[EM] Public parties: a Trojan Horse in the party system

[Michael Allan]

Hi Peter,

> Ok, so every citizen in every country in the world will be able to
> vote in the election of the municipal council where I live?  I don't
> think I would like that and neither would the other people living in
> this municipality too, I believe.

Ed already replied here, so I just want to add two things.  First I
remind you that I was speaking of votes cast in the primary elections
of a public party, not in the official elections of the state.

Second, people around the world are already free to express themselves
on the issue of other people's local elections.  Whether we like it or
not, there is nothing we can do about it.

> Talking about history, I'll share what I learned about the secret
> ballot too: "The use of a secret ballot in America was first deemed
> necessary to protect the voting rights of recently freed slaves ...

(I already replied to this)

> ... Your claim that, that a little peer-to-peer coercion here and
> there, actually is not much to talk about, is unacceptable to me and
> not a statement supported by any argument - imagine how these
> "isolated cases" could look like in reality. ...

Looking at reality, what I see is:

  (a) The existence of a secret ballot in official elections
  (b) The *absence* of a secret ballot in everyday communications

Official elections employ a secret ballot that can serve as a barrier
to inter-personal coercion, while everyday communications do not.  I
propose no change here.  I propose only that the primary elections of
a public party be conducted as everyday communications among ordinary
people.  As such, I claim they are unlikely to be skewed overall by
instances of inter-personal coercion, as between family members.
People tend broadly to express themselves with fidelity provided they
are not systematically constrained, as in a police state.

> ... "If all restrictions are lifted and public voters have complete
> freedom of expression", even then would coercion not disappear, as
> vote-buying will be absolutely legitimate, and vote-buying is a form
> of coercion which would be under the protection of the "freedom of
> expression". ...

Did you read my citation here?  We discussed this previously in the
lists: http://zelea.com/project/votorola/d/theory.xht#vote-buy

You imply that people who are free to express themselves without
restriction are going to sell that freedom to the highest bidder.
This seems unlikely.  Can you think of an actual example?

> > It is impossible to generally enforce a secret ballot in primary
> > elections, or to impose any other sweeping restriction on freedom
> > of expression.  It would require a power that does not exist in
> > our societies.

> ... I didn't understand the sentence "It would require a power that
> does not exist in our societies."  Doesn't legislative power exist
> in our societies?

To restrict the public sharing of opinions on who should run for
office?  Such a law would be unconstitutional.  Even if it were not,
to enforce it would require the security apparatus of a police state.

-- 
Michael Allan

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


Peter Zbornik said:
> Hi Mike,
> 
> answers in the text of your email below.
> 
> Best regards
> Peter Zborník
> 
> 2012/8/6 Michael Allan <mike at zelea.com>
> 
> > I guess there are three issues in this.  I'll try to unravel them as
> > they bear on the public party.
> >
> >   * Party membership
> >   * Human expression
> >   * Vote counting
> >
> > The public party has no formal membership.  Its actual membership is
> > assumed to be identical to that of the public.  Public membership is
> > determined ad hoc by human expression *in* public.  Speaker and
> > audience are made members by the fact of their participation.  In not
> > assuming this mode of membership, Demoex is not a public party.
> >
> > The public depends on freedom of expression.  Voting is a form of
> > expression.  Placing restrictions on who can vote and who cannot (or
> > where they can vote, when, and how), Demoex is not a public party.
> >
> > Public votes may be tallied by anyone and the tallier alone decides
> > which votes to count and which to discount.  A public party may tally
> > votes, too, and may publish a count restricted to the local electors,
> > or to any other subset of the voters.  Such a restricted count would
> > not in itself disqualify Demoex from being a public party. [1]
> >
> >
> Ok, so every citizen in every country in the world will be able to vote in
> the election of the municipal council where I live?
> I don't think I would like that and neither would the other people living
> in this municipality too, I believe.
> 
> > I'll share what I've learned about the secret ballot.  It's not what
> > it seems to be.
> >
> >   (a) The enabling motivation behind the secret ballot, as with other
> >       electoral reforms of the 19th century, was the consolidation of
> >       power in the newly organized political parties.  Of particular
> >       concern was control over the selection of primary candidates,
> >       which could not be secured when the nominations and voting were
> >       conducted in public, as before. [2]
> 
> Talking about history, I'll share what I learned about the secret ballot
> too: "The use of a secret ballot in America was first deemed necessary to
> protect the voting rights of recently freed slaves after the Civil War.
> Voter intimidation during southern reconstruction was rampant, with African
> American first-time voters being threatened with physical violence, even
> lynching, based on how their publicly known ballots were cast. In 1892,
> Grover Cleveland became the first United State president elected by secret
> ballot."
> http://www.sosballot.org/frequently-asked-questions/
> 
> >   (b) If all restrictions are lifted and public voters have complete
> >       freedom of expression, then it is difficult to see how the
> >       results could be manipulated except (as Conseo suggests) by
> >       re-imposing systematic restrictions.  Isolated instances of
> >       coercion, as with family, are unlikely to affect the overall
> >       primary results.  And, in all cases, the individual is still
> >       protected by the secret ballot at a later stage, in the official
> >       election. [3]
> 
> "Complete freedom of expression" is a utopia, similar as the "classless
> society".
> It sounds good initially, but thinking of it a bit longer, the attraction
> fades quickly.
> If you claim, that coercion will be "unlikely to affect the overall primary
> results".
> Try to think about communism or fascism. Those were some efficient systems
> of mass coercion.
> But peer-to-peer coercion would have similar effects.
> Your claim that, that a little peer-to-peer coercion here and there,
> actually is not much to talk about, is unacceptable to me and not a
> statement supported by any argument - imagine how these "isolated cases"
> could look like in reality.
> "If all restrictions are lifted and public voters have complete freedom of
> expression", even then would coercion not disappear, as vote-buying will be
> absolutely legitimate, and vote-buying is a form of coercion which would be
> under the protection of the "freedom of expression".
> Different rules for ballot secrecy between primary and official election
> are likely to give you two very different results, even if the same voters
> voted for the same candidates at the same time.
> 
> >   (c) It is impossible to generally enforce a secret ballot in primary
> >       elections, or to impose any other sweeping restriction on
> >       freedom of expression.  It would require a power that does not
> >       exist in our societies.
> 
> I don't understand that point at all, please show how "It is impossible to
> generally enforce a secret ballot in primary elections".
> I think you can regulate primary elections by law, in order to avoid
> manipulations, just as we do in public elections or in stock companies.
> In any case, in the Czech Green party, the secret ballot is used in primary
> elections and I consider the elections being fair.
> The votes can even be counted publicly, so I don't really see the problem
> here.
> Claiming that a secret ballot is a restriction on the freedom of
> expression, is similar to saying that banning "hate speech" and "physical
> threats" or why not even "sexual harassments" are similar restrictions to
> the freedom of expression.
> In fact, any law can be seen as a "sweeping restriction on freedom of
> expression".
> I didn't understand the sentence "It would require a power that does
> not exist in our societies."
> Doesn't legislative power exist in our societies?
> 
> > Vote mirroring is basically freedom of information.  If I cast a vote
> > at site S, then I contribute information to S, but that information is
> > made public.  Others are free to copy it.
> 
> I am ok, with this, just as long as only my voting behaviour is public, but
> not my identity (name, surname, photo, home town etc.).