[EM] Interesting article

[Anthony Simmons]

>> Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 20:18:22 -0800 (PST)
>> From: Rob LeGrand <honky1998 at yahoo.com>
>> To: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
>> Subject: [EM] Interesting article

>> It's a bit off-topic, but I'm interested to know what
>> those on this list (especially those of a "progressive"
>> ilk) think of the following article, called Democracy, the
>> God That Mugged Me:

>> http://www.lewrockwell.com/callahan/callahan79.html

>> Please respond privately if indeed you think it's too off-topic.  Thanks.

Doesn't sound off topic at all.  It goes right to the heart
of what we mean by social choice.  And it's an excellent
illustration of some problems that have surfaced in other
contexts recently in this very venue, such as the effects of
breaking a state into districts, or gerrymandering.

It's the tyranny-of-the-majority problem.  We choose between
the tyranny of local, provincial majorities, or tyranny of
great masses.

The situation described in the article is yet another example
of the effects of sampling.  Same phenomenon as in the
sixties, when the attitude toward Jim Crow was positive in
some states, but the average attitude toward it was negative
in the country as a whole.  As long as the state attitude
prevailed, Jim Crow survived.  In the power struggle, the
national attitude took precedence and the states changed.

Small samples allow lots of variability, lots of deviation
from the mean of the population, and permit provincial lunacy
to dominate the lives of local minorities.  Large samples
show less variability, and serve as a brake on small tyrants,
but don't allow for local needs, and enforce mindless
uniformity.  States' rights vs. world government -- we're all
familiar with the endless advantages and disadvantages of
both approaches.  Federations, such as the United States and
Australia, are attempts to balance the two approaches.

The Weston example sounds pretty bizarre -- $8,000 per
resident in taxes.  Though he doesn't give the length of
time, so I'm sure it's not nearly as bad as it sounds, maybe
a couple hundred a year.  Still, that's a lot.

Schools are generally funded by property taxes; in Weston,
this would mean that in general, the wealthy would end up
with most of the burden.  Usually, this works out well.  For
example, Beverly Hills CA has a very low property tax rate
because there is so much horribly expensive property.  It
seems like this should works out similarly in Weston, if per
capita income is so high.

In my area, school levies require a supermajority of 60%.  I
don't know if this is a general rule or a legal requirement.
It only applies to local levies approved directly by voters,
not state funding voted by the legislature.  This tends to
counteract the small sample effect, though of course there is
no requirement that can provide absolute protection from the
tyranny of the majority.

Perhaps the solution is that same one used by the United
States -- a balance of power at multiple levels.  Localities
can work out their own tax schemes, but only under rules
formulated by the states, and subject to constitutional
review by federal courts.

By the way, I loved the title.  Pretty much said it all.