[EM] it's pleocracy, not democracy

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 06:24 AM 3/5/2007, Jobst Heitzig wrote:
> > "Majority rule" does not refer to a specific group of people, the
> > "majority" who rule over others who have no power.
>
>Yes it does. It refers to that specific group who decides to use the
>system to get their will regardless of what the rest wants. That group
>is as "specific" as any other group. For "specificity" it doesn't
>matter whether the group is defined by sex, by age, or by equal
>preference, it only matters that it is a group defined by sharing a
>certain property.

What property? If this is a direct democracy, and issues are 
presented for vote, it would appear that Jobst is assuming that there 
is some group of people who always win the votes and some group that 
always loses.

Yes, there is. It is the "majority." By definition. But the 
membership in that group isn't fixed. Rather, you join or leave the 
group depending on your opinion on a given issue. It isn't a group at 
all. It is simply a categorization of people according to their 
opinion on one issue.

If society is polarized such that one group is totally excluded from 
participation this isn't "majoritarianism," this is oligarchy.

Now, opinions can be categorized, and thus we might talk of 
"liberals" and "conservatives." And at one time or another, one of 
these categories might generally be in the majority. And thus, for a 
time, perhaps, say, liberal proposals pass and conservative ones 
fail. But it never is that black-and-white. The fact is that issues 
can't be so unidimensionally characterized.


>A true democratic method must let each voter control "her" share of the
>winning probability. Random Ballot and D2MAC do this since voter x's
>share of the probability will definitely go to one of those options
>approved by x.
>
>Approval Voting does the opposite: Just like any other majoritarian
>method, it lets a majority snatch away all the power from the minority
>and give their favourite 100% of the winning probability.

Remember, I think of voting as an aspect of a process by which a 
society makes intelligent decisions. We have a running assumption 
that the advisability of a decision is roughly proportional to the 
percentage of people who support it. This may reflect our own 
internal process, which may likewise assume something similar, only 
it's not "people," it is neurons or neuronal patterns.

How is the intelligence improved by introducing randomization?

I'll grant that when it seems that an impasse has been reached, that 
no solution seems to pan out, some randomization may break the 
deadlock. But that's not the normal condition.