[EM] [Election-Methods] [english 94%] PR favoring racial minorities

[Juho]

On Aug 17, 2008, at 19:44 , Raph Frank wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 6:06 AM, Juho <juho4880 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> (Continuous elections could also increase the level of  
>> participation in
>> decision making in the sense that old votes could be valid for a  
>> long time
>> even if the voter wouldn't bother to change the vote often. Well,  
>> on the
>> other hand the votes must have some time/event limits after which  
>> they
>> become invalid. Otherwise the system would e.g. make any changes  
>> in the
>> party structure very "unprofitable".)
>
> There is also the security issue.  Continuous voting requires some  
> way for
> a person to cancel their vote.  That is hard to achieve in a way that
> maintains the secret ballot.

Yes, not an easy task since votes can not be anonymous as they  
"normally" are after voting.

It is possible to develop methods where the election officials would  
not know the identity of each voter (only the voter would have that  
information) but this may get quite complex.

One (at least theoretically) simple approach would be to arrange  
elections say every Saturday and assume that each voter has a  
computer (or corresponding device) that is on-line and votes on  
behalf of the voter every Sunday. If the voter has not updated the  
data then the application just uses the old data. This method would  
not require keeping a record on how each voter voted.

(P.S. I used Saturdays above instead of Sundays sine that way the  
politicians have one day time to pack their belongings before the  
next working week and new representatives to move in. In real life we  
would however probably need some hysteresis here. Maybe that could be  
in time. Maybe we could also use different voting weights for the  
representatives. This would allow longer times to allow new  
representatives in and kick the old ones out. Also a system where the  
representatives could "work at home" instead of "at the capital" is  
possible.)

> One option would be to allow a voter decide in advance how long their
> vote will stay active, when they cast it.  A voter could pick 3  
> months,
> 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 4 years for their vote.

In order to allow a party to be split in two, or popular  
representatives to retire, then the time should be short enough not  
to penalize this party too much. If all votes will be outdates say in  
one year then a one year delay between announcement of the event and  
its final implementation would be sufficient (since then there would  
be no lost votes, assuming that the voters can vote in the new way  
right after the announcement). Also faster changes would be possible  
since most votes would probably be changed sooner.

> Each ballot would be marked with the length of time it will remain  
> valid
> for.  The results would then be announced broken down by length of
> time they remain active for.
>
> If you pick 4 years, then you will not be permitted to cast another  
> vote
> for at least 4 years (for that office).  OTOH, if you pick 3  
> months, then
> you will have to vote again 3 months later.

I'm not sure if this is still a "continuous election" in the sense  
that the voter could change opinion at any time.

> This would be reasonably simple for methods that don't have rounds.
> However, it would be complex for things like IRV.

Wouldn't IRV be at least easier than a two round runoff? (=> instant  
runoff vs. sequential runoff)

> If the ballot lists are a matter of public record, then voters who  
> vote
> every 3 months and reliably vote could end up being targeted by the
> parties as they have the ability to withdraw support much more
> rapidly.  (kinda like how politicians currently spend much more time
> with their supporters near election time).
>
>> When thinking about the problems of continuous elections and direct
>> democracy maybe the first problem in my mind is the possibility of  
>> too fast
>> reactions. Populism might be a problem here. Let's say that the  
>> economy of a
>> country is in bad shape and some party proposes to raise taxes to  
>> fix the
>> problem. That could cause this party to quickly lose lots of support.
>
> Actually, one option would be to allow each voter vote once every 4  
> years,
> but stagger when each person gets to vote.  For example, their  
> might be
> an election every 6 months electing one eights of the legislature.
>
> This gives continuous feedback, but still requires time to change the
> composition of the legislature.  A swing in the votes would only have
> 1/8 the effect on the legislature.

Yes, gradual impact could help in stabilizing the system.

>> These
>> rather direct forms of democracy could be said to require the  
>> voters to be
>> more "mature" than in some more indirect methods in the sense that  
>> the
>> voters should understand the full picture and not only individual  
>> decisions
>> that may sometimes even hurt them. In an indirect democracy painful
>> decisions are typically not made just before the elections. This  
>> is not an
>> ideal situation either. But all in all, the more direct forms of  
>> democracy
>> seem attractive if the voters are mature enough.
>>
>
> I think it probably depends on how it works.  Initially, people  
> might switch
> their vote at the drop of a hat, but as time passes, people are  
> less likely to
> bother.

That would be positive. People would in a way "mature" in the process.

> Also, under a PR/coalition based government system, it would encourage
> any coalition formed to have more than a simple majority.  If the  
> coalition
> has 60% of the legislature, it is less likely to be massively  
> swayed by
> short term popularity changes.
>
> This kinda happens already.  In Ireland, coalitions tends to aim for
> the high 80's (of 166) so that they can lose a few to byelections  
> without
> causing the coalition to fall.

Possible interest to have stable governments that live from one  
(traditional) election to the next may be seen as a factor that talks  
against continuous elections. On the other hand also governments  
could be flexible. They could include new parties in the government  
if the support of the old government parties gets too small.

Juho





		
___________________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Messenger - with free PC-PC calling and photo sharing. http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com