Texas progressives tackle Butosky, policing, more

Plenty of stuff regionally, statewide and nationally to write about, from Austin actually kind of defunding its police, through Seth Rich conspiracy theorist Ed Butowsky and his bullshit legal beagle Ty Clevenger facing new legal hot water, to conspiracy thinking on political websites.

So, let's dig in!

Austin

Kudos to the Austin City Council for being possibly the first big city in the US to take a BIG whack to its police budget, along with other actual reforms. Grits has more.

Dallas

Jim Schutze notes that a small bit of "reparations" are tucked into a major Dallas ISD bond issue, as well as discussion over whether that word should be used or not.

Schutze also notes the latest political screwups of Dallas Mayor Eric Johnson. And that he's now gone and gotten into bed with some Religious Right grifters over a Dallas coronavirus day of prayer held yesterday.

D Mag also has a very good cover story profile of Mark Cuban.

State

Off the Kuff looked at the potential effects on the partisan balance of the State House that may result from the nomination of State Sen. Pat Fallon to Congress. (Yours truly will have more on this issue in a week.)

DosCentavos took the week off, but he does point us all to a piece by Latino Decisions , reporting that Latino voters are quite content with the Kamala Harris pick for VP.

Reform Austin warns of the bad effects of a Census undercount.

Dan Solomon brings us the twenty most iconic local TV and billboard legends, and continues his string of teh sux by omitting both Burton Gilliam and Brian Loncar. (I put the "no follow" tag in that so, just in case you the reader don't have Ghostery installed, TM doesn't get clicks from this. This is the same Solomon about whom I devoted a full article for writing "poor me in the oil patch," then called out on Twitter for first fellating HEB in a brief, then recycling that into a full story. Seriously, Texas Monthly is pretty sucky at times, and Kuff is so much a ConservaDem that in his Roundup links, I don't think I've ever seen one from the Texas Observer.

So, I'll supply what Dunghill Dan doesn't. Burton Gilliam:



And Loncar, the "Strong Arm" of the law. Picked this one because of a guy talking about being T-boned ... ironic given Loncar getting T-boned himself after failure to yield to a fire truck. Otherwise, just the cheese nuts of all that's wrong with ambulance chasers advertising on teevee:



The further irony? Loncar's own attorney in his suit against the city of Dallas? Clay Jenkins, now Dallas County Judge. Maybe John Wiley Price should have thought twice about the idea that Jenkins would be his puppet. Jenkins bought Loncar's firm after he died.

Dems have gotten Green Charles Waterbury booted off the state Supreme Court ballot. I'm of several minds. One is hating the mix of pettiness and fear Democrats, especially organizations, show toward Greens. Witness in Wisconsin, a petition against Hawkins/Walker just because she moved to another address within Charleston during their Wisconsin ballot access drive. Pure pettiness. On the other hand, that's the way politics is played at times. On the third hand, specific to this case? Waterbury voted in the Dem primary this spring. A no-no that he, as a repeat candidate, should know. Second issue is one that Kuff (where I saw the link) didn't mention: The onerous ballot access fees of HB 2504, which he has basically discussed not at all. Yeah, I'm sub-blogging, as in a riff on sub-tweeting, Kuff a lot this week.

Juanita checks in on Alex Jones.

Matt Angle documents the top ten ways that Texas Republicans have conspired to suppress the vote and undermine fair elections.

Grits discusses the Texas Legislature Black Caucus' George Floyd Act. He doesn't call it a nothingburger, but does, in essence call it weak tea of collected floor scrapings that the Lege refused to pass before. He wonders if the attitude in the Lege will have changed enough for this to pass. That said, he doesn't note that by it being this weak to start with, a la Barack Obama, Senfronia Thompson, Royce West, et al have compromised away the compromise in advance.

National

Ed Butowsky was facing legal sanctions over willfully telling lies in his lawsuit against David Folkenflik and NPR. One problem with NPR's filing, IMO. If there were any way of looping him into it, they should have asked for sanctions against Ed's legal beagle, Ty Clevenger. You know, the sack o shite Ty Clevenger who has a boatload of unpaid legal sanctions and other black marks. Unfortunately, there's not a way to make that happen under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, the basis of this particular filing. However? Ty as well as Ed DOES face a sanctioning claim under Rule 11, in a sanctions claim from the same case. Rulings are expected in 2-4 weeks. Meanwhile, as yet more stories come out, in the middle of, and wake of, the RNC, Ed, Ty et al look worse than ever.

Fox News, Ed Butowsky & Ty Clevenger look more DISGUSTING by the day on #SethRich #ConspiracyTheory As do Elizabeth Lea Vos, Jared Beck, Suzi3D, Kim Dotcom & MANY OTHERS, incl alleged outside-the-box stenos of Blumenthal, Ames, Maté, Taibbi if "believers" https://t.co/RcvbvZ8d4p

— I come to Bari Weiss, not to praise her 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) August 26, 2020

More detail: NPR is asking for a motion for summary judgment (YES!) based on previous stupidity by Butowsky (which arguably is previous stupidity, passive mood, by Clevenger).

A lot of Democrats tout New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham as a rising star. The truth is that in Congress she was a neoliberal New Dem, and as governor, she's refused to implement a court order to improve education for Hispanic and American Indian students.

U.S. District Judge Lance Walker has kept ranked choice voting in place in Maine and kicked some lying Republican plaintiff ass in the process.

Biden's in the tank Zionism is another reason not to vote for him.

Independent Political Report, which I thought was better and smarter than this, had William Saturn post RFK Jr. popping up on Ron Paul's show. I can accept that. I can accept that Bobby Jr. is going to go full antivaxxer, and expand that to coronavirus conspiracy theories. Having read his book of lies about his dad and uncle, I can also accept he'll lie about that, too. I CANNOT, and will not, accept Saturn calling this "truthbombs."

“Truthbombs”? Pack o lies. 1. Jack (and Bobby) ordered Operation Mongoose for the CIA to topple Castro. 2. Jack knew about the Diem coup and signed off on it. His tears over Diem’s death were purely crocodile tears. He was also NOT “just about to get out of Vietnam.” 3. There IS NO link between thimerosal based mercury in vaccines and autism. 4. COVID ain’t done killing. Most knowledgeable health authorities believe the US current death count is at least 50K low. Shock me that an antivaxxer so nutbar that his own family wants him to shut up is also a coronavirus conspiracy theorist.

C'mon.

Therese Odell goes off on the Trump sabotage of the postal service. I explain why Dem tribalists like Therese Odell aren't totally correct on the short term and totally ignore Dems' part in the neoliberal decision 50 years ago to ditch the old U.S. Post Office.

Paradise in Hell translates and edits Donald Trump.

Alternative voting systems and cultism

The title is deliberately chosen, and deliberately chosen because it's provocative.

If you don't like it, especially because you're one of those devotees of approval voting whom I, in my second blog post, and first with some depth, about alternative voting around a decade ago, thought were semi-cultic in their attachment, then that's your problem. (I also indicated that worry to some degree in my third post about it.) And your fault. Comments on and about my recent post about ranked choice, the Green Party, and Maine 2018 have only increased that stance.

Also, yes, IRV had a "Condorcet stumble" in Maine; other systems will too, if they're used as often or more. Period.

Per the above, I'm not a pilgrim to the discussion of alternatives to first past the post plurality voting in single-member electoral districts. I'm also not, despite what some may think, a cultist for instant-runoff voting. Or necessarily attached to IRV. See point three immediately below for that.

I am attached to an honest consideration of the benefits and faults of ALL alternatives to FPTP, and "consideration" means more than lip service.

First, per Wikipedia, in its article on ranked voting systems, cardinal voting systems, and tactical voting, a few stipulations.
1. All FPTP alternatives are subject to tactical voting.
2. No alternative to FPTP (other than some unwieldy ones, not suitable for elections otherwise, that Wiki did not list in its statement about this) can guarantee a majoritarian winner. (Just recently, Eric Maskin and Amartya Sen at the NY Review of Books weigh in on this.)
3. "There is no consensus among academics or public servants as to the best electoral system." (From the ranked voting piece.)
4. On cardinal systems, they may not be subject to Arrow's theorem, but that's not necessarily a good point.

Point 1 is the second-biggest issue. On tactical voting concerns, Wiki notes they can vary, in severity and specific effects, from system to system. They can also vary by how much voters know alternatives, and how much information they have about other voters.

In local and regional elections, especially in non-presidential years, major parties could work on informing better-knowledged voters how to vote most strategically. Per Wiki's link, range voting, which some approval voting touters like even more but think it would be too complicated, is according to some research, the system most vulnerable to tactical voting, for example.

Since we're not likely to often hit areas of Point One concern, and also, for this blog post, Point 3, with Points 1 and 4 in support, is the biggie. See below for more.

A few other deck-clearing points.

1. If you're going to point out that, yes, there are systems that will guarantee majoritarian winners, before noting that, yes, they're otherwise unusable, and not note that Wiki was specifically talking about the commonly discussed ones — and apparently didn't check that — you're straining at a bit of gnats.

2. If you're going to offer up a utilitarian defense of approval voting, or even of range voting, note that what utilitarian benefits are best, or most desirable, are in the eye of the beholder. This beholder's eye has already said he doesn't like approval voting precisely because it tends to elect more moderate candidates. In my recent post about IRV, Maine 2018 and the Green Party, I noted that I liked ConservaGreens (or AccommoGreens, if you want another mash-up word) no more than ConservaDems.

Neither Clay on that post, nor Aaron in a Facebook group about such issues, refuted that fact of approval voting.

Beyond that, no alternative to FPTP seems to have an advantage over others on third-party visibility. ANY alternative will increase the possibility of third-party wins, and thus increase third party enthusiasm as well as viability, thus addressing the visibility issue.

3. Bayesian probabilities, and related Bayesian ideas, are a real deal. But, as I've noted repeatedly with Bayesian probabilities as used by leading Jesus mythicist Mark Carrier, most notably at this blog post, followed by this one where Carrier admits to Bayesian book-cooking, and as noted in comments on my previous blog post about IRV about Bayesian regret, Bayesianism in general can be used pretty subjectively. That's not necessarily the case, using "necessarily" both empirically and logically, but it is indeed the case at times.

Indeed:

"When I hear the word 'Bayesian,' I loosen the safety catch on my Browning." — Hanns Johst, falsely attributed to Hermann Göring.

So, yeah, if you're going to make Bayesian regret a prime argument for approval voting, and try to claim its either logically or empirically rigorous, I'm going to pretty much kick you in the nads. Again, deal with it.

My final worry is that cultists or semi-cultists, for 2020 or possibly already for 2018, will work to get the national Green Party to take an official stance supporting approval voting out of the various FPTP systems. That's despite what I said, quoting Wiki, re Point 3 near the top. IF something like that happened, it would probably be yet more reason for me to, in line with the thought of a Mark Lause, look for alternative parties of the left.

Indeed, I suspect people like this are behind the idea that the GP needed to stand against IRV that sprang up immediately after election day this year.

Ranked Choice Voting — should Greens embrace it or be concerned?

Ranked Choice Voting, also known by many as Instant Runoff Voting (please don't claim there's technical differences; I know that IRV is one of several ranked voting systems) will be how Maine conducts its state elections in 2018.  (Unfortunately, though I know of no U.S. Constitution bar to the idea, per that second link, it does NOT cover the presidential election. And, that's not because this is a trial for 2018 only; the ballot measure stipulates elections after Jan. 1, 2018, and not JUST in 2018.)

Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein and the party both touted Maine voters approving this on Nov. 8. But, some Greens think it will actually hurt them. The fear is that this will co-opt Green voters into becoming accommodationist to Democrats. Given that the issue of how much Stein and others in one wing of Green leadership, like David Cobb, already may be doing this, this is a legitimate concern — if it's legitimately grounded. 

But, is it? 

I do appreciate the concern, but think it's overblown. 

First, a foot in the door is a foot in the door. Unless it's an openly accommodationist foot, it's a foot that shouldn't be looked in the mouth, to mix metaphors. 

And, I don't think it's an openly accommodationist foot, and I certainly don't think that's its primary intent. 

Second, it IS a foot in the door. Some people, especially in narrow races, who see “lesser evilism” and “greater evilism” in the two major parties, as in this presidential election, may be afraid of rewarding “greater evilism” in our current voting system. I voted Green; I didn't vote for Donald Trump by doing so. Nonetheless, I understand the concern, even the fear, and think it's a greater concern than some Greens have about RCV being accommodationist. 

Third, if that IS a concern, the accommodationist issue, there's a way to avoid that. 

RCV, of course, has voters rank candidates.  

A typical election with the four largest parties having candidates on the ballot might see a Green, or Green leaner, do:  

1 = Green 

2 = Democrat 

3 = Republican 

4 = Libertarian. 

Well, who says you have to do that?  

You can not only not give a 3 to the Republican or a 4 to the Libertarian, you can also choose not to give a 2 to the Democrat, at least hypothetically. (Note: I do not know if Maine's law requires a voter to rank every candidate. However, per the Ballotpedia link, the second from top above, this does not appear to be the case. Feedback is appreciated.) 

In that case, as soon as the Green candidate misses the cut, so does your vote. 

And?  

That's no different than the current system. 

So, RCV may not be perfect. And, it may not even be the best ranked voting system, though it's very arguably the easiest to understand.

And, it's better than the current, IMO. 

That said, I do agree with the Green Party Power statement that RCV, or any ranked voting or plural voting system, is not in and of itself a cure-all, or close to it. (And, in case it's not clear, that this needs to be across the country, not just Maine.)

And, having been in extended discussion in a Facebook group about Greens and RCV in Oregon (group is "open" so not violating confidences), while I'm not wedded to any one alternative system of voting, I am most certainly wedded to opposition of people who seem to think that their particular ranked choice system is the best even when they claim it's not. And, to the degree that approval voting does tend to elect more moderate candidates, I am wedded in opposition to it. Approval Voting on Wiki.

I need ConservaGreens no more than I need ConservaDems. 

That said, I did freely admit that it would surely be easier to recalibrate voting machines for approval voting than RCV. But, the idea that RCV is a possible dead end, possibly harmful to the whole idea of alternative voting or that only RCV is vulnerable to what happened in Burlington, Vermont (Bernie-ville!), rather than noting that NO alternative voting system to our current voting plurality system can guarantee a majority winner? I am wedded in opposition to that, too.  I stand by my observation, otherwise, in discussion here.

Update, Dec. 25. Range Voting, with its problems as well as goods, at Wiki.

Ranked choice voting and the 2016 presidential election (updated)

Various types of alternative voting, other than "first past the post" or "first past the post plus a runoff if no majority" (ignoring the Electoral College in presidential elections) get regularly touted by third-party backers, sometimes to the point of heated argument about which is best. (Common Cause compares a few.

Ranked choice, also known as instant runoff voting, is already used in a few places in the U.S. Approval voting, the normal second-most-common touted option, isn't used anywhere.

That said, in the world of the actual, these event aren't the only ways of voting.

For Congressional, state legislative and local races, FairVote looks at three multi-seat options.

+++

But, back to this year's presidential race.

Let's say we had no Electoral College, that we insisted the winner have a majority, not just plurality, of popular vote, and that we didn't want a messy, time-consuming physical runoff.

I think ranked choice/IRV (some particular Jesuitical types may still claim they're different things) is the best option.

With a mix of actual and idealized options, voting here in Tejas, here you go on my rankings.
1. The Science and Reason Party. This is an idealized desire.

2. Green Party, candidate and party faults and all. (For now)

3. Some Socialist Party. Problems: there's none on the ballot in Texas, and those that exist elsewhere are highly factionalized against each other. That said, I'd gladly not vote in the 2018 Texas Dem primary, should I still be in this state, to sign a Socialist ballot access petition.

Update: The Socialist Party USA candidate is trying to get write-in standing in Texas. If he and his Veep do, you'll get a blog post with analysis of their individual and party positions. If they pass the smell test ...

Update 2: Nope, nope nope. S-USA's party platform looks like Occupy Wall Street on Quaaludes, or flower children embedded in amber. Among the nuttier "wants"? Unilateral disarmament, and NOT just nukes — all weapons. Public referendums on every declaration of war. Soldiers' unions.

SIX weeks paid vacation, which goes beyond even the nice five weeks of Western Europe. Social Security at 55 with $25K/year minimum.

Others I disagree with? Repeal the Hatch Act? Wrong; I do NOT want federal employees having partisan involvement. Yes, this hurts the "little guy" federal employee, but, unless one would say "Hatch Act doesn't apply below GS-7," a unilateral repeal is stupid.

Given that other socialist parties are even more minimalist than S-USA, which has only four statewide affiliates in the nation, and most assuredly does not have more local elected officials than Greens, since the party's website doesn't even list local officials it's gotten elected, that's minuscule indeed. That means smaller Socialist parties aren't at all in play.

Oh, and, as busted on Reddit, it's anti-GMO, as much as Greens, and has a presidential candidate who may be almost as pandering as Stein on the issue. That's in the platform. Also in the platform is opposition to radiation of food.

4. Justice Party. Problems? Besides not being on the Texas ballot, I don't think it's as far left as Greens, and it was created in party from Naderite spite at the Greens.
5. Not voting. I've long said this is an honorable choice if done with due consideration.
6. Libertarian or Democrat. Yes, this is a coin toss. Gary Johnson's not as nutbar as some LP candidates, but the party is still "way out there" on many economic, and even more so, on many economic justice issues. BUT .... Hillary Clinton is Hillary Clinton.

Merika: Cradle of (cluelessness about) democracy, including by #Sandernistas

After Bernie Sanders pretty much got his clock cleaned in the latest round of Democratic primaries, we now have some Sandernistas crying out:
A. For him to run as an independent, and
B. That closed primaries are undemocratic.

I've already addressed A more than once, kiddos. He's way too "good" of a Democrat to do that, as noted here. The fact that he can't mention the Hillary Clinton-supported coup in Honduras, not even once? I wouldn't want him to run independent anyway. He'd detract from a true left-liberal voting opportunity. Per friend Brains, that comes with Plan B, voting for Jill Stein or whomever the Green Party nominates.

And, beyond that, as that should indicate, I vote for ideals first, individuals second. That's why the #ImWithHer on Twitter, with all the tribalism it portents, makes me want to throw up. (And, no, neither explicitly nor implictly, did Obama make the same type of appeals in 2008, for all of his own other neoliberal issues.)

Now, to point B, which I want to tackle in more detail.

Disenfranchising voters through overly rigid ID requirements? That's antidemocratic. Slashing day-of-voting poll locations by 2/3, even if your state budget is struggling? That's antidemocratic.

Closed primaries? Nothing of the sort.

Regular readers of this blog know that I support moving the U.S. more in the direction of parliamentary government. Well, in a parliamentary system, the whole schmeer is pretty much like a caucus here in the U.S. for states that use a caucus system.

And, you know what? Caucuses are closed. And, party establishments are key there.

(But, you have more than two viable parties to back. Usually more than three, even.)

Now, the real thing that's antidemocratic?

Is the presidential-focused two-party system, combined with non-majoritarian, first-past-the-post voting for House and Senate members.

Municipalities, in local elections, and school boards, likewise, require absolute majorities, not just pluralities, for elections. So why not the U.S. Congress and state legislatures? Especially when wedded to something like Instant Runoff Voting, this would actually start making America more democratic.

This is not meant to sound (too much) like a lecture, especially younger participants in the "system." It IS meant to be a wakeup call.

So, "Sandernistas"? There are many more, and more serious things, that America is undemocratic about than are in your philosophy.

Hat tip, Shakespeare.

As for Sanders himself? I'm glad that he's shaken up the Democratic establishment, but the fact that a relatively mild non-socialist is doing that speaks volumes about the party.

Additional reasons to support the popular election of US presidents

Nearly 14 years ago, bush v. Gore reminded us that the popular vote in presidential elections doesn't always square up with electoral votes. Even without the loser in the popular vote winning the electoral vote, in a very tight election with third-party candidates, the winner may have only a plurality, not a majority.

But that's not the only reason to support direct popular vote of presidential elections.

Here are some related reasons.

First, we technically have no official national vote for president. That's because of the electoral college system, compounded with the fact that each state's voters, in what is now essentially a formality, vote separately. The electoral college is the only official vote there is. Usually, as it has been for years of presidential elections, the Associated Press's tally of state-by-state popular voting is summed up and made into a quasi-official figure. But that's not the same.

But that's just a minor point, albeit the introduction to the main one.

If we have direct popular voting for the presidency, that would be a national vote, across state lines. And, it would therefore require federal government oversight of presidential elections. I don't know if, in addition to fear of "the masses," this was another reason the Founding Fathers rejected direct election. I've never seen it mentioned in serious constitutional histories. Anyway, it doesn't matter.

Obviously, even more than the tatters of the Voting Rights Act that still remain, this would arguably allow for direct federal polling observation, etc., in places of concern. As far as disenfranchising voter ID bills, it would arguably prevent states from applying such a standard to presidential elections unless red-staters could force through a federal voter ID bill of similar stringency, or unless they decided they wanted to go to all of the expense of officially conducting all other elections separately from a presidential vote.

Obviously, this would mean that we would need a Federal Election Commission with actual legal teeth.

And, in the case of those pluralities, if we rightly insisted on an absolute majority to win? The FEC, rather than going through an expensive runoff process, could institute instant runoff voting or something.

Whither the Lib Dems?

The electoral reform move that David Cameron and his Conservatives promised Nick Clegg and his Liberal Democrats as part of agreeing to coalition government in Britain came down to a referendum vote on whether or not to change Britain's current first-past-the-post election system, similar to America's, to an alternate vote, or instant-runoff vote, system.

And, the "reform" side was a massive fail; Britons voted for status quo by a 68-32 margin.

For the Lib Dems, add in two other facts: They got shellacked in local elections held at the same time, and that, in turn, is in part because the British public supposedly is dumping on them the majority of blame for the government's huge budget cuts. (Rightfully so, on assessing the blame, as Cameron couldn't do what he's doing if it were as a minority government.)

So, seriously, what happens next?

To me, from what I understand of parliamentary systems in general and Britain's in particular, I certainly could see the Lib Dems booting Clegg from leadership at the next party caucus. And then voting to leave coalition.

That said, would the government fall, or would the Queen bless a minority government?

O, Canada, the NDP is now on guard for you?

I hadn't blogged about the Canadian elections until now because of a mixture of forgetfulness to check the results and other things.

That said, it appears the New Democratic Party surge was real. Per the Christian Science Monitor, is Canada now a two-party system, with the Liberals serving as similar to the Liberal Democrats in Britain or the Free Democrats in Germany?

It's certainly possible.

At the same time, Stephen Harper's Conservatives were able to take an absolute majority in Parliament, for the first time in 23 years.

Even if he hadn't lost his own seat, former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff deserved to resign over the poor timing of the no-confidence vote (why not a year ago), his party's poor run and other things.

Look for Harper to become more Bush-like, for NDP leader Jack Leyton to exploit parliamentary opportunities in opposition better than Iggy did, and for that and by-elections to force the next parliamentary ballot in about .... 30 months.

But, will it be first-past-the-post, still, like the U.S.? A CBC column wonders if, should Britain adopt alternative voting today (the "electoral reform" the Conservatives and David Cameron promised Nick Clegg and his Lib Dems) whether Canada might follow suit?

Four months and counting on Tory-Lib Dem coalition?

I'd been wondering when the "deal" on electoral reform, that was Liberal Democratic Party leader Nick Clegg's price for joining in coalition with David Cameron's Conservatives in Britain, would happen.

Guess I'd not been reading the Guardian often enough to see that a referendum on alternative voting, i.e., an instant runoff system, to replace the first past the post system, has cleared the House of Lords and is set for May 5.

Hence the four months and ticking.

British voters will go to the polls May 5 for a vote on electoral reform, the promised payout by the Conservative Party to Liberal Democrats for joining it in coalition.

Britain's biggest union has officially come out in opposition, though. That despite the fact that the Labour Party could benefit.

Labour Party leader Ed Miliband says he will campaign hard for a yes vote. But, will the party as a whole follow him? So far, 114 Labour MPs have pledged opposition. Even more, on the other side, will the Conservative rank-and-file follow Prime Minister David Cameron? For that matter, how enthusiastic and active will Cameron be in working for the measure?

Witin Labour, it appears, per the opposition of Unite and another large union, to be an Old Labour vs. New Labour split. As Miliband was elected to leadership with union support, it's surprising to see him so ardently push a yes. Could a failure in the referendum not only dissolve the governing coalition, but lead to a putsch against Miliband at the next Labour conference?

As the Guardian notes, Labour proposed IRV, also known as alternative voting, before the most recent national elections. The same editorial notes that Miliband's in his and Labour's interest to push yes, with either a win or a loss drawing Labour and LibDems closer, especially since Cameron's past record is of opposition. (That said, he seems to be honoring his pledge to LibDe's Clegg very narrowly - just putting the referendum on the ballot and not campaigning for a yes.)

Also, by Cameron insisting the referendum be put on the same day as local/regional elections, it looks like Cameron has wrong-footed Clegg pretty well. That is, unless the push for electoral reform really doesn't matter as much to Clegg as it does to the party faithful, as seems the case with other LibDem issues.

The Guardian has a webpage dedicated to the contest and its various issues.

Instant runoff voting shakes up Bay Area races

Who's really shaken up over this, the face that a candidate with a plurality of first-place votes at the start eventually loses? especially in Oakland, and also in San Francisco?

Entrenched politicians who align with relatively centrist stances? Yep. Like mayors Willie Brown and Gavin Newsom of Oakland and San Fran, and their acolytes.

That said, the system there is still flawed, in that voters only get to rank their top three choices, in what is called ranked voting, and technically isn't a full-blown instant runoff system.

As the story notes, one Oakland city council race had 21 candidates; extending ranking for one's top three choices only isn't right. It isn't broad enough.

Nonetheless, it's a start.

Yes, Texas, there is a better way to elect a governor

We can elect a governor with an absolute majority, but without a cumbersome runoff.

It’s called Instant Runoff Voting, and it’s used elsewhere.

The way it works, in a race involving three or more people, is simple.

You mark your ballot, not just for one choice, but you list your No. 1 preference, then your No. 2, then your No. 3, etc. If no candidate gets an absolute majority, the bottom candidate is stricken from the list. Everybody who voted for that person automatically has their votes assigned to their No. 2 choice, and you recalculate. If still nobody has a majority, you again strike the bottom candidate; everybody who voted him or her No. 2 has their votes assigned to choice No. 3 and everybody who picked this candidate No. 1 gets their votes moved to candidate No. 2.

No “wasted votes.”

No two-party RepubliCrat monopoly using the phrase “wasted votes” as a fear tactic. (Incidentally, The Nation had a good piece on IRV, but the author was focusing on primary races, indicating to me she’s locked into the two-party monopoly.)