Comments on: Self-Ruled or Rule-Ruled?

By: Laugh About It, Shout About It, When You’ve Got to Choose § Unqualified Offerings

Wed, 22 Aug 2007 13:26:37 +0000

[...] Will Wilkinson used to blog about alternate voting schemes. One post reported on a proposal to use cast ballots as, essentially, raffle tickets. I thought he had more, [...]

By: Ilse Jacobsen Sko

Ilse Jacobsen Sko — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 23:52:56 +0000

f2gzphisgy Well said f2gzphisgy http://sko.xs07.info

By: Ilse Jacobsen Sko

Ilse Jacobsen Sko — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 23:52:00 +0000

f2gzphisgy Well said f2gzphisgy http://sko.xs07.info

By: dkfinder

dkfinder — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 21:30:25 +0000

l3si7u4xe7 This is so true! l3si7u4xe7

By: dkfinder

dkfinder — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 21:30:00 +0000

l3si7u4xe7 This is so true! l3si7u4xe7

By: Kenny Easwaran

Kenny Easwaran — Tue, 10 May 2005 04:08:00 +0000

I believe it was Bob McGrew (my co-blogger at Cardinal Collective) who I was discussing this system with once, who pointed out that in fact this is one of the few voting schemes that will manage to satisfy the desiderata of Arrow’s Theorem. This is because in the non-randomized case, the only system that does this is dictatorship (letting one individual make the choice), and in the randomized case, the only ones that do are linear combinations of those that do, and this is the symmetric linear combination of all of the dictatorships.

By: washerdreyer

washerdreyer — Mon, 09 May 2005 18:13:00 +0000

Many of those concepts are addressed, though not in any particular Eskridge, Jr.; Frickey; and Garrett, Cases and Materials on Legislation: Statutes and The Creation of Public Policy. 3rd Edition. Which I’m reviewing for my last law school exam of the year, and thereby providing small counter example to Amar’s point

By: Will Wilkinson

Will Wilkinson — Mon, 09 May 2005 00:46:00 +0000

Public Choice III, by Dennis Mueller.

By: Wild Pegasus

Wild Pegasus — Mon, 09 May 2005 00:38:00 +0000

But the Condorcet Paradox, agenda manipulation, May’s Theorem, single peakedness, Downsian equilibrium, Black’s Theorem and the like, are not [part of law school curricula] –not yet, at least.

If there are any books explaining these concepts to the intelligent laymen, I’m all ears.

- Josh

By: James Barnett

James Barnett — Sun, 08 May 2005 22:38:00 +0000

Not to rain on everyone’s parade, but this sounds just like proportional representation. Under this system of elections, these small, single-issue parties just gang up and form coalitions.
Isn’t that what basically have already? Extremists and centerists are in both parties and ideologues, like environmentalists and libertarians, play both parties more or less.

By: Javier Hidalgo

Javier Hidalgo — Sun, 08 May 2005 20:19:00 +0000

Nicholas, interesting–my memory is a bit patchy, but I think Aristotle regarded elections as inherently oligarchical practices because elections are won or lost on the basis of merit, wealth, etc. Selection by lot on other hand is premised on the assumption that citizens are equally competent.

I can’t resist quoting Protagoras, in Plato’s dialogue:

“when the question relates to carpentering or any other mechanical art, the Athenians allow but a few to share in their deliberations…But when they meet to deliberate about political virtue, which proceeds only by way of justice and wisdom, they are patient enough of any man who speaks of them, as is also natural, because they think that every man ought to share in this sort of virtue”

The lot system enshrined in practice the principle that all citizens were minimally competent to share in governance.

By: Nicholas Weininger

Nicholas Weininger — Sun, 08 May 2005 18:49:00 +0000

For that matter, in this age of secure Internet everything, why make the legislature representative at all? Let every citizen be, if he/she chooses, a voting member of Congress, with the right to remotely cast a secret ballot on any proposed bill.

People who wanted to save themselves the trouble of voting by themselves could pick someone else (anonymously if desired) to serve as their proxy. Likewise, if you wanted more influence for your views you could try to persuade others to pick you as their proxy; the one requirement would be that to serve as a proxy for others you would have to publicize your voting record. To put a bill up for consideration you’d have to get petition signatures from, say, 1% of the electorate, either directly or through proxies; to pass one you’d need a majority and a “quorum”/turnout threshold. We could retain an elected Senate to do the few things that actually require a physically present set of representatives, such as holding steroid hearings.

If this isn’t quite technologically feasible now, within a generation it surely will be, and then what excuse will Congresscritters have for continued existence?

By: Nicholas Weininger

Nicholas Weininger — Sun, 08 May 2005 18:42:00 +0000

The obligatory SF quote here is from Ken MacLeod, who in one of his “Engines of Light” books (I think it’s the first, _Cosmonaut Keep_) has a society on another planet that chooses officials by lot (hierarchically: you get chosen by lot for a seat in your local assembly, which then chooses some of its members by lot for a seat in the regional assembly, etc). One of the characters from that society remarks that “Elections are *so* undemocratic,” and you can see what she means.

By: Javier Hidalgo

Javier Hidalgo — Sun, 08 May 2005 16:12:00 +0000

That should read: a way of selecting officials that is democratic, yet does away with elections altogether.

By: Javier Hidalgo

Javier Hidalgo — Sun, 08 May 2005 16:11:00 +0000

Ah, now I understand what you’re saying. The Athenian lot system is another radical example: a way of electing officials that is democratic, yet does away with elections altogether.