[EM] You Can't Have it Both Ways

[Greg Nisbet]

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Raph Frank <raphfrk at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?


Yep exactly that is the point. The will of the people is not strictly
preserved because a large majority can still lose if it isn't spread out
right. Think of Congress as a simplification of everyone voting on
legislation.

Being a federation is fine. It simply means that power is constitutionally
dervied from the constituent entities of the nation rather than from the
national/federal government. The mere fact that federations often have equal
representation for their entities in some chamber of their legislative
assembly does not mean that all federations do/have to/should.

It distorts the will of the people for the purpose of protecting them from
themselves. That is the kind of thing I am skeptical of.

>
>
> > 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.


That is exactly my point! People will definitely be voting, directly or
indirectly, for or against the constitutional amendment. If the government
was allowed to tailor it to their liking in the first place then
a distortion-free way to determine if people really want the constitution
changed does not exist.

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


Yep. Pretty much all government is biased towards the status quo.

>
>
> >
> > 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.


Alright, that's ok. I'll define Americans: the people living in the United
States of America. They do exist as a unit. It really doesn't matter if the
government doesn't say that group's collective opinion is unimportant, they
represent a defined group of people living beneath a common government and
their opinion exists. Anyway, I think its clear that the opinion of the
majority would in certain cases be overturned. When they do this

>
>
> > 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.


Who they are is of utmost importance. I am saying that encouraging
"favorable" but not necessarily democratic outcomes is to be mistrusted.
Anyone controlling the voting system possesses formidable powers.

>
>
> > 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?


sure. It doesn't really where matter so long as individual freedoms are
protected in a way that cannot be randomly reneged. I meant a constitution
in the sense of a collection of laws that no further laws can controvert. I
wasn't referring to any nation's constitution or type of constitution in
particular.

>
>
> 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.


That is the idea. The government really shouldn't be allowed to mess with
the voting system. There are dire consequences to that. I am saying that
anyone who wants to design the voting system such that specific protections
for the people are in place, they are nuts to do so. Such belongs in a
constitution, not the voting method.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20081018/0a5a5902/attachment-0003.htm>