[EM] The wiki questionaire

Abd ulRahman Lomax abd at lomaxdesign.com
Wed Jun 15 22:04:53 PDT 2005

At 10:36 AM 6/15/2005, Chris Benham wrote:

>Why stop at only two elections?".  I  don't know any good answer to that.

One of my general points is that elections, especially elections for 
representatives, are inherently unfair, for they almost guarantee that some 
voters will end up unrepresented. Proxy systems avoid elections entirely 
(for representatives) by allowing the free choice of representatives. Such 
systems may still "elect" officers, but probably, as with proxies, they 
would not have terms. In other words, the election process is continuous, 
whenever a majority of the electorate wants to make a change. It would be 
more like hiring officers to serve at will than like electing them. A 
deliberative process.

But until such systems are in place (I do expect that eventually they will 
be), we are faced with elections by secret ballot and with terms and such 
limits. That is why only two elections (in the example given by Mr. 
Benham). It is a practical limit, not necessarily a full expression of 
democracy. And this is why we need clear understanding of election methods, 
something which becomes, I expect, less important in a deliberative 
process, which may still use election methods as polling devices, reserving 
final approval of the result in a ratification process which therefore 
covers all, or at least most, of the nasty contingencies that can be 
imagined for any election method. If a majority don't accept the winner, 
ultimately, an election result is seriously unsatisfactory; to resolve this 
will take something more than merely a more sophisticated polling 
technique. It may take people changing their minds, as can happen in good 
deliberative process.

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list