[EM] A design flaw in the electoral system

[Michael Allan]

Good morning Fred,

> > ... the individual voters do not intercommunicate *as such* to
> >  make a decision; therefore no valid decision can be extracted
> >  from the result. ... It is often impractical for voters to
> >  communicate through physical proximity.  But the invalidity only
> >  arises because they do not communicate by *any* means ..."
>
> This inspires three comments:
> 
> 1) Are we not both saying the same thing with regard to public
>    participation in the electoral process?  Since I'm anxious to
>    understand your perspective, and particularly how it differs from
>    my own, can we differentiate between your point of view and:
> 
>       "What made the process democratic was not the method of voting
>        but that the people discussed the issues themselves and
>        decided which were of sufficient import to be decided by
>        finding the will of the majority."

Yes, I see similarities with the argument in this section.  Maybe the
most important difference is that I do not make an external appeal
here to democracy or any other broad social norm, but only to the
technical purposes of the system:

   (b) Get a decision from the *electors*.
   (c) Let it be a *good* decision in their eyes.

The design works against these purposes (REL b c), therefore the
design is flawed by the engineering principle of efficacy.  These are
pretty much internal inconsistencies of the electoral system (left):

   http://zelea.com/var/db/repo/autonomy/raw-file/a44fa9a546c9/autonomy/a/fau/relations.png
   [REL] Causal relations among a formal failure of technical design
   (left) and actual failures in society (right).  See descriptions in
   text of (a), (b), (s).

There are external consequences in society too (right), not all which
are diagrammed here.  The manifold failures of democracy or political
liberty are the most important of these.  They are discussed in other
sections.  Note however the importance of communication among voters
(center); so yes, I think we are saying much the same thing.

> 3) "But the invalidity only arises because they do not
>      communicate by *any* means ..."
> 
> Do you mean by this that the ballot is invalid because it does not
> allow the voters to express their true desire?  To say the vote is
> invalid is to say the issue on which ballots are cast, as stated,
> has not been reduced to the essence on which the voters wish to
> express their preference.  What would be the point of communicating
> if not to alter the issue in some way?

I meant here that the *outcome* of the election is invalid.  That's
the "invalid decision" in the new figure REL (above).

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
http://zelea.com/


Fred Gohlke wrote:
> Good Morning, Michael
> 
> re: "... I've corrected the passage to read:
> 
>         ... the individual voters do not intercommunicate *as
>         such* to make a decision; therefore no valid decision
>         can be extracted from the result.
> 
>       It is often impractical for voters to communicate through
>       physical proximity.  But the invalidity only arises because
>       they do not communicate by *any* means ..."
> 
> This inspires three comments:
> 
> 1) Are we not both saying the same thing with regard to public
>     participation in the electoral process?  Since I'm anxious to
>     understand your perspective, and particularly how it differs
>     from my own, can we differentiate between your point of view
>     and:
> 
>       "What made the process democratic was not the method of
>        voting but that the people discussed the issues themselves
>        and decided which were of sufficient import to be decided
>        by finding the will of the majority."
> 
> 2) "It is often impractical for voters to communicate through physical
>      proximity" ...
> 
> That is only true for large numbers of voters.  For small groups, modern 
> mobility eliminates the problem.
> 
> 3) "But the invalidity only arises because they do not
>      communicate by *any* means ..."
> 
> Do you mean by this that the ballot is invalid because it does not allow 
> the voters to express their true desire?  To say the vote is invalid is 
> to say the issue on which ballots are cast, as stated, has not been 
> reduced to the essence on which the voters wish to express their 
> preference.  What would be the point of communicating if not to alter 
> the issue in some way?
. . . 

> Fred Gohlke