[EM] You Can't Have it Both Ways - the Voters Can

[Michael Allan]

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:

> > > 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?

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.

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/