At 10:36 AM 6/15/2005, Chris Benham wrote:
Why stop at only two elections?". I don't know any good answer to that.
One of my general points is that elections, especially elections for representatives, are inherently unfair, for they almost guarantee that some voters will end up unrepresented. Proxy systems avoid elections entirely (for representatives) by allowing the free choice of representatives. Such systems may still "elect" officers, but probably, as with proxies, they would not have terms. In other words, the election process is continuous, whenever a majority of the electorate wants to make a change. It would be more like hiring officers to serve at will than like electing them. A deliberative process.
But until such systems are in place (I do expect that eventually they will be), we are faced with elections by secret ballot and with terms and such limits. That is why only two elections (in the example given by Mr. Benham). It is a practical limit, not necessarily a full expression of democracy. And this is why we need clear understanding of election methods, something which becomes, I expect, less important in a deliberative process, which may still use election methods as polling devices, reserving final approval of the result in a ratification process which therefore covers all, or at least most, of the nasty contingencies that can be imagined for any election method. If a majority don't accept the winner, ultimately, an election result is seriously unsatisfactory; to resolve this will take something more than merely a more sophisticated polling technique. It may take people changing their minds, as can happen in good deliberative process.
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
