[EM] You Can Indeed Have it Both Ways - Vol 52, Issue 64

[Michael Allan]

Greg Nisbet wrote:
> =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.

My only proposal is to allow individuals to express assent and
dissent.  I suggest how to ease voting restrictions and to extend
freedoms.  It's all voluntary stuff, there's no force applied.

I also try to forsee the societal changes that would result.  But that
doesn't make me a social engineer. :)
 
> >  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.

The alternatives are few.  They could:

  a) lobby

  b) inform the public

  c) seek assent of voters

We agree that (a) is bad, and (b) has so far failed.  I wish to
suggest (c) as something new and untried.

> > You see my point, however.  The technical merits of a solution are
> > not the criteria of legitimacy... 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...

That's what I have in mind: offer them choices until something
sticks...

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

I'm an engineer.  All I have is what I can build.  But you can see my
suggestion: let's give them something they can actually use, an
alternative voting system.

This rests on three main arguments.  (Two of them were introduced in a
previous thread, "the 'who' and the 'what'").

   i) The voters can express their assent (choose their voting system)
      by actually using it.  In other words, they can "vote with their
      feet" among the alternative systems on offer.

  ii) A voting system that faithfully expresses the assent of the
      voters, and is sufficiently popular (i), will be effectively
      binding.  Its authority will require no external guarantors.  In
      other words, whatever people vote for, they'll sooner or later
      get.

 iii) A voting system can have universal application.  That is to say,
      it is possible to design a single system that can express assent
      for any object or action.  People will certainly be able to vote
      for any office, candidate or norm, without restriction.

The second point is crucial.  The full argument is based on the
priority of primary elections and the potential scope of universal,
cross-party primaries - but with the argument carried over to norms
too.

If these arguments are correct (?), then none of the existing voting
systems of society are relevant to electoral reform.  The only way
forward is through the unrestricted expression of assent and dissent.
Ideal voting is therefore not just the aim of reform, but also the
means.

(Note the dependency on self-reflected claims of legitimacy, which is
what prompted me to post.  I've never approached it from this angle
before.)

-- 
Michael Allan

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