Comments on: Making electoral reform sticky

By: homunq

homunq — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 00:38:18 +0000

You’re right, if you give the impression that you are against the “team” people identify with, that is bad. But the truth is that there are real bad guys rationally opposing electoral reform. A good, popular politician has everything to gain from electoral reform; but a corrupt politician who relies on mudslinging to win, a political consultant who makes a living manipulating the system, and a monopolistic corporation running a two-party puppet show have real reasons to oppose it.

My point is that people are more motivated to punish an evildoer than they are to correct an abstract injustice. The injustice, you can fix it later; the profit-taking evildoer must be punished NOW or they’ll grow stronger.

So how’s this: heading “cleanliness contests”, two panels. One says “2 person” and has a muddy “winner” standing over a muddier opponent; the other says “3 person” has the same two, impeccably dressed, and a third who’s not quite as clean….

OK, it’s not good enough, but do you get the idea?

By: homunq

homunq — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:58:20 +0000

“if the supermarket worked like elections” – large piles of bananas and broccoli labeled “bananas” and “broccoli”. Then, on one side of the broccoli, signs which say “carrots”, “zucchini”, etc. with one banana under each, and on the other side of the bananas, signs for “apples”, “mangoes”, “peaches”, with one broccoli each.

It’s still missing the grinning banana salesman evilly rubbing his hands and paying off the grocer, but it’s a decent image.

By: Brad Beattie

Brad Beattie — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:57:02 +0000

I guess the problem I have with bringing specific parties into it is that it stops being seen as an issue of abstract fairness and more as “I want my favoured party to have more power”.

By: homunq

homunq — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:51:51 +0000

I think that even that’s not sticky enough. To be sticky, you need bad guys. You know, the party boss, who’s overjoyed that you have no choice but the big parties.

Just brainstorming it, I can imagine “if the olympics were like elections” with an uncle sam figure telling a (Canadian or other country) sprinter “Better slow down, a medal for you is just effectively a medal for China.”

Or a monopoly board, with only two colors (blue and red) and hotels on every square, with someone telling you “go ahead, I’ll let you put the dice however you want”. It’s not as good as the first image, the idea is supposed to be that credible minor parties can keep the majors more honest, not that the majors are necessarily inherently corrupt, but you get the idea.

Hmm… the third person in a mud-wrestling match stays clean?