[EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse

[Raph Frank]

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 2:56 AM, Greg Nisbet <gregory.nisbet at gmail.com> wrote:
> 1) Primaries are anti-utilitarian.

Without primaries, then the result of a plurality election is either
random, or more likely decided by the 2 party leaderships.

> 2) The Government enforcing any way for parties to operate is bad.

Agreed, but even without government rules, I think that it is in the
best interests of parties to have primaries.

> The second point I don't agee with because Median Voter would suggest that
> candidates would be more centrist on average if primaries didn't exist. I
> like moderates better than Democrats or Republicans and I think they are
> better for the country...

I don't think so.  It really depends on the selection process for the
Republican and Democrat candidates.

It is possible that the men 'in smoky rooms' would pick candidates who
are more centrist.  If not, then you get the same type of candidates
picked.


> If you let anyone who wants to be on the ballot be on the ballot, how bad
> would that really be?

Right, I think we agree here.

> I think an average voter would not get confused by large numbers of
> candidates. If they were organizes reasonably, the voter strictly benefits
> because they could always voter against unknown candidates as a matter of
> principle. Most do, so I don't see what people are whining about.

There is a balance here.  If the rule is to easy, then you get people
registering 100 names just for the fun of it.

The 2000 signature rule means that it requires to much effort for the
joke to be worth it.

In Ireland, there is a deposit.  You get your deposit back if you are
supported by enough voters.  I think it is around 25% of a quota.

>> It is a good idea.  But it seems like it was broken from the start.
>> The Electoral College should meet and then make its decision.
>
> I have to disagree with you on that one. I do not see it doing anything
> useful. It either corrects the people's will (in which case it is
> paternalistic and evil) or it does nothing making it a giant waste of
> resources.

It is like asset voting.  Your representative negotiates on your
behalf until a majority is achieved.

As with most things, it would benefit a lot from PR.

It might also be worth using the Electoral College to fill a vacancy
in the VP position, without needing Senate approval.  Ofc, that is
moving in the direction of a parliamentary system.

>> Well, in theory, the US is a federation, not a democracy.  In any
>> case, that requires 100% of the States to agree for it to be changed.
> Umm federation and democracy are not mutually exclusive.

Well, to a certain extent.  I guess I mean that the US is not unitary,
it is a federation.

It comes down to sovereignty.  In a unitary democracy, a majority of
all the citizens is the final judge on all issues and thus holds
sovereignty.

In Ireland, a majority can change the constitution in any way that
they please.  This makes Ireland a democracy.

This is not the case in the US, you don't have the concept of holding
a referendum of all the citizens and that being the final judge.  Your
consitution is changed by 75% of the States (and 2/3 of both Houses)
and not 50% of the people.

Sovereignty is divided and split between the citizens based on place
of residence.  You have some powers relating to your state and some
relating to the US as a whole.

In Ireland, a majority could impose its will on a minority, while in
the US a majority is limited in what it can impose on a minority (if
it happens to be protected by (or is) a majority in one of the States)

> Anyway, my opinion
> might be biased because I live in California, the state most screwed over by
> the system. I do not buy the whole prevent tyrannical regions from taking
> over nonsense b/c preventing tyranny is a civil rights issue not a voting
> system issue. Attempting to design some system to subvert the will of the
> voters "for their own good" is not to be trusted.

The whole 'States are not allowed to leave' rule does give some weight
to your argument.  However, the theory was that the federal government
wasn't meant to be 'the government'.  Also, you are allowed to leave
California, if those other States have got it so good.

>> In fact, I think that having the States do the redistricting is better
>> than allowing Congress do it.  If the States were independently
>> controlled, then there is less of a conflict of interest.
>
> Not exactly. You just have mini conflicts of interest that don't all line up
> in one direction instead of one big one.

Isn't that better?

>> However, the 2 party system is entrenched, so the State legislatures
>> aren't independent.
> yep exactly. This might arguably be better.

Well then, we disagree.  Random conflicts of interest should at least
partially cancel out, but under the 2 party system, that isn't the
case.

The ideal is a body that is elected specifically to decide on boundaries.

Also, I think deciding on boundaries would be a perfect example of
where some of the random ballot proposals would work well.  Ofc, that
anything that requires compromise to set the boundaries often ends up
as incumbent based gerrymandering.

> I know you can't that is my point. Various issues of the past have messed
> with state boundaries and that has side-effets in the present.

It is impartial though.

< snip - 3rd parties should pick one state to concentrate on >

(We agree here)

> I think you need to prove you have some 'valid reason' to vote early.
> Anyway, I know there are some restrictions that make it inconvenient
> otherwise who would show up at the polls?

I wouldn't see the problem with people being allowed to vote on any
day of the week the like.  The whole week would count as 'the polls'.