[EM] The wiki questionaire

[Kevin Venzke]

Hello,

--- Abd ulRahman Lomax <abd at lomaxdesign.com> a écrit :
> At 10:36 AM 6/15/2005, Chris Benham wrote:
> 
>>Since Mike has stated that the purpose of  AERLO is  for  
>>"acceptable/unacceptable" voters to enter below the acceptable set of 
>>candidates, I suppose there's no reason not to
>>call it an "approval cutoff".  But I see a problem in justifying how it 
>>works. If  we say "This is so that if some voters don't like the result 
>>of the (first,'provisional') election, then they
>>can change their vote (for the second, 'final' election)" then this just 
>>prompts the natural question "How is that fair? If some voters can 
>>change their votes after the 'first election',
>>why can't other voters change their votes after the 'second election'?  
>>Why stop at only two elections?".  I  don't know any good answer to that.

Of course, Chris is talking about AERLO recounts rather than actual elections.

> >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.

Does this mean you feel a system is "unfair" unless *every* voter can
select a representative? That sounds difficult to implement.

> 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.

This is what is already done under parliamentary systems, correct?

> 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.

It seems to me it would be rather chaotic if a representative/proxy could
lose his job overnight. (Or, perhaps you're talking about elected *officers*
having terms. But we can already avoid electing officers. Do you think a proxy 
representative should have a term?)

Kevin Venzke



	

	
		
___________________________________________________________________________ 
Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger 
Téléchargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com