tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post2680002337461342278..comments2024-02-16T09:00:32.845-06:00Comments on FromDC2Iowa: Third Parties Are Our Friends . . .Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-21687965103259701052012-10-20T19:23:38.217-05:002012-10-20T19:23:38.217-05:00Thank you for writing this excellent article! I&#...Thank you for writing this excellent article! I've forwarded or "shared" it various places. Here's a response from the usually curmudgeonly social media/video guru of the national Green media committee. I noted that it's not impossible that in some states there may be legitimate interest in something like IRV - he is in New York, where there is really only one party; in Iowa, we have two parties with nearly the same membership numbers, plus a large chunk of "others" with the same size membership. So, maybe there is a vague "threat" of potential spoilers that makes the legislature a little more open to considering IRV - <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Nicholas Johnson former FCC Commissioner? I've loved his thinking writing since the '70 when I studied communications law.<br /><br />I rarely see the extended argument addressed though.<br /><br />Typical response is that "until" we get IRV we're stuck with the current system.<br />No one explains what need be done to get there and why it hasn't happened.<br /><br />Major parties don't want IRV because it's a major disrupter to the patronage system. Losing is "less costly" than the lose of patronage.<br /><br />Therefore the best vehicle is to do enough damage where the lose of elections results in enough lost patronage that the alternative looks better. Not an easy thing to do of course.<br /><br />CraigSAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12597112761224809685noreply@blogger.com