[EM] Election-Methods Digest, Vol 52, Issue 63

[Greg Nisbet]

Hello Michael,

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 13:28:43 -0400
From: Michael Allan <mike at zelea.com>
Subject: [EM] You Can't Have it Both Ways - the Voters Can
To: election-methods at lists.electorama.com
Message-ID: <20081019172843.GA3394 at obsidian.zelea.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Hello Greg,

(I already agree with your arguments.  I'm rolling them at another
question.)

Greg Nisbet wrote:
> As a brief overview, I was more criticizing the motives of people than
> suggesting a particular plan. Any plan that some person touts changing
> society in manner X shouldn't really be trusted.

(Blind trust is naive, but blind dismissal is imprudent.  The best we
can do is rational discussion and critique.)  Your critique of motives
for electoral reform had this point:

=I think my dismissal is warranted. I trust society to represent its
own interests more than some external source would. I am not saying
dismiss every method that does so, but count involuntary changes to
society against it.

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

I'm replying with the counterpoint that this criterion of legitimacy
is recursive.  It applies equally to the design and implementation of
the electoral method itself.  So I ask:

 To what extent is an electoral method legitimate if it is not the
 choice of the electors?

=Good point. I'm not a dictator however. I want electoral methods
publicized so the public can make an informed decision. It is pretty
clear they are ignorant about it now. I don't think anyone here would
want to take the enlightened despot stance and just force a method on
the public through lobbying or something.

We think we know best, and we may be right; but that's beside the
point.

> >  1. What reform can free the electors of external manipulation?
>
> 1. Pretty much all of the methods that people advocate here would do the
> trick. Various Condorcet Methods, Range Voting, IRNR etc. The actual method
> itself isn't that big an issue. As I mentioned in "Making a Bad Thing
> Worse", the main problem here is how we decide who is most deserving of
> votes or what restrictions to place on them. I'd say that as long as the
> voting system is reasonably independent of clones and everyone's vote is
> counted equally, the specifc electoral method is of little consequence. What
> is of consequence is the myriad laws that accompany it, none of them
> improving voters' ability to influence their government. The "Making a Bad
> Thing Worse" discussion mentions some of the things that damage this. For
> the United States, at least, getting rid of these silly laws would go a long
> way toward the deregulation of politics.

We could expand the general argument to questions of law (What is the
legitimacy of a law without popular assent?), or of norms in general,
or decisions in general (c, below).

For now, I'd just expand my counterpoint slightly, so it also covers
the assemblies (legislatures and councils) where laws and bylaws are
voted, as well as the electoral systems (primary and general) where
the officials are voted.  So:

 To what extent is a voting system legitimate if it is not the choice
 of the voters?

> >  2. Through what plan of action can we implement the reform?
>
> 2. I'm not entirely sure. I'd really have to think about it. I'd say
> that http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/ is a pretty good idea.

(A lobby.)

> >  3. In the act of implementing the reform, what assurance do we have
> >     that we ourselves are not manipulating the electors?
>
> 3. I'd say that the methods here for the large part don't do this. Most of
> the arguments here are about which method represents the voters the best,
> not which changes society in way X. I'd say as long as it doesn't lead to 2
> party domination, is independent of clones, and allows reasonable voter
> expressiveness, it won't lead to government manipulation of politics.

You see my point, however.  The technical merits of a solution are not
the criteria of legitimacy.  The perfect voting system (the best for
the voters) is *wrong* if the voters themselves do not approve it;
while the worst possible system (allows all sorts of abuse, and does
harm to the voters) is *right* if they approve it.  The only criterion
that matters is their approval.  It's their system.

=How do you know whether the voters approve of it if they are using a
voting system like FPTP. You can see the bind you are in. If voters,
using system X, appear to disapprove of system X, how do you deal with
that? I suppose you could offer them binary decisions until something
sticks. All reasonable 2-candidate electoral methods are exactly the
same.

=You make some very good claims. I think I know what is best for
society and how to implement it. Here is why it doesn't apply:
=1) I don't wish to force anything on society.
=2) I claim to know how to represent the will of society best. That
does not mean I claim to know what is in society's best interest. I
can figure out what society actually wants better than the status quo
can, but I still would have to figure it out.

So this is my answer to all 3 questions, and to your original post:

 Let the voters choose.

Can't we help them?  When it comes to choice, we're supposed to be the
pros from Dover.

--
Michael Allan

Toronto, 647-436-4521
http://zelea.com/


=Informing voters is definitely an option, in fact it is the only option.