[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

00499: Re: Systems of Voting: there is a bug there? (I/II)

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)

Dear Antonio

You said: (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.

Obviousley this discussion does NOT belong on WDDM list.
Please feel free to post it on CICDD if you choose to continue.
Bruce



On 12/10/05, Antonio Rossin wrote:
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




--
Direct Democracy League, DDL is a nonpartisan coalition, advocating constitutional renewal at state and national levels to give us TRG -- true republican governance. Not mob-rule, it is a balanced governance of I&R's citizen lawmaking combined with representative govt. TRG relies on the People to make decisions using  State-level OCI's (online citizen institutions). OCI's will be transparent organizing institutions, not control devices.TRG  has been legally recognized as a republican form of government intrinsic to the Constitution.
http://trg-polity.org

Bruce Eggum, Gresham Wisconsin, USA
http://doinggovernment.com/
Check out my Blog too
http://doinggovernment.blogspot.com/

[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]