what changes would you make to our form of govt?

[DavidOdden]

Instant runoff voting would iteratively redistribute the votes for the lowest, uneliminated to the rest of the candidates. It is undesirable to redistribute the votes for all 3rd and lower place candidates simultaneously for mathematical reasons.

That is how I read their page, but it also looks like the Irish system does the redistribution simultaneously. Well, the guy who owns this place is an expert in elections, so I should ask him for the scoop. Since I don't buy the assumption that "reflecting most frequent choice" is a good principle, this is somewhat of an arbitrary exercise for me.

The math may work out the same, but I think it's important under such a system to not assume without question that vote-ranking reflects actual preference. I know empirically (how, will be publicly unspecified) that in a ranking type system (though it was weighted), people can vote strategically, so the candidate in their second place slot may be the worst candidate in order to knock out the perceived second-place competition, thus giving a kind of blackball against the objectively second-best candidate. Since you like game math, maybe you can tell me if there's a general strategy for this.

Assume 3 plausible candidates and don't assume that the second place vote reflects who people want to win, but rather reflects who they think will lose anyhow. I know this is vague, but maybe you can straighten this out -- the point is, people may vote strategically and in possibly very dumb ways, if they aren't professional game-theoreticians (which most people aren't, even if they try to be). Cognitively, I think the "winner takes all" system is probably the clearest indication of actual preference, and IRV has the potential for letting in all sorts of reasonable-seeming strategies that cash out as contrary to the voter's wish. I don't assume that "will of the people" is a good principle, and I'd bet that the guys at your local O-club see that too. I'd get rid of the emphasis on how lawmakers are selected, and focus on possible laws.

[FeatherFall]

Changes to the US constitution were discussed at length in this thread.

[Seeker]

I have the impression that the ones obsessed with eliminating single-member first-past-the-post district voting are statists looking to eliminate another barrier to statism. Replacing local constituencies with their inconvenient local needs (distractions from national socialism) and winner-take-all with party lists and preference voting, makes it impossible to exclude these people from government altogether. Beware anyone looking to eliminate the means of his exclusion ... private property is his enemy, he wants to eliminate any system that gets in his way. A handful of places in America actually use this type of voting, most notably college student governments created in the 1970s at the height of leftism on campuses (these groups infused with the principle that students ought to run the place).

Anyway, the "will of the people" is no proper standard for governance. At best it is a means to justice, and only if a majority of the people are good capitalists anyway, in which case the system of voting to represent their policy preferences hardly matters much since government doesn't do much. Only a statist would be obsessed with ensuring that the voting system is fine-tuned to the voters' policy preferences. My advice is to run shrieking from this sort of system.

[DarkWaters]

The math may work out the same, but I think it's important under such a system to not assume without question that vote-ranking reflects actual preference. I know empirically (how, will be publicly unspecified) that in a ranking type system (though it was weighted), people can vote strategically, so the candidate in their second place slot may be the worst candidate in order to knock out the perceived second-place competition, thus giving a kind of blackball against the objectively second-best candidate. Since you like game math, maybe you can tell me if there's a general strategy for this.

I agree with you in that it is still possible to attempt to "game" this voting system. For the sake of completeness, by "game" I mean to list ones ordered preferences on the ballot in such a way that it does not reflect one's actual preferences. However, to do so effectively requires detailed information on the voting population's preferences. Of course, there will probably be many who think they are gaming advantageously when they are actually voting detrimentally to their interests.

Cognitively, I think the "winner takes all" system is probably the clearest indication of actual preference, and IRV has the potential for letting in all sorts of reasonable-seeming strategies that cash out as contrary to the voter's wish. I don't assume that "will of the people" is a good principle, and I'd bet that the guys at your local O-club see that too. I'd get rid of the emphasis on how lawmakers are selected, and focus on possible laws.

I do not assume that "will of the people" otherwise known as "tyranny of the majority" is a good principle of governance as it would permit 60% of the population to enslave the other 40%.

I think that IRV is a better system for democratic voting itself be it voting in a political party's primary, voting for dog catcher or voting for the next American Idol. This is because voters are allowed to convey more information and unless voters have access to a large amount of accurate information they are rationally discouraged from trying to game the system.

As for the question of "Should IRV be used to select individuals for public office?", given that we have democratic elections, IRV seems to be a much better way of conducting them. However, I am still willing to listen to reasonable arguments for why this reform would be a dangerous modification of the present system.

I agree with you that with all of the other changes to government that can be done, fine tuning the electoral process is minuscule by comparison.

I have the impression that the ones obsessed with eliminating single-member first-past-the-post district voting are statists looking to eliminate another barrier to statism.

::: SNIP :::

Only a statist would be obsessed with ensuring that the voting system is fine-tuned to the voters' policy preferences. My advice is to run shrieking from this sort of system.

Perhaps others have ulterior motives of unprecedented government expansion for wanting election reform but it is not true of me or those in my field of study. The argument "we should not modify the present balloting system because it is our only barrier to keeping statists out of the government" does not make any sense because individuals who have no qualms about increasing government spending are the only ones getting elected. In other words, an individual who campaigns on fiscal discipline, laissez faire economics, secular government and strong foreign policy has no electability. The present voting system will preserve Democratic and Republican power for many years to come. Both parties meet Ayn Rand's definition of statists.

If you convince me that implementing such changes in elections for public office would ensure that Capitalism is stamped out of existence, then I will run alongside you shrieking. However, to insinuate that only a statist would consider such reforms is wrong and unnecessarily hostile.

Edited January 15, 2007 by DarkWaters

[DavidOdden]

However, to do so effectively requires detailed information on the voting population's preferences. Of course, there will probably be many who think they are gaming advantageously when they are actually voting detrimentally to their interests.

That is the problem I'm referring to, that a non-trivial number of people will vote strategically, not as a hierarchical reflection of the kind of society they want to live in and want me to live in. With a 1-choice system as we have, I have more faith that a person's vote for A means "I want A", and if A wins, I think it's a more accurate reflection of voter intent. In lieu of a strong "dangers of unskilled / uninformed gaming" educational campaign, I don't have that kind of faith in IRV. So the key, it seems to me, is to make sure that people do understand why they should vote their actual order of preference.

[DarkWaters]

That is the problem I'm referring to, that a non-trivial number of people will vote strategically, not as a hierarchical reflection of the kind of society they want to live in and want me to live in. With a 1-choice system as we have, I have more faith that a person's vote for A means "I want A", and if A wins, I think it's a more accurate reflection of voter intent. In lieu of a strong "dangers of unskilled / uninformed gaming" educational campaign, I don't have that kind of faith in IRV. So the key, it seems to me, is to make sure that people do understand why they should vote their actual order of preference.

I think this is a legitimate concern. Before any such reforms are implemented, it behooves analysts to explore and evaluate the possible outcomes given a reasonable segment of the voting population will misunderstand what their true voting strategy will be.

In the present voting system for major public offices, a person's vote for A usually means that the person wants A assuming that the election is solely between the Democratic and the Republican candidate not that the individual thinks A is the best amongst all candidates. I perceive the existence of exactly two dominant political parties to essentially be an equilibrium point of the present voting system. Of course, there are a small number of exceptions such as Senator Joe Lieberman (although he essentially ran as a second Democrat), former Governor Jesse Ventura and (ugh) Senator Bernie Sanders.

There are many mathematical games where the dominating strategy for each player is to be truthful. I am curious if that is the case with IRV assuming perfect information. I will think about this over the weekend.

Edited January 16, 2007 by DarkWaters

[Jeff Younger]

Since the Progressives, the US government has pretended the 10th amendment does not exist.

Repeal the 17th amendment and reinstate the original intent and praxis of the 10th.

[Jeff Younger]

Anyway, the "will of the people" is no proper standard for governance. At best it is a means to justice, and only if a majority of the people are good capitalists anyway, in which case the system of voting to represent their policy preferences hardly matters much since government doesn't do much. Only a statist would be obsessed with ensuring that the voting system is fine-tuned to the voters' policy preferences. My advice is to run shrieking from this sort of system.

I agree. The original intent of the Founders is clearly explained in Federalist #10. The US government was created for the purpose of protecting individual human rights. The Founders chose a specific method for protecting those rights: mitigate the pernicious effects of faction. The Constitution was designed to prevent one faction from becoming intolerably abusive of individual rights. But all too often today, factions abuse the property rights of other citizens. How did this come to be? The Progressives instituted the blatantly unconstitutional agency system for the express purpose of removing the barriers to faction created by the Founders. We need to return to the original understanding and intent of our tradition of government.

[Yes]

Government structure has been meant to make communications with the constituents easier, and therefore make government more accessible to all.

The real problem with government is not so much the structure but the system set up since our independence from England.

Government needs to redefine itself as a protector of our rights.

We as Americans pay dearly for government that pretends to take care of us. That is wrong.

Caretaker government is far too inaccessible because it is so massive in scope.

So the most obvious change to the governmental structure is to abolish all forms of social-related programs, since they are wasteful and unresponsive anyhow.

[sierra11861]

I like to call this place the United Countries of America. I live less than 50 miles from 5 of those countries:

The Country of The District of Columbia

The Country of Pennsylvania

The Country of Virginia

The Country of West Virginia

The Country of Maryland

You should try to run a small business in this area with that many countries that close together and see how much fun it is. Every Country does everything differently with taxes, licenses, and fees. I spend a fortune with foreign corporation/resident agent documentation with each Secretary of State, each tax department each license department of each of these countries. It makes me sick to my stomach. The Country (state) geographic boundaries are antiquated, out of date, pre-historic relics of horse and buggy operations. This country needs to be re-divided into economic regions that have more in common with each other. Don't hold you breath, this idea would require many to relinquish power and control. Based on historical fact, the scope of change I suggest does not happen without bloodshed, so lets just forget I ever mentioned it.

dave, the Country of Maryland

Edited January 21, 2007 by sierra11861

[MissGradenko]

Here are the big ones that I would love to see:

• Congressmen and Senators limited to a single term
  
• President limited to a single 6-year term
  
• President appointed by the Senate, rather than elected in a popular election
  
• Senators appointed by each state's government (that's how it was originally, after all)
  

These "solutions" neglect to address the issue of the limitations of bureaucracy. If Congressmen (who I feel are much more instrumental in moving & shaking that the president) are so limited then I don't feel like anything will be accomplished. It takes years to get things passed and that fact won't change simply because terms are limited. The government is MUCH bigger than just elected officials. Government employees are a large part of the problemn too.

[DavidOdden]

It takes years to get things passed and that fact won't change simply because terms are limited.

I think you've just hit on the fundamental reason for limiting all elected positions to one term: to make it nearly impossible to do anything. That way, only the laws that really must be passed will actually get passed. Revoking regulation-writing power is important too, but it could be done with one law, I think.

[MissGradenko]

I think you've just hit on the fundamental reason for limiting all elected positions to one term: to make it nearly impossible to do anything. That way, only the laws that really must be passed will actually get passed. Revoking regulation-writing power is important too, but it could be done with one law, I think.

Again, ignores bureaucracy (and, as another poster pointed out, the roots of the problems). You're assuming that it would have your desired effect. Not when the entire system is based on slowing things down...

You are also ignoring the fact that people who get into politics do it to build a name for themselves. There's little to no altruism involved any longer. I understand that you ASSUME that these limitations would attract smart, hardworking individuals who are looking to make a change in this country's atmosphere but do you klnow anyone competaet enough willing to take 2 years off from work to do it? I sure don't.

There are loads of things I'd love to change about our government but realize that term limitations are so far down on the list of things that NEED to be changed the most...

[DavidOdden]

There are loads of things I'd love to change about our government but realize that term limitations are so far down on the list of things that NEED to be changed the most...

Well, I agree that the problem doesn't really come from the fact that politicians stay in office too long: it comes from what they are allowed to do. Thus tweaking the mechanics of elections is wrong-headed and short-sighted. But accidentally, you've pointed to a way in which a change in the low-level mechanics may address the high-level problems -- by retarding the addition of new laws.

[softwareNerd]

The Democrat-leaning Washington Post published an article by Jonathan Zimmerman suggesting that the U.S.  should not have presidential term-limits.

 

He points out that George Washington set the precedent, but claims that it was because the nation was well-established, not because Washington thought presidential terms should be finite. It's a straw-man, because no sensible supporter of term-limits thinks they're a primary. Rather, term limits are one of many structural checks that work in the context of basic political stability, to act as a check against the odd president who might abuse it, and even the odd electorate that might be fascinated by a single person. What we see from George Washington is the idea that presidential terms ought to be limited, even though he does not come out for a law preventing long terms. Washington might well have been elected again: so, it is not as if the people did not want him. His move shows he was for limited terms even if voters wanted a president to stay.

 

The author's argument against term limits is this: if a president cannot run again, nobody will listen to him in his second term. That's funny, because -- in abstract -- that's the whole idea! Each branch of government has certain extra-judicial influence on each other. These days, the executive has the most such power. If a president cannot run again, there is a little less pressure on Congress and the SCOTUS, particularly in the last two years of his last term. This is a good thing. This is one more advantage of a check/balance.

 

The author thinks it should be left to voters to decide. This is a the "primacy of democracy" idea, and it is wrong. If we wanted to do everything that current voters want, then why have a constitution in the first place? Why distinguish between constitutional laws that require overwhelming and state-diverse voter-support, versus regular laws that require a majority? The purpose is to stop voters from doing short-term things they will regret. The framers understood that human beings sometimes act with short-term views. They were well aware of the downsides to democracy and wanted to protect against them. The Bill of Rights is part of the constitution -- rather than regular law -- with that object. The voting/replacement pattern of the senate is designed to the same end: of slowing down change. The same principle holds true with term limits. Very conservatively, in a country like the U.S., at any point in time, a few thousands of people are qualified to be president simply by the rough metrics of broad executive experience, combined with some political experience at least at a state level. If we're willing to accept people like the last few Presidents, we know that we will never be short of "Presidential material". So, the term-limit stops voters from being carried away by one, particularly competent, person. We'll always have a deep bench. 

 

The only situation one might wonder about is in the middle of a war. FDR broke the practice of term limits. The author points to this as if it were benign. Rather, FDR -- perhaps the worst President -- is a stereotype of why we must have term limits. FDR was popular in his 1936 re-election, but he had also used above-average political-direction is doling out government funds  and favors to help his chances. He used the depression to get his way with fearful congressmen. He capped it by threatening to undermine the supreme court. To top it all, war broke out and he got a third term, and then a fourth (fortunately ended with his death)! As the author points out, post-FDR, a constitutional amendment was passed denying presidents a third term. The author paints this as a GOP move, but blanks out the most obvious question: why did the GOP win for overwhelmingly that they could push through an amendment? The lesson from history is clear: the electorate was saying they did not want to go through that again. Once bitten, twice shy.

 

We need the president -- along with the rest of government -- to have less power, not more. The U.S. has some sticky problems that must be worked out: entitlements, health-care, and welfare. However, the answer is not to have a more powerful president. The GOP might root for a powerful president who can demolish Obamacare, but giving more power to their guy would simply mean the next Democrat has more power to do things they dislike. it is not really for presidents to push through the stalemates between groups of voters. Obviously, there is no way presidential terms will actually be raised in a context where far less controversial laws are frozen. So, one wonders at the motivation of the author: all he does is get a cheer from other Obama sycophants and gets the GOP pointy-hats fearing an Obama dictatorship. All said and done, a stupid article.