--- On Mon, 12/1/09, Michael Allan <[email protected]> wrote: > Juho Laatu wrote: > > ... The topmost thoughts in my mind when thinking > about this > > approach is that 1) the principles are good and 2) > making the votes > > public limits the usability of the method. > Traditionally secret > > votes have been a building block of democracies. > Public votes work > > somewhere but not everywhere. > > (1). Re good principles. I've heard it suggested that > modern > democracy is the political form that is best suited to > capitalism.^[1][2] If we change it to something with a > firmer base in > principles - a more substansive democracy - will it > continue to be > friendly to business entrepreneurs? If not, what will > happen? Has > anyone explored that scenario? (Any references?)
I can imagine that in some cases also dictatorship can be the best option for capitalism (in the sense of "capital owners"). Democracy is however probably more stable in the long run and therefore better basis for a working market economy. Good principles may help market economy by allowing the citizens to see the state as "we", and thereby increasing overall trust in the system, and thereby enabling smoother (hassle free) operation of the markets. > (2). Re public/private voting. Maybe there are two > possibilities: > > i) Initial participation by a small group of public > "pioneers" > gradually changes attitudes. Open voting comes to be > accepted as > a natural form of expression in the public sphere. > Participation > levels grow. (There remains a core who will > not/cannot vote > openly. We can get empirical data on this.) I'm afraid there will be also a third category, people that do vote but that do not dare to vote as they feel. People may also vote since not voting could be interpreted as not supporting the mainstream opinions or as possibility of having some unwanted opinions. Examples of group pressure are working places where "all others" are believed to vote certain way. Also in homes it might be problematic for some members to have radically different opinions. > ii) A private voting facility (secret ballot) is grafted > onto the > public medium. Anyone who is content to participate > merely as a > voter (not as a delegate, or legislative drafter, > etc.) may vote > without disclosure. So we could extend participation > to those > who will not/cannot vote openly. Results verification > (and maybe > voter authentication) would be complicated by this, > but the > overall function of the medium should be unaffected. There are some (although smaller) problems also in this case. If someone casts a secret ballot that may be interpreted as having something to hide. This may lead to pressure to cast a public vote (and that could be less sincere than the secret one). One approach would be to keep all the "low level" votes secret and publish only the "representative level" votes (it is however not easy to separate these two categories). Juho > [1] Jürgen Habermas. 1973. Legitimation Crisis. > Translated by > Thomas McCarthy, 1975. Beacon Hill, Boston. > > [2] John Dunn. 1992. Conclusion. In Democracy: the > Unfinished > Journey, 508 BC to AD 1993. Edited by John Dunn. > Oxford > University Press. > > -- > Michael Allan > > Toronto, 647-436-4521 > http://zelea.com/ > > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see > http://electorama.com/em for list info ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
