[EM] Student government - what voting system to recommend?

[Howard Swerdfeger]

Juho wrote:
> On Apr 24, 2007, at 1:51 , Howard Swerdfeger wrote:
>> a) I guess I was thinking of "Non-competitive" as one where the  
>> winner is obvious long before the contest is held (boxing: Me vs  
>> Mike Tyson). and "competitive" as one where the winner is not known  
>> until the last possible moment (Running: Me Vs. You!).
> 
> This use of the word correlates with the way I used it (but may also  
> differ in many cases).
> 
>> b) accepting your definition for the purpose of this thread.
> 
> Ok, my use of the term is not a stable definition in the area of  
> election methods, so also different terminology may be used.
> 
>> 4) The ultimate form of democracy is one that
>>  * maximizes voter knowledge of issues
>>  * seeks to Involve the voters at every stage of decision making  
>> process   (direction, Discussion/deliberation, Vote)
> 
> Agreed. These are some very key principles that make a democratic  
> system work well.
> 
>>  * generates a laws and directions for society that is  
>> representative of the beliefs of all well knowledgeable voters.
> 
> Yes, assuming that we try to make all voters "knowledgeable" (as in  
> the first bullet) and don't deny the less knowledgeable ones the  
> right and recommendation to vote as well.

Yes and no....:)
A purely theoretical question now....
You are now an omnipotent, omniscient, and altruistic ruler of a group 
of people. When making a decision on a course of action. Do you do what 
is "best" for the people, or what the people prefer you to do?

This is not always an easy question and needs to take into account the 
"delta in result" between "best" and preferred action, as well as the 
size of the preference expressed by the people.

Ultimately I believe the best answer is to educate the entire population 
well in advance of the decision that needs to be made. So that 
correlation between "best" and preferred action approaches 1.

>> Many people in the last election who voted Conservative did not  
>> really want the conservative in power. They mainly wanted the  
>> ruling Liberals out of Power. and the only party with enough  
>> support to do that was the Conservatives.
>>
>> Same goes for the one before that election. Many people "Plugged  
>> there nose" and voted Liberal because they were afraid of the  
>> "hidden agenda"  from the "Religious Right" in the Conservative Party.
> 
> This sounds like the "one dimensional" (binary) spectrum of  
> alternatives of a two-party system is not sufficient for the voters  
> in this case. Multiple parties and/or ability to provide opinions in  
> more than one dimension (traditionally often the left-right axis)  
> would probably reduce the "nose plugging effect".

I agree with you. But, that was not the point I was trying to make. I 
was providing a counter example to your assertion that most election are 
  competitive. By showing that in many elections a large percentage of 
the population has a very weak preference for the candidate they vote for.


> 
> Juho
> 
> 
> P.S. One more comment on the older mails. The number of voters has an  
> effect in the sense that the higher the number of voters is the more  
> probable it is that one voter doesn't feel that he/she can trust all  
> the other voters to be his/her friends but will vote against him/her  
> (in a competitive way). This may increase the probability that this  
> voter decides to vote strategically (since probably others do so  
> too). In small groups people may thus trust that all members of it  
> know the needs to all others and will take them into account in a  
> fair way. In big groups others may be seen as "strangers that one  
> needs to defend against".

This is probably true, and would most be a factor in small elections 
having more honest voters.
But I think other factors might be :
1. A single voter in small election has more weight in the outcome and 
thus might be willing to vote more honestly rather then having to 
maximize voting power by voting approval.
2. more random variation in results of a smaller election would create 
more chance that a voters perceives an positive effect with honest 
voting. (Kind of like a Superstition, but not really.)

> 
> 
> 	
> 	
> 		
> ___________________________________________________________ 
> All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine 
> http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
> ----
> election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info