05-26-2003, 08:26 AM
I've been thinking lately about governance. The more I think about it, the stranger systems like democracy seem:
1) Indirect influence.
There is a level of indirection between the populace and the decision making process. The population has no say in the decisions, they just get to vote for who has a say in the decision process.
2) Timing.
The population only gets to make the above decision once every (3,4,5,?) years.
3) Quantisation.
Depending on the setup there may be only the representative of the largest voter segment making decisions. This might not even be from a majority vote. Even with systems of proportional representation where a coalition may form there is usually an 'opposition' block essentially negating the point of proportional representation.
4) Assymetric Information and 'expertise'
If each person voted on each issue there would be issues with whether they could collect all relevant information, and if they had the ability to assess it. This is probably the secondary reason for centralised governance behind voting costs, and may become primary.
5) Voting costs.
The cost of collecting and counting votes prohibits frequent use of direct governance. This may eventually change with online technologies, however that would be far in the future (access being a major factor). As far as I am aware the most abitious schemes are for allowing online voting for representatives at the general elections (N.Z. is supposed to be prototyping it as a voting mathod option for the 2005 election)
6) Compromise
Sometimes coalitions form in centralised government such that compromises are made which may advance the position of more than just the largest represented 'party'. Coalitions, however, also allow the potential of getting votes from a number of alternative minority blocks hence reducing the leverage (appropriately?) of minority parties.
Could/Would compromise exist under de-centralised government where no-one has the authority to vote for a group of people?
7) Selling votes.
Under de-centralised governance would you be allowed to give your vote to another person? If so, I can see people transferring their votes to relatives, and/or leaders of their 'religion' (or company or recreational group). I think it would be almost certain for a market to form in votes (e.g. a tradeable commodity)... imagine, hiring votes for a period of time, following the price of votes, cornering the market of votes(!). But then again the cynical(?) view would be that we already have vote buying, and individual vote trading would just allow smaller sized units (i.e. individuals rather than lobby groups) to gain some benefit. The rich would have more say in the direction of the country: is this just economic efficiency at work? is it fair? again, isn't it already happening?
P.S. sorry for ignoring current ettiquette and not posting this as a poll "Politics, is it neato?"
PPS I don't study/have not studied politics or philosophy, so sorry if these are already 'answered'
1) Indirect influence.
There is a level of indirection between the populace and the decision making process. The population has no say in the decisions, they just get to vote for who has a say in the decision process.
2) Timing.
The population only gets to make the above decision once every (3,4,5,?) years.
3) Quantisation.
Depending on the setup there may be only the representative of the largest voter segment making decisions. This might not even be from a majority vote. Even with systems of proportional representation where a coalition may form there is usually an 'opposition' block essentially negating the point of proportional representation.
4) Assymetric Information and 'expertise'
If each person voted on each issue there would be issues with whether they could collect all relevant information, and if they had the ability to assess it. This is probably the secondary reason for centralised governance behind voting costs, and may become primary.
5) Voting costs.
The cost of collecting and counting votes prohibits frequent use of direct governance. This may eventually change with online technologies, however that would be far in the future (access being a major factor). As far as I am aware the most abitious schemes are for allowing online voting for representatives at the general elections (N.Z. is supposed to be prototyping it as a voting mathod option for the 2005 election)
6) Compromise
Sometimes coalitions form in centralised government such that compromises are made which may advance the position of more than just the largest represented 'party'. Coalitions, however, also allow the potential of getting votes from a number of alternative minority blocks hence reducing the leverage (appropriately?) of minority parties.
Could/Would compromise exist under de-centralised government where no-one has the authority to vote for a group of people?
7) Selling votes.
Under de-centralised governance would you be allowed to give your vote to another person? If so, I can see people transferring their votes to relatives, and/or leaders of their 'religion' (or company or recreational group). I think it would be almost certain for a market to form in votes (e.g. a tradeable commodity)... imagine, hiring votes for a period of time, following the price of votes, cornering the market of votes(!). But then again the cynical(?) view would be that we already have vote buying, and individual vote trading would just allow smaller sized units (i.e. individuals rather than lobby groups) to gain some benefit. The rich would have more say in the direction of the country: is this just economic efficiency at work? is it fair? again, isn't it already happening?
P.S. sorry for ignoring current ettiquette and not posting this as a poll "Politics, is it neato?"
PPS I don't study/have not studied politics or philosophy, so sorry if these are already 'answered'