[EM] election-methods Digest, Vol 34, Issue 22

[Juho]

On Apr 22, 2007, at 7:37 , Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

>> Some voters may trust trust the candidates, some not. Both OK. The
>> new method may be so good that it makes the candidates/  
>> representatives less corrupt than before. But there is also the risk
>> that candidates will use their negotiating power (e.g. in Asset
>> voting) to gain personal benefits.
>
> Risk? I find this astonishingly naive. We are talking about  
> candidates for public office, who will serve in assemblies with  
> legislative power. The *status quo* is that many representatives  
> already "use their negotiating power to gain personal benefits."

Are you saying that this status quo would vanish overnight when  
moving to an Asset voting based system?

> What is so frequently overlooked by commentators on Asset Voting  
> and Delegable Proxy is that there is *already* negotiation for the  
> exercise of power, but it happens at the next state, in the  
> legislature

Yes, negotiations are needed at many phases. To me the question is  
how many layers there are. When compared to traditional  
representative democracy, Asset voting seems to introduce one  
additional layer of indirection/negotiation while direct democracy  
seems to eliminate one ("direct" as opposed to "representative").

> So the question is not whether Asset will lead to the abuse of  
> negotiating power, for such abuse, if it is abuse, already exists.  
> The question, rather, is whether or not it will make it worse or  
> better.

I think it opens one new layer of negotiation, which increases the  
risks. I'm not saying though that there would not be any impact in  
the opposite direction too (e.g. publicity).

> I know where my votes went, generally. If they go somewhere due to  
> corrupt influence, why would I be satisfied with this?

The candidates probably will not advertise being corrupt, and will  
present their whatever "interesting" viewpoints and whatever  
negotiation results they were dragged into in the most positive light  
they can find. This applies in all systems.

>>  Some may consider it better not to
>> open doors for the temptations,
>
> If it weren't so damaging, this would be hilarious. We operate in a  
> system which is thoroughly vulnerable and manipulable by special  
> interests. The door is wide open *now*. With Asset, we can start to  
> watch the door!

I guess this is a reference to the U.S. system. There are many  
alternative paths forward. Ones where current rules are not modified  
or are just improved in small scale, one could touch the rules of  
funding, increasing the number of parties etc.

Juho



	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
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