[EM] Elections in microcosm and macrocosm.

[Forest Simmons]

Well considered ... and well written from a comprehensive
logico-neuro-psycho-historical perspective.

Few are the modern writers equipped both scientifically and historically
for such felicitous, concise exposition of this topic of such general
importance.

On Wed, Sep 14, 2022, 10:12 AM Richard Lung <voting at ukscientists.com> wrote:

>
> Elections in microcosm and macrocosm.
>
>
>
> Alfred Tennyson anticipated the so-called United Nations, in an early poem
> of “The Parliament of Man.” The phrase might just as well apply to the
> rational mind of an individual human being, who holds elections and
> exclusions of personal thoughts. The sub-conscious mind amounts to an
> “electorate” that determines those decisions. The introspective
> psychologies of Freud and Jung are largely about internalised social
> conflict resolution. Indeed, depth psychology attempts to resolve deep
> conflicts of instincts and conditionings. Altogether, it is the work of the
> United Nations in microcosm.
>
> The human brain has ceased to be an impenetrable “black box,” since the
> advent of brain-scanning neuro-science. It is possible that election
> science may have a quantitative role to play in microcosmic elections of
> the human mind.
>
> Meanwhile, election science or “electics” has an urgent role to fill, in
> advising on conflict resolution, in the macrocosm of all humanity, or human
> relations in general. Most people are evidently not aware of some simple
> electoral considerations, for promoting peace: Majority elections are “the
> tyranny of the majority” (John Stuart Mill; Lani Guinier) which fragment
> societies of their minorities, seeking to become majorities, in smaller
> units, where they can preside over their own “tyranny of the majority.”
> Thus conflicts multiply.
>
> What is refered to as a majority is not a democracy, it is “only half a
> democracy” (Robert Newland). This type of democracy is more accurately
> described as a single majority, where one representative is supported by
> half the voters. There are also multiple majorities. The next simplest
> majority is a double majority, where one third of the voters are each
> supported by two representatives, giving a proportional representation of
> two thirds of the voters. A triple majority gives a three quarters
> proportional representation, and so on, approaching fully democratic
> representation.
>
> This series of increasing representation is called the Droop quota. It is
> not the last word, in the matter. However, fairly sharing representation
> does away with the need for unrepresented minorities to fracture
> societies, to become their own dominating majorities.
>
> The fractious effect of “the tyranny of the (single) majority” extends
> from legislatures to executives. This tyranny applies to monarchs or
> presidents. Even if the president is an elected monarch, that is
> essentially the ancient Greek tyrant, who was an elected ruler, given a
> free hand. When Quentin Hogg (Lord Hailsham) called Britain an “elective
> dictatorship,” this was a good definition of a classic Greek tyranny.
>
> Alexander Solzhenitsyn rejected party lists. Parties only represent a
> part. The dictator Lenin favored party lists.
>
> Representative democracy requires direct elections. These are achieved by
> the Personal Representation form of proportional representation, as
> described by Thomas Hare and his chief supporter John Stuart Mill (The Hare
> system alias the Andrae system). Following them, HG Wells advocated
> “Proportional Representation with a single transferable vote in large
> constituencies.” Or, as the Australians say, the quota-preferential method.
>
>  Regards,
>
> Richard Lung.
>
>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
> info
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20220914/a0e9d1c7/attachment.htm>