[EM] A design flaw in the electoral system

[Juho Laatu]

I thought / think that
- voluntary participation in whatever clubs, with possibility to influence others, and with possibility to vote in line with the club discussions or even agree to vote that way does not limit one's liberty to do whatever one wants
- one limitation to liberty could be the fact that one has to co-operate or there must be people that think the same way, but that is just the realization of the fact that one is not a dictator
- secret ballots (that hide the fact which party and/or person you voted) support liberty to vote the way one wants
- I can't say that I agree with the conclusions of the thesis because I don't know what they are
- 1/N is maybe a better (although not perfect) estimate of the power that one voter holds than 0

Juho



On 21.10.2011, at 0.48, Michael Allan wrote:

> Juho Laatu wrote:
>>>> But maybe if you form a small club (or a large club (=party))
>>>> that discusses and finds an agreement on how to vote. Then maybe
>>>> you get the power that you want.
> 
>> Michael Allan wrote:
>>> Only at the cost of political liberty.  To allow a flaw in the
>>> electoral system to rule my actions would be to surrender to a
>>> contingency and immediately lose my freedom. ...
> 
>> One can do this also without tying oneself in one of the clubs. And
>> one may have informal groups like a mailing list or a web site. This
>> still keeps the freedom of the "my way" path.
> 
> Only at the cost of power, and thus again liberty.  I think my reply
> did answer you here.  I went on to say, "We teach our children that a
> vote formalizes both power and equality, having learned ourselves that
> these are the two preconditions of political liberty.  In abandoning
> my vote, I therefore abandon my fellow citizens and the one structural
> support of political liberty that the constitution guarantees." [1]
> 
>   Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.  One thinks
>   himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave
>   than they. [2]
> 
> For these reasons, I see no political liberty in either of the
> approaches you suggest.  I see only an abandondment of electoral power
> in a small club, itself powerless against a mass party; or the siezure
> of power at the expense of others through such a party - approaches
> therefore more likely to lead to bondage than to liberty.  The
> constitution already allows for support of political liberty in the
> form of an electoral vote that formalizes a share of power and
> concomitant equality.  Why abandon that support so lightly? [3]
> 
>> Also many electoral systems do their best in trying to hide the
>> opinion of one voter from the others, and thereby support
>> independent decision making.
> 
> Really?  I think the system provides no such support, because voting
> comes at the end of the decision process.  The decider is separated
> from the means of decision, which is precisely the design flaw.  Even
> the humble worker bee has decision support *while* the decision
> process unfolds, and not after.  If she were not free to change her
> "vote" while visiting other locations as suggested by her co-workers
> *through their votes*, then the colony as a whole would fail to make a
> good decision.  If honey bees had a decision system as flawed as ours,
> then we'd have no honey bees. [4]
> 
> Our flawed electoral system witholds its decision support from the
> electors till the very end of the decision process.  This is precisely
> why the vote is powerless and probably how it came to pass that "the
> organized parties make the decisions and exercise the electoral power
> and political freedom that were intended for the citizens."  You admit
> to seeing no flaw in this thesis; you will therefore also admit that
> the conclusion (unpleasant as it is) seems to be true? [5]
> 
>> (If one strongly wants to find even better ways to influence with
>> more than 1/N times the electorate power one can become active in
>> politics and become a candidate and maybe a representative.)
> 
> Recall that we already discussed the power of one's vote.  Didn't we
> measure it at zero, not 1/N?  The vote has no effect on the political
> outcome of the election, therefore it has no power. [6]
> 
> 
> [1] http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2011-October/028690.html
> 
> [2] The social contract, or principles of political right.  1762.
>     http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/r/rousseau/jean_jacques/r864s/book1.html
> 
> [3] This reminds me of a scene from this Robert Bolt screenplay:
>     http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/A_Man_for_All_Seasons_%281966_film%29
> 
>     Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
>     More:  Oh?  And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned
>            'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all
>            being flat?  This country's planted thick with laws from
>            coast to coast - man's laws, not God's - and if you cut
>            them down - and you're just the man to do it - do you
>            really think you could stand upright in the winds that
>            would blow then?  Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law,
>            for my own safety's sake.
> 
>     Likewise, we cannot stand upright without the structural support
>     of the electoral vote.  For lack of it, we are lying prostrate in
>     obedience to powers beyond our control.
> 
> [4] Warren Smith mentioned bees, which got me thinking of this.
>     http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2011-October/028575.html
> 
> [5] http://zelea.com/project/autonomy/a/fau/fau.xht
> 
> [6] http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2011-October/028677.html
> 
> -- 
> Michael Allan
> 
> Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
> http://zelea.com/
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info