At 12:29 AM 12/4/2007, Juho wrote: >Withdrawal option has both positive and negative impact. The positive >side was already discussed. On the negative side there are problems >like candidates deciding the outcome of the election instead of the >voters and risk of corruption. Also in the case of a natural loop >there is the possibility to buy the withdrawal of one of the >candidates.
I've seen this kind of argument against Asset Voting, which puts even more power, of course, into the hands of those holding votes. In the case of Asset, if the rules are as needed, though, the entire political structure could change; in particular, anyone could register and, if nothing else, vote for himself or herself; more to the point, candidates could and, I predict, would collect votes on a very small scale. People would end up voting for someone they know or at least can communicate personally with. Here, though, we'd have something much more like a traditional election. What is missed by these arguments is that elections are held for a purpose, and the purpose is not (both from the voter and the candidate's perspective, as well as from the perspective of one who would attempt to corrupt the process) to get elected, per se, but to exercise power. If someone can buy a candidate's withdrawal, they could presumably also buy the candidate if the candidate wins, and the latter is actually more dangerous! There seems to be some kind of automatic reaction to the idea of candidates deciding election outcomes, even if those candidates have specifically been given that power by voters deciding to trust them with their votes. Again, if we can't trust the judgement of a candidate in how he or she would transfer votes, why would we trust the candidate in office? For many offices, and certainly for major ones, the ability to make good choices in the delegation of power is crucial. Someone not good at it, someone corruptible in it, will be corruptible in either position: as an "elector" or as a winner holding office. There is an endemic and deep distrust of politicians. While it's certainly understandable, it's also abusive. Power corrupts, we definitely need to understand that, but it also corrupts through specific mechanisms; when power is concentrated on a mass scale with no close responsibility, it becomes easily corrupted. Consider an asset system where the electors maintain the right of recall -- essentially vote reassignment. If an office holder were responsible to -- and recallable by -- say, twenty electors who had, directly and indirectly, assembled the votes to elect him or her, the responsibility, the connection with the source of power, i.e., the people, would be immediate and effective. One who would corrupt by exerting influence over a power node could easily find that they succeed in influencing the official, who then loses office because of losing the trust of the twenty. So, then, the effort would be focused on the twenty. Besides becoming many times as expensive, each of those twenty has been assigned votes by, say, twenty. The one corrupted is going to have to come up with some very good arguments in order to be able to convince those who maintain his or her power. And if those arguments exist, why not just use the arguments instead of trying to buy compliance? Not only is it cheaper, it's also legal and not risky. On the other hand, trying to buy influence in such a system is only a problem if it is concealed and focused (this is necessary when it's truly corruption, i.e., the influence is contrary to the interests of whose power is being corrupted, but who do not receive the benefit of the payoff). If it is open, it is not corruption, it is mitigation and negotiation. These benefits become, I expect, quite clear when terms of office are abolished, that is, officers serve, as in a parliamentary system, only with the maintained consent of those they serve. Terms are typically long enough that a great deal of damage can be done before a miscreant who simply loses trust -- which might be a matter of intuition -- can be removed. Only if the misbehavior is blatant can recall, a cumbersome, difficult and expensive process in itself, possibly succeed, unless proof of criminal activity can be found. (Recall is also used abusively by well-funded political interests who can sometimes capitalize on weaknesses in the public perception of some officeholders.) I think we need to start looking at how to realize, much more fully, efficiently, and effectively, the promise of democracy: government by the consent of the governed. And we can do even better than that; it may be possible to remove much or even most of the coercive nature of government, when people begin to truly trust it as an institution that serves them, listens to them, is responsible and responsive to them, personally as well as collectively. And it's possible to get from here to there, one step at a time. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
