A commenter on my previous post wrote: Wow, this is terrible. For one, everyone's vote should count equally. Duh. This was wrong twice over. For one thing, it isn’t possible for everyone’s vote to count equally. My vote for president has no effect, since any election where California is a swing state will be one where the Republicans can win without it. That could be solved, for the presidential election, by abolishing the electoral college system, but any majority vote system will give more weight to the votes of voters with strong preferences on swing issues, issues where votes for the two sides are about even. If the issue important to me is either one where my side is sure to win or where my side is sure to lose, my vote has no effect.
Hoppe's "Democracy the god that failed" makes (with a lot of repetition) similar arguments about democracy, universal suffrage, and shortsightedness of politicians and voters.
He argues that monarchy is superior to democracy because the monarch is effectively an owner of the country and stands to reap benefits from its long term success. And that this constraints, and outweighs, the monarch and his circle's incentive to plunder.
This last argument is interesting. In terms of allocative vs. productive efficiency, it is consistent with free market advocates' emphasis of production as opposed to "fair" distribution.
Sir, do you have informed opinions regarding compulsory voting, as in Australia? (They impose a penalty [ or tax :) ] upon those citizens who fail to vote. I think. Could be wrong...)
It seems to me the US elections have in the past three decades moved from a process where candidates espousing policies attract "swing voters" of mixed views and no durable loyalty toward a new process where candidates with sufficient money and organizational support can exploit "unlikely voters" who have no views or loyalty at all, but vote as instructed by the organization's operative. The winner of the election is the organization with the best techniques of ballot harvesting.
Were all the exploitable voters compelled to vote, presumably the forces of randomness would have low information, uncaring, votes cancel one another out. The fewer tribal, or swinging considerate, voters would then return to power. But I recognize this is a naïve, if hopeful, view. Do you have a better informed view of your own to share.
Your proposal runs into the issue of short-termism, with support being withdrawn for the slightest pretext.
A way to do something similar but, arguably, without the issue, is to elect every year a tenth of the representatives, whereby everyone votes. This will both lengthen the time horizon of the representatives, and allow a (statistically) quick recall.
To build on the system you described at the end, consider liquid democracy, where that vote delegation can then be re-delegated. So I don't have to trust the final representative, just trust one person to know the next best person to delegate to.
I'm helping out with a blockchain project to define and implement this.
You describe "Two Views of Democracy", modeling (1) incentives and (2) selection.
Randall Holcombe, if I read correctly his recent book "Following Their Leaders," claims your first model is backward:— because votes are cast for "expressive" rather than "instrumental" reasons, voters support policies chosen by the politicians.
I'm not sure if that is a third model (mirror imaging your first model), a variation of your second model, or a completely different third model.
This first paragraph is ... crazy. Are you just trolling anyone with a brain? Everyone's vote should count the same, regardless of state, regardless of issues, and regardless of if you think your vote matters. That is simply. That is democracy. Why be so intentionally obtuse? You are so good on so many other things.
Hoppe's "Democracy the god that failed" makes (with a lot of repetition) similar arguments about democracy, universal suffrage, and shortsightedness of politicians and voters.
He argues that monarchy is superior to democracy because the monarch is effectively an owner of the country and stands to reap benefits from its long term success. And that this constraints, and outweighs, the monarch and his circle's incentive to plunder.
This last argument is interesting. In terms of allocative vs. productive efficiency, it is consistent with free market advocates' emphasis of production as opposed to "fair" distribution.
This was a fascinating and extremely educational deep dive.
Thanks 👍🏻
Sir, do you have informed opinions regarding compulsory voting, as in Australia? (They impose a penalty [ or tax :) ] upon those citizens who fail to vote. I think. Could be wrong...)
It seems to me the US elections have in the past three decades moved from a process where candidates espousing policies attract "swing voters" of mixed views and no durable loyalty toward a new process where candidates with sufficient money and organizational support can exploit "unlikely voters" who have no views or loyalty at all, but vote as instructed by the organization's operative. The winner of the election is the organization with the best techniques of ballot harvesting.
Were all the exploitable voters compelled to vote, presumably the forces of randomness would have low information, uncaring, votes cancel one another out. The fewer tribal, or swinging considerate, voters would then return to power. But I recognize this is a naïve, if hopeful, view. Do you have a better informed view of your own to share.
1
I wrote about this same idea, the politicians voting power being proportional to his popularity. Maybe I got the idea from you and forgot and thought it was original. https://open.substack.com/pub/moralgovernment/p/7-ways-to-improve-our-voting-system?r=12fk1m&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
Your proposal runs into the issue of short-termism, with support being withdrawn for the slightest pretext.
A way to do something similar but, arguably, without the issue, is to elect every year a tenth of the representatives, whereby everyone votes. This will both lengthen the time horizon of the representatives, and allow a (statistically) quick recall.
To build on the system you described at the end, consider liquid democracy, where that vote delegation can then be re-delegated. So I don't have to trust the final representative, just trust one person to know the next best person to delegate to.
I'm helping out with a blockchain project to define and implement this.
David, just FYI, and for anyone else, links with whitespaces do not open in the substack app. For example, your last link to the meetup details.
(I had to copy the link to a browser manually).
Too bad I live on the East Coast. Sounds fun.
You describe "Two Views of Democracy", modeling (1) incentives and (2) selection.
Randall Holcombe, if I read correctly his recent book "Following Their Leaders," claims your first model is backward:— because votes are cast for "expressive" rather than "instrumental" reasons, voters support policies chosen by the politicians.
I'm not sure if that is a third model (mirror imaging your first model), a variation of your second model, or a completely different third model.
This first paragraph is ... crazy. Are you just trolling anyone with a brain? Everyone's vote should count the same, regardless of state, regardless of issues, and regardless of if you think your vote matters. That is simply. That is democracy. Why be so intentionally obtuse? You are so good on so many other things.