Juho Laatu wrote: > I don't see any big conflict. They are > free to speak even if the society does > not provide them with tools to prove > to others how they voted. (And they > can still tell others how they voted.) The problem was to design a democracy in which people:
* are free to engage with political issues; * know this, and are continually reminded of it; * yet fail to do so. The design solution was: a) a single vote, every 4 years or so b) mass voting for a few pre-selected candidates c) secret ballot d) no voting on laws, only on the law makers Now the problem is to design a substansive democracy, in which political engagement is a fact. Oddly, the preceding design need not be altered. It remains essential. All we need is to add a separate, primary voting system, with these counter-features: a) continuous results, with shifting votes b) peer-to-peer voting, with no pre-selected candidates c) open ballot d) voting on laws, too -- Michael Allan Toronto, 647-436-4521 http://zelea.com/ ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
