Tilting at the Ballot Box
<http://www.business2.com/b2/web/articles/print/0,17925,683182,00.html> Business 2.0 - Magazine Article - Printable Version - Tilting at the Ballot Box Entrepreneur David Chaum's e-money venture flopped. Now he wants to fix electronic voting. For once, is the brilliant inventor right on time? By John Heilemann, September 2004 Issue The legendary cryptographer David Chaum has just invented something amazing, and his timing is nearly perfect. At a moment when electronic voting has been turned -- by a confluence of clueless election officials, slipshod technologies, dodgy vendors, and ever vigilant geeks -- from a great leap forward into an abject fiasco, Chaum has unveiled an e-voting system that's everything the current gizmos aren't. It's incredibly secure. It guarantees anonymity. Its results are verifiable. It is, Chaum claims, "the first electronic mechanism that ensures both integrity and privacy." Indeed, as far as I can see, Chaum's invention has only one conceivable drawback: It won't be on the market in time to save us on Nov. 2. As veterans of the digital revolution will recall, solving apparently insoluble problems has always been Chaum's forte. Most famously, back in 1990, he founded the company DigiCash to commercialize his pioneering work on electronic money. Even by the standards of that heady time, Chaum's ambitions were lofty: propelling the international currency system into the digital age. But while everyone agreed that the technologies he invented were elegant and brilliant, the world, it turned out, wasn't nearly ready for the incursion of e-money. At the end of 1998, DigiCash bit the dust. Technology writer Steven Levy once described Chaum as "Don Quixote in Birkenstocks." Today the Birkenstocks are gone, but the beard, ponytail, and quixotic temperament all remain in place. Once again, the windmill he's tilting at is an entrenched and archaic system. And once again he's starting a new company to profit from his ingenuity. If there were any justice or logic in this world, his success would be guaranteed. But since the world we're talking about is national politics, I fear he faces an uphill fight. No one has thought longer or harder about e-voting than Chaum. As a graduate student at the University of California at Berkeley in the late 1970s, he wrote the first papers on the topic -- then moved on to other things. But after the Floridian fiasco of 2000, in which hanging chads and butterfly ballots vividly demonstrated how dangerously outmoded our electoral technology was, Chaum's interest was rekindled. At the time, election officials in scores of states were racing to embrace touchscreen voting terminals from suppliers such as Diebold and Sequoia. So Chaum considered the idea he was hatching "a totally academic exercise." Then, out of nowhere, all hell broke loose. Computer scientists and security experts declared the current generation of machines easily hackable and prone to tampering. In particular, the critics complained that because the machines leave no paper trail, their results are impossible to audit. (Any recount would rely on the same software that might have mangled or manipulated the votes to begin with.) Voting activists dug up a pile of evidence of past e-voting irregularities. A populist campaign, "The Computer Ate My Vote," erupted on the Internet. Meanwhile, Diebold's CEO, Walden O'Dell, unwittingly fed a thousand conspiracy theories by hosting a Bush fund-raiser -- and writing to the invited guests, "I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." In the face of all this, states are scrambling to figure out what to do -- both in November and further in the future. The solution that's gained the most momentum is known as "verified voting." Here a printer attached to the touchscreen terminal spits out a hard copy of the voter's choices and displays it under a transparent barrier. Once the voter approves the receipt, it's put in a sealed ballot box, from which it can be retrieved and tallied in the case of a recount. The problem, however, as Chaum points out, is that the receipts are as vulnerable to fraud as ordinary paper ballots. "They can, for example, be tampered with between the vote and the recount," he says."In a sense, ballot-under-glass is no more secure than old-fashioned punch-card systems." Chaum's system, Votegrity, produces a paper trail too -- except Chaum throws cryptography into the mix, and that changes the equation. With Votegrity, the printer attached to the terminal generates two strips of paper, each of which holds your vote in encrypted form. Overlaid on top of one another and seen through a custom viewfinder, the strips, through some cryptographic voodoo, reveal your choices in plain English. Once you've verified your vote, the strips are separated, you pick one to take home as a receipt, and the bar-code-like image on that strip is stored digitally. When the time comes to tally the votes, the images are decrypted (using a complicated Chaumian mathematical process that's all but tamperproof). Meanwhile, the encoded images are posted on the Web, so that you can go online afterward and confirm that your vote was counted by using a serial number on your strip. There's no denying that Votegrity teeters on the brink of genius. By letting voters take receipts, Chaum's system would erect formidable hurdles to election fraud -- while simultaneously, through encryption, preserving the sacrosanct anonymity of the ballot box. That said, I can think of at least three glaring reasons to be skeptical of Votegrity's prospects. First, the system isn't exactly a paragon of simplicity; it took nearly four hours of explication by Chaum for me to get my head fully around it. Second, election officials are by inclination a deeply conservative lot, especially around new technology. A system combining cryptography and the Web isn't likely to set their pulses racing -- or cause their checkbooks to spring open. Third, there's verified voting. Whatever the imperfections of ballot-under-glass, I suspect that many people who distrust e-voting will consider it a good-enough safeguard. And as the history of technology makes abundantly clear, in a contest between perfect and good enough, the latter wins every time. Naturally, Chaum disagrees. Given the intensity of the uproar over the current touchscreen terminals, he believes that states will have no choice but to adopt a more sophisticated system. "The more people swear that the machines should be trusted, the less trust there is," he says. "Forget whether they're really secure or reliable. What matters is that major chunks of the public don't believe they are. We've got a crisis of voter confidence on our hands -- and it's not going to go away." As for verified voting, Chaum simply says, "I don't think a system that's equivalent to punch cards is going to cut it at this point." Depending on what happens in November, Chaum could be proven right. With the election only two months off, the backlash against e-voting has produced a situation bordering on chaos. At the start of the year, it appeared that some 50 million voters-roughly 30 percent of the total -- would be casting their ballots digitally. Now, who knows? In California, the secretary of state has banned the Diebold machines from use and decertified all the rest. In other states, there are movements afoot to require verified voting. In still others, officials are pressing ahead with the machines despite the hue and cry. All of which suggests one thing: If the election turns out to be as close as most polls suggest, we may be headed for a multistate postelection conflagration, complete with protests and litigation, that will make the contretemps over Florida in 2000 look like a schoolyard spat. For Chaum, who's in the process of rounding up investors and hiring executives for the firm he's starting around Votegrity, such a conflagration would be, perversely, the best news imaginable. Not that he's the kind of guy who'd root for such an outcome. A bone-deep do-gooder, a privacy crusader, he's an unabashed idealist whose desire to make the world better is so earnest it's slightly painful. When I asked him why he was still tilting at windmills even after the anguish of DigiCash, he smiled, shrugged, and softly replied, "This is really important stuff -- someone's got to do it." On that point he'll get no argument from me. No matter what transpires on Election Day and in its aftermath, Chaum and his allies have already rendered an invaluable service: not only exposing the flaws of e-voting today, but pointing toward something better for tomorrow. Coming up with that something -- a digital system that's secure, private, and verifiable -- will plainly be no mean feat. As more and more geeks take up the challenge, the odds will inevitably decline that Chaum's will be the system that triumphs. But I can't help hoping that, for once in his life, he kicks the windmill's ass.? John Heilemann wrote "Pride Before the Fall." His next book is "The Valley." -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah@ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
At 09:18 AM 8/25/2004, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
<http://www.business2.com/b2/web/articles/print/0,17925,683182,00.html>
Business 2.0 - Magazine Article - Printable Version -
Tilting at the Ballot Box Entrepreneur David Chaum's e-money venture flopped. Now he wants to fix electronic voting. For once, is the brilliant inventor right on time? By John Heilemann, September 2004 Issue
Like a shoemaker who only has hammers in his toolkit, Chaum is trying to fix the wrong problem. The problems with voting in the U.S. aren't current or even potential fraud at the ballot box its a complete lack of proportional representation. Hey Dude, Where's My Rep? The rallying cry of American Colonists was "No Taxation Without Representation". Although U.S politicians frequently present their political system as some paragon of representative democracy, I am unaware of any country since the Civil War adopting this winner-take-all, gerrymandered, model. Almost all opted for a parliamentary system with proportional representation. Today, unless you vote either Republican or Democrat you are effectively denied representation. Almost no independent candidates are ever elected to U.S. state, not alone federal office, even though in other democracies some would surely have gotten members of their party seated. If one accepts that the American Colonists were right to refuse to pay taxes to the British Crown until they received representation then why should today's independent voters pay state and federal taxes? steve
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2004-08-25T11:25:09-0700, Steve Schear wrote:
At 09:18 AM 8/25/2004, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
<http://www.business2.com/b2/web/articles/print/0,17925,683182,00.html> Business 2.0 - Magazine Article - Printable Version -
Tilting at the Ballot Box Entrepreneur David Chaum's e-money venture flopped. Now he wants to fix electronic voting. For once, is the brilliant inventor right on time? By John Heilemann, September 2004 Issue
Like a shoemaker who only has hammers in his toolkit, Chaum is trying to fix the wrong problem. The problems with voting in the U.S. aren't current or even potential fraud at the ballot box its a complete lack of proportional representation.
Is this solvable? Chaum is solving a problem that evidently can be solved. Perhaps once those problems are solved it will be easier to direct public attention at other more fundamental problems with our representative democracy.
Hey Dude, Where's My Rep? The rallying cry of American Colonists was "No Taxation Without Representation". Although U.S politicians frequently present their political system as some paragon of representative democracy, I am unaware of any country since the Civil War adopting this winner-take-all, gerrymandered, model. Almost all opted for a parliamentary system with proportional representation. Today, unless you vote either Republican or Democrat you are effectively denied representation. Almost no independent candidates are ever elected to U.S. state, not alone federal office, even though in other democracies some would surely have gotten members of their party seated. If one accepts that the American Colonists were right to refuse to pay taxes to the British Crown until they received representation then why should today's independent voters pay state and federal taxes?
You have a strange notion of what the Colonists meant by that phrase. You do have representation. The fact that your representatives are not the ones you wanted is irrelevant. Presidential elections are a mess, though. Most states' selection of electors for presidential selection may violate the intent of the Constitution's writers; the electors for most states were originally selected by legislators. The winning-party-take-all system in most states does seem to violate the intent of election mechanics. Notably, there is a difference between having 3 electors and having 1 elector with 3/538 of a say in president selection. The current system may be too much like the latter. IMO, your complaint about gerrymandering is valid. There are a variety of formulaic ways to ensure voting district compactness. See e.g. http://www.hmdc.harvard.edu/micah_altman/disab.shtml Nevertheless, there is a fundamental inconsistency between two requirements that everyone seems to want: 1) coherent voting districts 2) equal-population voting districts. No matter what criteria are used for creating equal-population voting districts, there are always going to be multiple ways to choose them, so someone will always complain. It's the same sort of thing as voting procedure itself; there are multiple ways to conduct a democratic election. The fact that most of the population is unaware of the alternatives (in the case that no option gets a majority: 1st/2nd/3rd choices, run-offs, no run-offs, etc.) doesn't mean they're any less serious. Perfectly democratic elections run by different rules have different results. It's amazing anyone even bothers to complain about the y2k election when there are issues like this lurking under the bridge. Clearly, no matter what you do, there are problems. If the district size is 1 million, there's a city of 499k and a city of 1501k, what then? The city of 499k is screwed unless there's a nearby population center with similar culture. Even then, the numbers won't be equitable, and someone, somewhere will whine about "lack of representation." -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBLxcunH0ZJUVoUkMRAoOkAKCTrRtElXZa6lR6lGV1u3rQ6xSh9ACgms0X A//TbqG+hh5pGMLNuKrTlkI= =e/Cp -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
At 04:12 AM 8/27/2004, you wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 2004-08-25T11:25:09-0700, Steve Schear wrote:
At 09:18 AM 8/25/2004, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
<http://www.business2.com/b2/web/articles/print/0,17925,683182,00.html> Business 2.0 - Magazine Article - Printable Version -
Tilting at the Ballot Box Entrepreneur David Chaum's e-money venture flopped. Now he wants to fix electronic voting. For once, is the brilliant inventor right on time? By John Heilemann, September 2004 Issue
Like a shoemaker who only has hammers in his toolkit, Chaum is trying to fix the wrong problem. The problems with voting in the U.S. aren't current or even potential fraud at the ballot box its a complete lack of proportional representation.
Is this solvable? Chaum is solving a problem that evidently can be solved. Perhaps once those problems are solved it will be easier to direct public attention at other more fundamental problems with our representative democracy.
Why would u guess this? These problems have been around since almost the founding of the republic.
You have a strange notion of what the Colonists meant by that phrase.
You do have representation. The fact that your representatives are not the ones you wanted is irrelevant.
The Colonists had representatives too, its just that they were chosen by King George :) The fact that 'my' representatives are not the ones I wanted nor any of the independent independent party voters wanted is paramount. Representation is about interests and ideology. If a significant segment of voters don't get anyone to represent these interests and ideologies bad things can happen (e.g., they can become radicalized). Representation can be an important outlet for these disenfranchised voters.
IMO, your complaint about gerrymandering is valid. There are a variety of formulaic ways to ensure voting district compactness. See e.g. http://www.hmdc.harvard.edu/micah_altman/disab.shtml
Clearly, no matter what you do, there are problems. If the district size is 1 million, there's a city of 499k and a city of 1501k, what then? The city of 499k is screwed unless there's a nearby population center with similar culture. Even then, the numbers won't be equitable, and someone, somewhere will whine about "lack of representation."
The problem is that use of voting districts seems to have always resulted in gerrymandering in our political system. A proportional system can eliminate these geopolitical distortions. steve
On 2004-08-27T13:14:47-0700, Steve Schear wrote:
At 04:12 AM 8/27/2004, you wrote:
On 2004-08-25T11:25:09-0700, Steve Schear wrote:
Like a shoemaker who only has hammers in his toolkit, Chaum is trying to fix the wrong problem. The problems with voting in the U.S. aren't current or even potential fraud at the ballot box its a complete lack of proportional representation.
Is this solvable? Chaum is solving a problem that evidently can be solved. Perhaps once those problems are solved it will be easier to direct public attention at other more fundamental problems with our representative democracy.
Why would u guess this? These problems have been around since almost the founding of the republic.
What? I just said that without the distraction of outright voting fraud, voters may become more aware of the more subtle and more serious issues with democratic voting systems.
You have a strange notion of what the Colonists meant by that phrase.
You do have representation. The fact that your representatives are not the ones you wanted is irrelevant.
The Colonists had representatives too, its just that they were chosen by King George :)
As I understand it (I wasn't there, but perhaps you were), their complaint was that their "representatives" weren't from the region they claimed to represent, and that they weren't chosen democratically. You and I have no such claim. I can't claim lack of representation just because my fellow citizens are idiots who subscribe to the Libertarian or Socialist or Zoroastrian platform yet vote for a Republican or Democrat.
The fact that 'my' representatives are not the ones I wanted nor any of the independent independent party voters wanted is paramount.
What you or I want has nothing to do with it. I don't get to redefine election procedure whenever my preferred candidate doesn't win an election. I'm not voting for either Bush or Kerry. Neither represents my views. No matter who wins, the winner is my president and my representative. I can't claim otherwise. The best I can do is blame all the idiot voters who cling to party-ID as if it were their only hope of survival.
Representation is about interests and ideology. If a significant segment of voters don't get anyone to represent these interests and ideologies bad things can happen (e.g., they can become radicalized). Representation can be an important outlet for these disenfranchised voters.
Well, one district in TX managed to elect someone who's decent - Ron Paul. It's possible. The fact that libertarians or fascists everywhere don't get their candidates elected has more to do with the fact that they vote Republican or Democrat "because a vote for a third party is a wasted vote." Blame the morons in the electorate for not electing representatives that mirror their views. That's where the blame lies. What do you want? Do you want everyone to vote Democrat, Libertarian or Republican, then apportion the House of Representatives and the Senate appropriately? Who picks the representatives? The reason we don't have any socialists or libertarians or fascists in Congress is that not a single district votes for one. The U.S. has this fixation on voting for one of the two major parties. Other countries do not; that's why some of them have multi-(3+)-party representation in their parliaments. Incidentally, some northeastern state allows each congressional district to pick one elector, and the State as a whole picks two. (Electors = Senators + House Reps). If you're complaining about presidential elector selection, that blame lies with the States; the States dictate how their electors are chosen.
IMO, your complaint about gerrymandering is valid. There are a variety of formulaic ways to ensure voting district compactness. See e.g. http://www.hmdc.harvard.edu/micah_altman/disab.shtml
Clearly, no matter what you do, there are problems. If the district size is 1 million, there's a city of 499k and a city of 1501k, what then? The city of 499k is screwed unless there's a nearby population center with similar culture. Even then, the numbers won't be equitable, and someone, somewhere will whine about "lack of representation."
The problem is that use of voting districts seems to have always resulted in gerrymandering in our political system. A proportional system can eliminate these geopolitical distortions.
State and Federal House of Reps. are proportional. (Yeah, I know Nebraska is unicameral, excuse the generalization). What part of the System isn't proportional other than most States' selection of presidential electors? -- "When in our age we hear these words: It will be judged by the result--then we know at once with whom we have the honor of speaking. Those who talk this way are a numerous type whom I shall designate under the common name of assistant professors." -- Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling (Wong tr.), III, 112
At 02:49 PM 8/27/2004, Justin wrote:
On 2004-08-27T13:14:47-0700, Steve Schear wrote:
At 04:12 AM 8/27/2004, you wrote: As I understand it (I wasn't there, but perhaps you were), their complaint was that their "representatives" weren't from the region they claimed to represent, and that they weren't chosen democratically. You and I have no such claim. I can't claim lack of representation just because my fellow citizens are idiots who subscribe to the Libertarian or Socialist or Zoroastrian platform yet vote for a Republican or Democrat.
Although some voters registered with minority parties do indeed cross lines and vote for the majority candidate they feel is the lesser of two evils, they are not the focus of my interest but rather what representation is afforded those that do vote with their registered parties. In almost all other democracies independent voter turnouts in the magnitude of U.S. elections would guarantee at least one seat in a state (equivalent) or national assembly. But in the U.S these voters are being denied effective representation (and here 'effective' cannot be defined to mean the choice of the majority when voting is by district which eliminates any practical chance that a minority party candidate can be seated).
The fact that 'my' representatives are not the ones I wanted nor any of the independent independent party voters wanted is paramount.
What you or I want has nothing to do with it. I don't get to redefine election procedure whenever my preferred candidate doesn't win an election.
No, but voters should be able to withhold their tax money, where possible, until they do. I think these disenfranchised voters would feel much less damaged if they weren't financially supporting a such an undemocratic system.
I'm not voting for either Bush or Kerry. Neither represents my views. No matter who wins, the winner is my president and my representative. I can't claim otherwise. The best I can do is blame all the idiot voters who cling to party-ID as if it were their only hope of survival.
You are attempting to substitute an inherently winner-take-all contest for the legislative contests I have been discussing. One has nothing to do with the other.
Representation is about interests and ideology. If a significant segment of voters don't get anyone to represent these interests and ideologies bad things can happen (e.g., they can become radicalized). Representation can be an important outlet for these disenfranchised voters.
Well, one district in TX managed to elect someone who's decent - Ron Paul. It's possible. The fact that libertarians or fascists everywhere don't get their candidates elected has more to do with the fact that they vote Republican or Democrat "because a vote for a third party is a wasted vote." Blame the morons in the electorate for not electing representatives that mirror their views. That's where the blame lies.
Its only 'wasted' because there is no chance that a majority in their voting district will also vote for the same candidate.
What do you want? Do you want everyone to vote Democrat, Libertarian or Republican, then apportion the House of Representatives and the Senate appropriately? Who picks the representatives?
The manners for the selection of candidates under a proportional system are varied but well understood outside the U.S. Perhaps these links might educate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation and http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/howprwor.htm
The reason we don't have any socialists or libertarians or fascists in Congress is that not a single district votes for one. The U.S. has this fixation on voting for one of the two major parties. Other countries do not; that's why some of them have multi-(3+)-party representation in their parliaments.
No, the reason the U.S. has a fixation on voting for one of two major parties is because of a lack of proportional representation like elsewhere. I am certain you have the cause and effect interchanged.
Incidentally, some northeastern state allows each congressional district to pick one elector, and the State as a whole picks two. (Electors = Senators + House Reps). If you're complaining about presidential elector selection, that blame lies with the States; the States dictate how their electors are chosen.
I am not discussing presidential elections, this is another matter.
The problem is that use of voting districts seems to have always resulted in gerrymandering in our political system. A proportional system can eliminate these geopolitical distortions.
State and Federal House of Reps. are proportional. (Yeah, I know Nebraska is unicameral, excuse the generalization). What part of the System isn't proportional other than most States' selection of presidential electors?
The part that isn't proportional has to do with the very establishment of 'voting districts' within the states that are the key to the two major parties maintaining their electoral monopolies. steve
On 2004-08-29T20:55:19-0700, Steve Schear wrote:
I am not discussing presidential elections, this is another matter.
Fine.
Steve Schear wrote:
The problem is that use of voting districts seems to have always resulted in gerrymandering in our political system. A proportional system can eliminate these geopolitical distortions.
At 02:49 PM 8/27/2004, Justin wrote:
State and Federal House of Reps. are proportional. (Yeah, I know Nebraska is unicameral, excuse the generalization). What part of the System isn't proportional other than most States' selection of presidential electors?
The part that isn't proportional has to do with the very establishment of 'voting districts' within the states that are the key to the two major parties maintaining their electoral monopolies.
Oh, you want to eliminate voting districts. I apologize for not reading your intentions into your earlier comments. Are States "geopolitical distortions" as well? Are countries? ---- If you're going to propose an alternate system, please clearly identify 1) the voting pool, and 2) what they're voting for. If the pool is voting for a party instead of individuals, how does a winning party pick representatives? Is that selection method fair? There are many, many ways to conduct elections, and your proportional representation system has serious problems of its own. It underrepresents regional interests, and doesn't guarantee a geographically diverse set of representatives. You could complain that geography (and in general physical boundaries) isn't important, but you'd be wrong IMO. -- "When in our age we hear these words: It will be judged by the result--then we know at once with whom we have the honor of speaking. Those who talk this way are a numerous type whom I shall designate under the common name of assistant professors." -- Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling (Wong tr.), III, 112
At 05:23 AM 8/30/2004, Justin wrote:
On 2004-08-29T20:55:19-0700, Steve Schear wrote:
I am not discussing presidential elections, this is another matter.
Fine.
Steve Schear wrote:
The problem is that use of voting districts seems to have always resulted in gerrymandering in our political system. A proportional system can eliminate these geopolitical distortions.
At 02:49 PM 8/27/2004, Justin wrote:
State and Federal House of Reps. are proportional. (Yeah, I know Nebraska is unicameral, excuse the generalization). What part of the System isn't proportional other than most States' selection of presidential electors?
The part that isn't proportional has to do with the very establishment of 'voting districts' within the states that are the key to the two major parties maintaining their electoral monopolies.
Oh, you want to eliminate voting districts. I apologize for not reading your intentions into your earlier comments.
Are States "geopolitical distortions" as well? Are countries?
----
If you're going to propose an alternate system, please clearly identify 1) the voting pool, and 2) what they're voting for. If the pool is voting for a party instead of individuals, how does a winning party pick representatives? Is that selection method fair?
While this is certainly a value judgement, almost every other nation thinks so. Its fair if each party is free to select its own basis for selecting candidates. That way voters can take into consideration both the party and individual ideology and any geographical interests before deciding what party to vote for. The most important thing, in my opinion, is that the number of seats is awarded by, in our situation, state election results and not solely by district where independent candidates will almost never represent a majority and thus never get elected to office. In some countries parties select candidates to fill seats awarded in an election, in others candidates for each party are selected in a primary election and (e.g., based on votes per candidate received) seat the candidates in order of popularity, in still other countries voters are free to write in candidate names. I prefer some combination of the last two methods plus some localization means to prevent the major population centers from monopolizing candidate selection. This might involve some sort of district rotation or randomization so that primary election candidates would be required to come from only those districts in the rotation. I am sure there are other means to address this issue.
There are many, many ways to conduct elections, and your proportional representation system has serious problems of its own. It underrepresents regional interests, and doesn't guarantee a geographically diverse set of representatives. You could complain that geography (and in general physical boundaries) isn't important, but you'd be wrong IMO.
I agree that without geographic adjustments other unfairness would become problematic. steve
On 2004-08-30T17:40:25-0700, Steve Schear wrote:
At 05:23 AM 8/30/2004, Justin wrote:
Are States "geopolitical distortions" as well? Are countries?
If you're going to propose an alternate system, please clearly identify 1) the voting pool, and 2) what they're voting for. If the pool is voting for a party instead of individuals, how does a winning party pick representatives? Is that selection method fair?
While this is certainly a value judgement, almost every other nation thinks so.
Even if we used it here, the fate of legislation would still be determined by the dominant party in the Senate, which would still rarely if ever admit 3rd parties, and by the president's veto. I assume you're criticizing only House election procedures because that's the only thing that can be attacked without completely restructuring the federal legislature. If it were possible, would you prefer to see nation-wide proportional representation if it included mandatory geographical distribution requirements like those you described? -- "When in our age we hear these words: It will be judged by the result--then we know at once with whom we have the honor of speaking. Those who talk this way are a numerous type whom I shall designate under the common name of assistant professors." -- Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling (Wong tr.), III, 112
At 10:10 AM 8/31/2004, Justin wrote:
At 05:23 AM 8/30/2004, Justin wrote:
Are States "geopolitical distortions" as well? Are countries?
If you're going to propose an alternate system, please clearly identify 1) the voting pool, and 2) what they're voting for. If the pool is voting for a party instead of individuals, how does a winning party pick representatives? Is that selection method fair?
While this is certainly a value judgement, almost every other nation
On 2004-08-30T17:40:25-0700, Steve Schear wrote: thinks
so.
Even if we used it here, the fate of legislation would still be determined by the dominant party in the Senate, which would still rarely if ever admit 3rd parties, and by the president's veto.
While I agree that at, least initially, the Senate would continue be populated only by Republicrats, this could eventually change if minority parties gain a good enough foothold in the House. Both major parties contain major 'single issue' blocks (e.g., the Republican Party's fiscal conservatives and Christian fundamentalists) are only sometimes satisfied with the platforms and conduct of the major parties. These voters now have no alternatives, but if they thought they could have more legislative muscle through minority party seats they could well abandon the majors.
I assume you're criticizing only House election procedures because that's the only thing that can be attacked without completely restructuring the federal legislature. If it were possible, would you prefer to see nation-wide proportional representation if it included mandatory geographical distribution requirements like those you described?
Yes. steve
participants (3)
-
Justin -
R. A. Hettinga -
Steve Schear