (I am accepting suggestions.) I am, as of now, the first and only member. The only requirements for joining are that you know somebody already in the organization, and that you contribute $1. The $1 entry fee is meant to be so little that it is no barrier to legitimate entry, but enough of a barrier that it will prevent abusive spammers from joining. The requirement that you know somebody who’s already in the organization is to verify that everyone in the organization is at least nominally trustworthy. (Thanks go to Mikix who helped me iron out some of the mechanics in the alpha stages).
There are several purposes to this organization, depending on how big it ends up getting:
1) At a local level, its purpose is to raise awareness, foster communication and debate, and raise a small amount of (largely symbolic) money for the group’s ideal candidate.
2) At a medium level, its purpose is to raise an amount of money that is no longer symbolic.
3) At a national level, its purpose is to replace the plurality voting system with a more progressive one.
At some point prior to the election, this organization will meet, and each member will vote for their ideal candidate(s). The method of voting — and this is crucial — will be one such as condorcet, instant-runoff, or approval. When the votes are counted and the winner is determined, all of the money raised via $1 entry fees will be donated to that candidate. Additionally, members are encouraged (but not required) to cast their actual votes in the general election for this winner. Assuming this organization ever grew to a sufficient size, this system could eventually decide the general election and de facto replace our plurality system with a better one without ever having to pass anything through Congress. Even if nobody actually went through with voting for the organization’s winner, the results of the election would be enough to instill confidence in that candidate, possibly overcoming the paradox of “they can’t win, so I won’t vote for them”.
But I’m getting way ahead of myself, since this organization will probably never get that large. It is also useful at a very small level by getting people together to talk about politics, and to raise awareness for voting methods and for the candidates themselves. This, I think, is well worth the price of $1, and even a $10 donation to a candidate could be a ribbon for them to say it came from such a progressive organization. And besides, the organization can never become big unless it starts out small.
So, now the question is: who’s interested in joining? All it takes is one dollar and a little bit of your time. Eh? Eh?
UPDATES:
2007-05-24 3:32PM — Todd Cesere joined
2007-05-24 3:37PM — Meg Price joined
2007-05-25 11:38AM — Mike Terry joined
2007-05-28 12:38PM — Joe Hebert joined
NOTICES:
Once we hit a membership of 10, I will make a website for us. We will then vote on which voting method to use, and then we can try to come up with a name for the organization.
I’m in.
Spot me a dollar?
I’m in, I like the idea.
Keep this idea going… and I like the voting methods discussion. It’s silly to have plurality voting with so many candidates in the field. People have opinions about more than one and should express them.
Robert’s Rules of Order has picked instant runoff voting for such elections — what it calls preferential voting. There’s a website with more at http://www.instantrunoff.com
I myself prefer Condorcet voting to Instant-Runoff, but they’re pretty similar. I think one of the first functions of the organization should be to have a vote on which voting method to use…
I’ll give you 8 RMB when I arrive in July.