Av Referendum

[Enoch]

I think the key question about AV is this: How does it affect the hold of parties over the electoral system? If it strenghtens theri grip, it can only be against the public good.

This is a common argument that is accepted as generally true out of the general cynicism of the electorate, but why is this necessarily the case?

 

And, if it is the case, I'd think that a voter should prefer a system of single-member districts (whether elected via simple one-shot plurality or by some kind of run-off system) where a single candidate can make a case that they are best for the job, with or without support of a major party. Multi-member districts and similar proportional systems have the primary effect of elevating the party above the candidate-- the likelihood that the voter has any kind of informed opinion on the worthiness of the candidates declines dramatically when the candidates are simply names in a party's list. Instead, voters apply the heuristics that are provided to them-- the vote for the party with whose views they most agree, without much attention paid to whether the candidates actually on the ballot are worthy of their vote. If that's not "strengthening the hold of the parties over the electoral system," I don't know what is. (This also ties in with the British conflating of the legislative and executive power-- that one's vote for a legislator is also the only way that one influences what ministers will be running the various executive agencies. Both make the voter think more about a candidate's party affiliation than his/her personal worthiness for the post.)

[Humodour]

Putting together a government that is both representative and actually functional is, to me, a more important goal than making people feel warm and fuzzy about the process.

 

I don't believe that the current system is represetative, infact, if you look at the numbers it most certainly IS NOT representative. Functional, well that's another debate.

Well, of course you don't think the system is representative-- the candidates you would prefer to support don't have a chance of winning.

 

Every system is going to have winners and losers. If you want to be on the other side of that line, convince more of your neighbors to vote in the manner you would prefer.

 

Hence it is not ****ing representative. Christ, not a hard concept to grasp, Enoch. You of all people.

[Humodour]

I think the key question about AV is this: How does it affect the hold of parties over the electoral system? If it strenghtens theri grip, it can only be against the public good.

This is a common argument that is accepted as generally true out of the general cynicism of the electorate, but why is this necessarily the case?

 

And, if it is the case, I'd think that a voter should prefer a system of single-member districts (whether elected via simple one-shot plurality or by some kind of run-off system) where a single candidate can make a case that they are best for the job, with or without support of a major party. Multi-member districts and similar proportional systems have the primary effect of elevating the party above the candidate-- the likelihood that the voter has any kind of informed opinion on the worthiness of the candidates declines dramatically when the candidates are simply names in a party's list. Instead, voters apply the heuristics that are provided to them-- the vote for the party with whose views they most agree, without much attention paid to whether the candidates actually on the ballot are worthy of their vote. If that's not "strengthening the hold of the parties over the electoral system," I don't know what is. (This also ties in with the British conflating of the legislative and executive power-- that one's vote for a legislator is also the only way that one influences what ministers will be running the various executive agencies. Both make the voter think more about a candidate's party affiliation than his/her personal worthiness for the post.)

 

Uuuum, preferential voting is a different thing to multi-member seats. In fact, preferential voting in multi-member seats produces proportional representation.

 

Australia's lower house (House of Reps) for example has preferential voting in single-member seats.

[Wrath of Dagon]

US system was never designed to be the most democratic. It was designed to be workable and stable, and to guaranty minority rights instead of mob rule.

[Gorgon]

I have another Idea, you should be able to throw your vote against a given candidate or party as well as for it. Same difference you say, not at all.

 

I can't think of any candidates I would want to vote for in the coming general election, more than a handful would be fighting over my 'blackball' vote though. It would increase turnout more than any such previous initiatives.

 

Of course it might well end up with the winner being the one with the smallest vote deficit, but that would mirror reality pretty well.

Edited April 27, 2011 by Gorgon

[Humodour]

US system was never designed to be the most democratic. It was designed to be workable and stable, and to guaranty minority rights instead of mob rule.

 

Uh, no. First-past-the-post is more likely to lead to mob rule and the weakening of the rights of minorities than a system which is preferential and/or proportional.

 

You'd be in a much better position to argue that your system supports the rights of minorities by referring to, say, your bill of rights.

[Nightshape]

US system was never designed to be the most democratic. It was designed to be workable and stable, and to guaranty minority rights instead of mob rule.

 

Well then its failed to achieve that in my opinion.

[Gorgon]

Hold on, if you lose a state all the seats from that state goes to the opposition. I'm sorry, that's not protecting minority rights, quite the opposite. If you happen to live in a republican stronghold as a democrat, or vice versa, your vote is worthless. You might as well stay home.

[Nightshape]

Its all about the illusion of choice...

[Enoch]

Hence it is not ****ing representative. Christ, not a hard concept to grasp, Enoch. You of all people.

Well, "representative" is a relative term. You could imagine it as a sliding scale from pure direct democracy on one end, up through, say, Parliament in the 13th Century on the other end. People are going to have different thresholds that they consider acceptable. To me, the sine qua non of representativeness to me is this: Do the people have the ability and reasonably frequent opportunity to throw the incumbents out of office when their performance merits it? If you get that right, the rest is details.

 

Uuuum, preferential voting is a different thing to multi-member seats. In fact, preferential voting in multi-member seats produces proportional representation.

 

Australia's lower house (House of Reps) for example has preferential voting in single-member seats.

Fair enough-- I was combining some arguments there, where I probably shouldn't have. It was tough at first for me to put my finger on why alternate voting bothered me. I think it's that it gives a privilege to the voters whose loyalties are split that is not given to the voters who believe firmly in one party and who want to support it. And it bugs me a bit that it opens the door for all manner of single-issue absolutists to set up shop and make a pitch for the "free" first-rank votes that the system creates.

 

That, and I'm not particularly bothered by voters having to make strategic decisions. Holding one's nose and picking the enemy of your enemy can be unpleasant, but, dammit, that's politics! Get a helmet.

 

US system was never designed to be the most democratic. It was designed to be workable and stable, and to guaranty minority rights instead of mob rule.

 

Uh, no. First-past-the-post is more likely to lead to mob rule and the weakening of the rights of minorities than a system which is preferential and/or proportional.

 

You'd be in a much better position to argue that your system supports the rights of minorities by referring to, say, your bill of rights.

U.S. system was designed to suit a world that doesn't exist any more (and maybe never did). It was predicated on the idea that each district would select the most virtuous and intelligent local landowner, and send him to represent the other local landowners in the government. The idea of political parties never entered into the calculation (in fact, some of the founders actively disfavored them). And the idea that districts would get so large and that the right to vote would be expanded so broadly (to non-land-owners, to former slaves, to women, to 18-year-olds) that campaign advertisement and party affiliation would be the primary basis on which people decided their vote probably would have horrified them.

 

But, yes, Krez is correct that the protections against what Madison called "tyranny of the majority" came in other aspects of the constitutional design. Mostly in bicameralism (and in the non-direct election of Senators), separation of powers, and the protections of individual rights found in the Amendments.

[Nightshape]

UK Voting Power

[Wrath of Dagon]

US system was never designed to be the most democratic. It was designed to be workable and stable, and to guaranty minority rights instead of mob rule.

 

Uh, no. First-past-the-post is more likely to lead to mob rule and the weakening of the rights of minorities than a system which is preferential and/or proportional.

 

You'd be in a much better position to argue that your system supports the rights of minorities by referring to, say, your bill of rights.

I was talking about the US constitutional system in its entirety, not any one feature taken as a stand alone. But more specifically, it was predicated on the notion that representative democracy is less likely to lead to mob rule than direct democracy.

[Humodour]

I was talking about the US constitutional system in its entirety, not any one feature taken as a stand alone. But more specifically, it was predicated on the notion that representative democracy is less likely to lead to mob rule than direct democracy.

 

Name one country in the world which uses direct democracy.

[Morgoth]

I was talking about the US constitutional system in its entirety, not any one feature taken as a stand alone. But more specifically, it was predicated on the notion that representative democracy is less likely to lead to mob rule than direct democracy.

 

Name one country in the world which uses direct democracy.

Switzerland?

[Enoch]

California.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Vermont.

[Gorgon]

The problem is that people are even dumber than their elected representatives. If we had to have referendums on every item of national importance the result would be ruinous.

[Morgoth]

If we had to have referendums on every item of national importance the result would be ruinous.

Yeah, I see the Swiss ruining their own country by every referendum. Switzerland must be a horrible place to live in.

[Gorth]

I vote with my tax money. If I don't like a government I move to a different country

[Humodour]

I was talking about the US constitutional system in its entirety, not any one feature taken as a stand alone. But more specifically, it was predicated on the notion that representative democracy is less likely to lead to mob rule than direct democracy.

 

Name one country in the world which uses direct democracy.

Switzerland?

 

Probably the only country that would come close to qualifying as a direct democracy.

[Walsingham]

I've read through the last few pages, and am still enjoying things.

 

Two points: voter apathy and believing people choose/ yet they have no idea.

 

I think I can square the circle here. What if we accept that people don't vote FOR things, they ONLY vote AGAINST things?

 

- Voter apathy is a tacit admission that things aren't so bad that they warrant taking twenty minutes out of one day every four years to fix. Or slightly less time than it takes to cook a dish of pasta. Voter apathy isn't therefore bad, but a product of things being OK.

 

- AV is simply a way of saying you're upset more strongly. Because you allow your vote to go to any bastard but the frontrunner.

[Nepenthe]

- Voter apathy is a tacit admission that things aren't so bad that they warrant taking twenty minutes out of one day every four years to fix.

It's just as, if not more so, a symptom of the feeling of impotence. People don't vote, because they don't believe it matters, that either the people who represent their viewpoint stand no chance of getting through, or there is, in fact, no such people to vote for in the first place.

[Gorgon]

I think the against vote could help curb ultra nationalist parties. A lot of people are really annoyed at them, but have no particular level of interest in the remainder of the political sphere. With that admission, perhaps reverse voting would be undemocratic and would be serving as a method to stifle the unpopular to an even greater degree than is already the case, and as we know the unpopular is often the necessary but painful change.

[213374U]

I don't like it, but the alternative is tyranny, or elitism of some manner.

Do you feel that having a driver's license makes anyone a member of some elite?

[Nightshape]

I've read through the last few pages, and am still enjoying things.

 

Two points: voter apathy and believing people choose/ yet they have no idea.

 

I think I can square the circle here. What if we accept that people don't vote FOR things, they ONLY vote AGAINST things?

 

- Voter apathy is a tacit admission that things aren't so bad that they warrant taking twenty minutes out of one day every four years to fix. Or slightly less time than it takes to cook a dish of pasta. Voter apathy isn't therefore bad, but a product of things being OK.

 

- AV is simply a way of saying you're upset more strongly. Because you allow your vote to go to any bastard but the frontrunner.

 

This is simple enough even you can understands it...