[EM] Sociological issues of elections

[Fred Gohlke]

Michael Allan said it best:

   "The individual votes are brought together to make a result,
    but the individual voters are not brought together as such
    to make a decision; therefore no valid decision can be
    extracted from the result."

 > Vidar Wahlberg wrote:
 > Giving the electors balanced information and maintaining a
 > transparent government is desirable, but this also depends on
 > media and influental people "playing by the book". While better
 > information obviously will improve electors ability to make
 > rational decisions, it will still be quite possible to
 > influence the voters based on less relevant traits (charisma,
 > fearmongering, etc). Then again, what is relevant and what is
 > not is neither a clear distinction.

 > I mainly wanted to raise the subject that there's a lot of
 > information going around before an election that's only meant
 > to convince the elector to vote for a certain candidate/party,
 > regardless of whether that would be the electors preference
 > given enough insight into the candidate/party's capability. I
 > would like to see a system where electors are encouraged to
 > gain insight and reflected views, and vote thereafter.

As you point out, the information flowing before an election is intended 
to sway the voters - and it's pervasive.  We can't escape it.  The only 
people who will work their way through the mass of misinformation and 
disinformation are those who are vitally affected by the decisions. 
They have to have a personal interest in seeking out the information.

One of the values in the hybrid system Kristofer described is that the 
500 people who are competing for 150 seats in the legislature all have a 
reason to get a clear understanding of their competitors views and their 
character before they vote; they are candidates, too.

Fred Gohlke