[EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse

[Raph Frank]

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 7:15 PM, Greg Nisbet <gregory.nisbet at gmail.com> wrote:
> With primaries, the result of a plurality election is random.

No, there are 2 candidates picked, one from each party, and one of them wins.

Without primaries, there would likely still be two candidates picked
by the party leadership.  The only change is less democratic control.

However, the results of the primary elections themselves are more random.

>> I don't think so.  It really depends on the selection process for the
>> Republican and Democrat candidates.
>
> Think of it this way. Median Voter says that there is a general tendency
> for the two FPTP parties to become more alike in order to gather more votes.
> Thus the FPTP winner (if two candidates compete) is likely to the one
> closest to the center.

Maybe, however, it depends on how the party leaderships decide.  There
are two tendancies.  The candidate is pulled towards the median of
their own party during the primaries and then towards the overall
centre during the main election.

The result is a balance somewhere between the two.

> Democrats and Republicans vote in their own primaries. Therefore the winner
> of the Democratic primary will be a mid-Democrat. This isn't the same as a
> centrist, far from it.

That assumes that the voters don't want to win the main election.
They will take into account both how much the like the candidate and
what his chances to win are.

> The alternative is no primaries at all, not this.

Each party would decide on a candidate.  If there is no primary, how
do they make the decision.  It is inconceivable that the two parties
would decide to support multiple candidates if there was no primary.

> Hmm perhaps. Or we could do without this entirely and just have EVERY
> candidate be a write-in.

.. or have a write in space, and assign candidates who don't make it
to the ballot a CODE/ID.

>> 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.
>
>
> Actually, that isn't such a bad idea. If you can give enough money to the
> government to compensate for wasting people's time with a silly candidacy, I
> say go for it.

The trick is to not make it to high.  If is was $100,000, then it is a
major barrier.

>> >> 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.

Yes, I know, but I said " But it seems like it was broken from the
start.  The Electoral College should meet and then make its decision."

If they met (and it was proportional), then it would be a perfectly
reasonable system.

>> 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.
>
>
> I like parliamentary systems. They appear to be less corrupt on average.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index
> That would be a legitimate function of an Electoral College. Performing
> "maintenance elections" when someone dies, is kicked out etc.
> I would say just use the next best guy from the previous election, but
> whatever.

I do too.  However, it is against US political culture, so it might be
a bridge to far.

>> 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.
>
> That isn't such a bad idea.

I think it depends on size.  Ireland is 4.5 million people, and the US
is 300+ million.

This makes it easier to find one rule that everyone will agree.  For
300 million people, there is a larger distribution of viewpoints.

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

meant *unitary* (as opposed to federal) democracy here :p.

> It seems pretty hard to nail down exactly what a democracy is. It makes it
> certainly is a democratic and not republican trend to allow voters to do
> this.

There is also a requirement for the Dail (lower house of parliament)
to propose the amendment, but it is PR elected, so a majority can get
a majority in the Dail (in fact 45% could probably manage it if it was
a single party with solid transfers).

>> 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.
>
> That is true. I don't like it one bit.

It has the advantage that you can have variations in laws between
States.  You can then move to a State that has better laws while still
remaining in the US.

>> 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)
>
> That is a valid point. In order to get minority protections you must be a
> majority in one of the fifty areas designated by the government.

Well, you still have protections, but being a majority in a State is
likely to protect you even more.

> What I meant was that mini conflicts of interest are better.

Ok, we agree.

>> The ideal is a body that is elected specifically to decide on boundaries.
> California has a proposition to have a jury-type deal for setting up
> electoral boundaries. I trust laypeople more than politicians to redistrict.
> It isn't ideal, but it's better.

Yeah, the real problem is the lack of PR though :)

>> 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'.
>
>  Apparently many states allow/encourage voting early/by mail. The
> polls could even be open an entire month if that would mean more people
> would be able to vote.

Right.