[EM] The structuring of power and the composition of norms by communicative assent

Michael Allan mike at zelea.com
Wed Jan 21 08:54:00 PST 2009

Juho Laatu wrote:

> I don't see any big conflict. They are
> free to speak even if the society does
> not provide them with tools to prove
> to others how they voted. (And they
> can still tell others how they voted.)
The problem was to design a democracy in which people:

  * are free to engage with political issues;

  * know this, and are continually reminded of it;

  * yet fail to do so.

The design solution was:

  a) a single vote, every 4 years or so

  b) mass voting for a few pre-selected candidates

  c) secret ballot

  d) no voting on laws, only on the law makers

Now the problem is to design a substansive democracy, in which
political engagement is a fact.  Oddly, the preceding design need not
be altered.  It remains essential.  All we need is to add a separate,
primary voting system, with these counter-features:

  a) continuous results, with shifting votes

  b) peer-to-peer voting, with no pre-selected candidates

  c) open ballot

  d) voting on laws, too

Michael Allan

Toronto, 647-436-4521

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list