Exaggerated opinions

[DEMOREP1]

Mr. Saari wrote on April 29, 1998 -

I note that in order to conduct a ranked vote, there must first be prepared a
single ballot showing "all of the available choices".  Naturally, it is
impossible to enumerate "every possible choice" therefore some
dictatorial/hierarchical element must be created to create "the official
ballot".  And if that ballot neglects to include "none of the above" then it
can and will be used to force an outcome even if the voters uniformly dislike
all of the proferred choices.  That same dictatorial/hierarchical element can
also delay a vote with the plausible "we haven't gathered all of the possible
options yet".

Ranked votes (i.e. first, second, third) of ANY sort, regardless of the
scoring method being used, necessarily involve a dictatorial ballot-creating
function.

In order to get group decision WITHOUT invoking a dictatorial element, there
are only a couple of possible choices.  Namely, each option or choice gets its
own ballot, and new choices/ballots are created by the members of the group
when desired (not the "official ballot committee").  The voting system used
should then allow each member to express an honest opinion about each choice
when offered.  Yes/no is possible but pretty simplistic.  Better is
Support/Oppose/Neither/Both.  Other versions can allow more gradations for
better expression.
-----
D- There are various types of elections--- candidate elections (in which a
candidate is or is not elected) and issue elections with the latter divided
into yes/no type issues (such as- shall act or omission X be made a crime ?)
or into numerical issues (such as- what shall the tax rate of tax W be or how
much money should be spent on program Z).   For numerical issues I have
suggested having range votes such as a tax rate being 4 to 6 percent (with the
highest rate approved by a majority being enacted).

I note that many legislative bodies are mob scenes- 659 in the U.K. House of
Commons, 435 in the U.S. House of Representatives, 301 in the Canada House of
Commons such that for anything to get done very strong powers are given to the
monarchial- oligarchial leaderships of such bodies.

One extremely dangerous problem with so-called modern legislation is the
omnibus (throw in the kitchen sink) type bill having all sorts of unrelated
matters (as ordained by the monarchial-oligarchial leadership of modern
legislative bodies).  See especially the U.S. Statutes at Large with all sorts
of omnibus laws enacted by the U.S. Congress.   That is, there is a massive
failure to have a division of the question (the bill) into its independent
parts.

Having new choices/ballots being created by the members of the group
when desired would apparently mean that every member may propose bills (the
current situation but many legislative bodies require a second member (or
higher number of members) to sponsor the bill) but having in effect a
continuous vote on all bills.    I note that most legislative bodies currently
have a discharge petition rule by which a majority of the members can
discharge a committee from consideration of bills.   Anyone who has been a
member of a legislative body of a political group (such as me) knows that
there is a major impatience with screwball ideas.  

All of these postings about exaggerated opinions might be better spent
attacking the features of the various anti-democratic election systems for
legislative bodies--- single member districts, at large elections (in many
cities), plurality nominations and elections.