| From: | Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it> |
|---|---|
| Date: | Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:57:58 +0100 |
| Subject: | Re: Systems of Voting: there is a bug there? (I/II) |
Dear Antonio,
the so-called European anti-thesis is merely not true. Such a
political position is not representative for neither European
democracy activism nor European society.
Indeed, voting systems could be grouped in two main blocks(ant)
of countries. The first one (mainly comprised of Anglo-Saxon
countries) holding a majoritarian approach (one constituency/
one seat) leading to the worst voting proportionality..
The second one setting up multi-seat constituencies but usually
based on party lists.
Of course, there are more models. Indeed, the Single Transferable
Vote (from Ireland and other places) have proved to be the best
in-practice electoral system.
Regards, Leo
El Saturday, 10 de December de 2005 07:41, Antonio Rossin escribió:
> Hi Democrats,
>
> I've been reading recently an interesting debate between an
> American and an European fellow about the equality of voters.
>
> The (American) thesis is:
>
> _ "We are still fighting for the right to vote, and there are groups
> who are constantly trying to limit who can vote. Many States in the
> US have laws which hinder the right for certain groups to vote. This
> allows certain "elites" to control the election. Whenever a person or
> group of persons are excluded or if their vote is not equal, power is
> no longer equal.
> Humans are all equal. Regardless of sex, race, religion, sexual
> preference, age etc. we are equal. We have fought hard for EQUALITY,
> and must continue or we will loose it.
> Globally, a person existing in Iraq, Africa, France, Netherlands
> should have a right to vote on Global matters. One vote, one person. "
>
> The (European) antithesis is:
>
> "one man/one vote is a way to point to another man who's got to do
> the job; NOWadays in our complex community this is a false paradigm
> hidden in our democracy system of voting ... WE can do and invent a
> better way of communicating our life together ..."
>
> Well, I do not know what is the best, either thesis or antithesis,
> at least at start -- even though, we can see in the global outside,
> to the American the idea that the Iraqi humans are equal to the
> U.S. humans could be felt as a good, whilst to the Iraqi the idea
> that the U.S. humans are equal to the Iraqi humans is very likely
> to be felt as a bloody insult. This notwithstanding, let me search
> for what a "a false paradigm hidden in our democracy system
> of voting" could be eventually
>
> It seems to me, the bug arises when the voters' equality moves
> from the politics to the economics domain. Plainly, in both the
> U.S. and the Europe democracies, the voting system deals with
> the power of deciding and implementing policies -- but every
> voted policies has unavoidably an economic implication. There is
> no practical difference between the two domains: they look like
> the two sides of the same coin. Let's now go and see whether
> us democrats are able to spend this coin in fair equality.
>
> To this regard, the American thesis goes like saying: "All of us
> humans are equal, so let us go and vote, one man / one vote.
> Done? Done. Now we equals have the free market: and now
> that all of us have voted in a fair equality, let us equal persons
> go to the free market all together, happily and fraternally..."
>
> The European antithesis does not comply with this free market
> equality. Let me quote, from the American Journal of Political
> Economy < http://www.arpejournal.com > March 2005:
>
> Quote
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> After being thrown out of the WB in 1999 for whistle-blowing,
> Joe Stiglitz, ex-finance man of that venerable institution, received
> the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2001, for his explanation of how
> "asymmetric markets" work. An asymmetric market is one where some
> people know more than others. Had the Nobel Prize existed in Aesop's
> time, the fox that enticed the crow to speak so as to make him drop
> his cheese would have easily qualified for it.
> The man and his prize are emblematic of the disorder in
> economic affairs that has been spreading since The Wealth of Nations.
> The past 200 years have increasingly seen what may well be called
> "the Stiglitz paradox:" parallel to the setting up of university
> chairs, tenured professors, prestigious textbooks, journals of great
> erudition, and thousands upon thousands of doctoral theses (published
> or not), not to mention the Nobel awards, the economy of the real
> world, suffered in the flesh by countless men, women and children, is
> a world where poverty reigns side by side with opulence; unemployment
> rises its ugly head side by side with the need for work; the gap
> between the rich and the poor widens by the day; and the scourge of
> war and terrorism goes together with a diminishing freedom caused by
> the oppressive intromission of the State in personal and family
> affairs.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Endquote
>
> I question: how could the American thesis of a Humans' equality
> based voting system accomplish with the above economic reality?
> Mostly in the world of today where the political votes are bought
> by the rich? Is the rich equal to the poor? Especially in the U.S.?
>
> Well, I stop here this (I/II) contribution of mine, to be continued in
> a next (II/II) post with some hypotheses of a practicable change
> in the voting system, to fix the "asymmetric (market) equality" bug
> in its political origins.
>
> In the meanwhile, comments are welcomed
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> antonio