Open and Closed Lists (was ...STV for Candidate...)

[Anthony Simmons]

>> From: DEMOREP1 at aol.com
>> Subject: RE: Open and Closed Lists (was ...STV for Candidate...)

>> Mr. Cretney wrote-

>> Returning to politics, I don't claim that personal
>> politics inevitably results in more spending.  A country
>> can set strict spending limits.  It could ban national
>> advertising.  But something's got to give.  If candidates
>> aren't spending enough money, then voters will be
>> confused.
>>  As well, voters are more likely to vote for the incumbent
>> because this is at least a known entity, and there is no
>> effective branding by a national party.

>> ----
>> D- Limiting info is one of the controls routinely used in
>> tyranny regimes --- Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito, Mao, etc.,
>> etc.

>> What happened to the First Amendment  ???

>> See McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334
>> (1995) (First Amendment right to produce anonymous
>> leaflets) -- via www.findlaw.com

>> Some info will obviously be given out to the supporters of
>> each party/ choice on how to vote *properly* (depending on
>> the poll numbers and the election method being used and
>> the strategy related to such method).

I really doubt that we will ever be able to solve the problem
of the dominance of money in elections as long as the public
depends on television advertising to tell them what to
believe.  It may be easy, and leave plenty of time to pursue
the many delights also peddled by the TV, but it makes for
bad democracy.

It used to be that voters relied on the press for information
about candidates and ballot measures.  That could still be
done, and there are organizations like Daughters of the
American Revolution that produce good reference material.

Forest just posted something recently about the psychological
forces that make it so difficult for IRV enthusiasts to see
beyond the doctrine of their own rather deluded movement.
That seems to me to be another example of the same
phenomenon, something that ought to be taken seriously.

Election methods are generally seen as employed by economic
(in the general sense of weighing alternatives) beings who
use rational strategies to improve the probability of
achieving rationally chosen goals.  Everything we see around
us proves that people are not truly economic beings.  They
buy one brand of car instead of another for reasons they
would never consciously admit to, adopted because of
psychological pressure exerted by the advertising industry.
And that same advertising industry also sells candidates.
That pressure, and the nonecomonic behavior it influences,
are part of the context within which the voters operate.

In the last Presidential election, it seems that voting for a
spoiler was not a good move on purely rational grounds, but a
lot of people did it, and it turned out to have major
historical consequences.  The assumption of economic behavior
is a pretty shaky one.

PBS has some material on the effect of ads on voting (e.g.
"Ad-Watcher's Toolkit; 10 Structural Features That Create
Meaning in Political Ads",
http://www.pbs.org/pov/ad/ads/toolkit_list.html).  Right now,
there's a move in Congress to at least eliminate huge
advantages in political brainwashing, but what about the
possibility of adopting a voting method that helps minimize
the effects?  Is that possible?