[EM] You Can't Have it Both Ways

[Raph Frank]

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 7:20 AM, Greg Nisbet <gregory.nisbet at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

The US is (was?) a federation.  This is separate from deciding how you
should make decisions without a single State/country/nation.

More to the point, would you support World majority rule?  Do you
accept that there is more than one 'nation' in the world?

> 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?

It is reasonably legitimate, as long as the majority can change the
voting method via constitutional amendment.

Ofc, it can be hard to change the constitution, so power imbalances can persist.

>
> 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.

However, 'Americans' don't exist except as citizens of a federation.
Perhaps, this is not as significant for non-founder states,
California, for example, only existed as part of the US.

> 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?

Hmm, well no matter what system you pick, there will be winners and losers.

> 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.

You mean a bill of rights?

It seems that a constitution that protects minorities as a consequence
of its operation is also reasonable.  In fact, it might be less likely
to corruption.  If a constitution says that a certain method should be
used for the election, then it isn't a matter of some Judge's opinion.
 Ofc, they can require a lot of detail to make sure that it isn't
abused.