[EM] You Can't Have it Both Ways

[Greg Nisbet]

I have seen several instances of advocating some sort of method in order to
encourage some sort of behavior.

Take India for example. From what I've read, it appear that there was
intense debate over the electoral method the newly independent country would
use. They eventually settled on FPTP because of its tendency to create large
parties with broad support.

Or South Africa. When they instituted closed list PR the intent was to
enable parties to put forward lists of ethnically diverse candidates and
prevent race based politics from coming back.

Or one could look right here to America. The Connecticut Compromise intended
to preserve state sovereignty by establishing the Senate so that large
states could not force small states to comply unless it truly was in the
best interest of the nation.

South Africa has been successful. Parties have demonstrated more willingness
to put forth a diverse roster of candidates than perhaps the public would if
FPTP was used. India has been less successful, there is still a myriad of
parties. America is a coin toss. Anyway here is my point:

To what extent is it legitimate to design an electoral method to change
voter behavior/opinions rather than respond to it?

Allow me to clarify:

Indian voters would not necessarily have wanted strong regional parties.
South Africans perhaps not an ethnically diverse legislature. Americans
perhaps not such an emphasis on states' rights. Through overt manipulation
of the electoral method. The designers of these democracies sought to change
voter opinion from what it otherwise would be. This effectively subsidized
some candidates and burdened others. Is it right for the government to be
able to design how we voice our opinions to advance their goals of social
engineering?

My position:

I don't like paternalism. Part of it is because I'm a libertarian, but I'd
say it's more fundamental than that. As was mentioned in the Range vs.
Condorcet debate, I believe that protecting minority rights is the function
of a constitution not an electoral method. I think that the electoral system
should be free of political manipulation because such is tantamount to
tyranny. I'd say the purpose of electoral reform is to free voters from
manipulation of their opinions by those already in power. The government
ceases to be the servant of the people if it can control what they ask it to
do.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20081017/54a84e09/attachment-0002.htm>