[EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse

[Greg Nisbet]

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Raph Frank <raphfrk at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 2:56 AM, Greg Nisbet <gregory.nisbet at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > 1) Primaries are anti-utilitarian.
>
> Without primaries, then the result of a plurality election is either
> random, or more likely decided by the 2 party leaderships.


With primaries, the result of a plurality election is random.

>
>
> > 2) The Government enforcing any way for parties to operate is bad.
>
> Agreed, but even without government rules, I think that it is in the
> best interests of parties to have primaries.


That really isn't our concern. They can if they wish, but they should be
neither penalized nor rewarded (by the voting system) for doing so.

>
>
> > The second point I don't agee with because Median Voter would suggest
> that
> > candidates would be more centrist on average if primaries didn't exist. I
> > like moderates better than Democrats or Republicans and I think they are
> > better for the country...
>
> 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.

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.

>
>
> It is possible that the men 'in smoky rooms' would pick candidates who
> are more centrist.  If not, then you get the same type of candidates
> picked.
>

The alternative is no primaries at all, not this.

>
>
> > If you let anyone who wants to be on the ballot be on the ballot, how bad
> > would that really be?
>
> Right, I think we agree here.


Yep.

>
>
> > I think an average voter would not get confused by large numbers of
> > candidates. If they were organizes reasonably, the voter strictly
> benefits
> > because they could always vote against unknown candidates as a matter of
> > principle. Most do, so I don't see what people are whining about.
>
> There is a balance here.  If the rule is too easy, then you get people
> registering 100 names just for the fun of it.


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

>
>
> The 2000 signature rule means that it requires to much effort for the
> joke to be worth it.


I suppose.

>
>
> 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.

>
>
> >> 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.


They don't actually meet and discuss it. They just cast their vote and are
done with it (sometimes honestly, sometimes not). It would be great if they
did discuss it. That might actually make the Electoral College worthwhile.

>
>
> As with most things, it would benefit a lot from PR.


agreed

>
>
> 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.

>
>
> >> Well, in theory, the US is a federation, not a democracy.  In any
> >> case, that requires 100% of the States to agree for it to be changed.
> > Umm federation and democracy are not mutually exclusive.
>
> Well, to a certain extent.  I guess I mean that the US is not unitary,
> it is a federation.
>
> 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.

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


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.

>
>
> 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.

>
>
> Sovereignty is divided and split between the citizens based on place
> of residence.  You have some powers relating to your state and some
> relating to the US as a whole.


Yeah.

>
>
> 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.

>
>
> > Anyway, my opinion
> > might be biased because I live in California, the state most screwed over
> by
> > the system. I do not buy the whole prevent tyrannical regions from taking
> > over nonsense b/c preventing tyranny is a civil rights issue not a voting
> > system issue. Attempting to design some system to subvert the will of the
> > voters "for their own good" is not to be trusted.
>
> The whole 'States are not allowed to leave' rule does give some weight
> to your argument.  However, the theory was that the federal government
> wasn't meant to be 'the government'.  Also, you are allowed to leave
> California, if those other States have got it so good.


It isn't fair to make me choose.

I know the federal government wasn't meant to be this powerful. It is
tragedy that it has become so powerful.

>
>
> >> In fact, I think that having the States do the redistricting is better
> >> than allowing Congress do it.  If the States were independently
> >> controlled, then there is less of a conflict of interest.
> >
> > Not exactly. You just have mini conflicts of interest that don't all line
> up
> > in one direction instead of one big one.
>
> Isn't that better?


Yes, as I said in the thing below.

>
> >> However, the 2 party system is entrenched, so the State legislatures
> >> aren't independent.
> > yep exactly. This might arguably be better.
>
> Well then, we disagree.  Random conflicts of interest should at least
> partially cancel out, but under the 2 party system, that isn't the
> case.


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

>
>
> 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.

>
>
> Also, I think deciding on boundaries would be a perfect example of
> where some of the random ballot proposals would work well.  Ofc, that
> anything that requires compromise to set the boundaries often ends up
> as incumbent based gerrymandering.


If you assume that people have to be the ones gerrymandering, then they
shouldn't be able to gerrymander themselves into power.

>
>
> > I know you can't that is my point. Various issues of the past have messed
> > with state boundaries and that has side-effets in the present.
>
> It is impartial though.


Umm... sure... it's 'impartial' now because none of the issues matter
anymore, but it's still damaging.

>
>
> < snip - 3rd parties should pick one state to concentrate on >
>
> (We agree here)


You have to do what you can within the system.

>
>
> > I think you need to prove you have some 'valid reason' to vote early.
> > Anyway, I know there are some restrictions that make it inconvenient
> > otherwise who would show up at the polls?
>
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20081018/f89f9c8d/attachment-0003.htm>