From: | Bruce Eggum <bruce.eggum(at)gmail.com> |
---|---|
Date: | Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:45:41 -0600 |
Subject: | Re: Systems of Voting: there is a bug there? (I/II) |
At 12:10 +0100 10-12-2005, Leopoldo Salgui wrote:
> 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.
>
Dear Leo,
Of course. As far as I can see, the quoted pow is representative
for only the European fellow who stated it. It is no representation
of the official European position (if any).
(Leo)
> Indeed, voting systems could be grouped in two main blocks
> 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
>
(ant)
Thanks, Leopoldo. You gave me a concise report of what the
existing "System of Voting" are. But this goes a bit off-topic.
The topic was, in my intention, opening a discussion about the
why and the how the current voting system -- whichever it
may be -- could, or should, be changed.
Sorry for having misled you with an imprecise use of the term
European (I meant it as a substantive, not an adjective)
Regards, antonio
>
>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