Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 20:10:15 -0700 From: Russ Paielli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [EM] Collecting Ordinal Information ....
Problem 1. Getting "scientific" polling results from partial samples is a science. It can only be done reliably by unbiased organizations that have no "axe to grind." Imagine the practical difficulty just getting a consensus on how to select the participants. Note also that one of the biggest challenges in scientific polling is how to deal with people who do not answer the phone or who answer but refuse to participate (I've heard that this comprises approximately 40% of those called).
Answer: There is no "poll" other than the election itself. All registered voters who want to vote get ballots. The ballots are randomized so that which pairwise races you vote on are determined at random.
OK, I misunderstood that part. I see your point that giving each voter a lesser part of the whole to focus on will, in principle, make them more knowledgable about the part they vote on. Unfortunately, I don't think it will work in practice. Voters will not focus more on the candidates they are assigned to evaluate if they don't care about those candidates, and even if they do care, they will probably not spend much more time than they would have otherwise.
What if I, as a voter, have strong feelings about one or more candidates, but I am "assigned" to vote on two candidates that I don't give a hoot about? Do you think I will be happy about that? It just won't fly.
I think you have my method confused with Joe's. But even his method is no more problematic than picking juries to decide criminal cases, for example.
Problem 2. If the identities of the participants are publicly known, then bribes or coercion could be applied to influence their decisions. Even if their identities are concealed, someone who wants to be bribed will find a way to make their status known.
Problem 3. Your scheme would probably be unconstitutional in many if not
most races. Many voters, conservatives in particular, would never go
along with it.
Answer: If the voters like the method, they can change the constitution.
They won't, so they won't.
Russ continues ...
I sympathize with your concern that voters don't have time to study all the issues and candidates. The votes for judges are always particularly confusing for me. All the typical voter has to go by is a half-page statement by the candidates, which could be one big lie.
What is the answer? Well, I don't know the whole answer, but I think I
know a part of it. We need to discourage people from voting. That's
right: *discourage* them. All this stuff about encouraging people to
vote just for the sake of "participating in democracy" is a mistake, I
believe. Peolpe who don't understand the importance of voting are
unlikely to vote wisely and should not be encouraged to vote. People who
understand that the right to vote was earned with blood are more likely
to vote wisely, I believe.
Answer: The "get out the vote" folks are mostly concerned about getting out people that will support their candidates, all protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. Do Republicans urge blacks to get out and vote?
That's true for the most part. But you do also hear general encouragement to get out and vote just for the sake of voting.
Russ continues...
People who vote because someone told them it's a good idea are usually parasites who want something for nothing. Their vote is likely to be calculated to forcibly transfer wealth from someone who earned it to someone who did not -- themselves. Walter Williams calls this "legalized theft."
Answer: Those who receive the greatest amount of subsidies by the tax payers are members of the parasitic rich class, who do not have to vote subsidies for themselves, because they have the politicians bought and paid for, and can therefore protect their privileged status with all of the political, legal, and police power of the state.
I agree that so-called "corporate welfare" should be stopped -- including farm subsities, for example. In fact, I would endorse ending income tax and replacing it with a higher corporate tax (which would be passed along to the consumer, of course). You'd think the left would be all for that, but you'd be wrong. Why? Because income redistribution would become much more difficult.
I also find it interesting that many socialist ideas actually end up enriching corporations. Take the prescription drug benefit, for example. Yes, I know Bush endorsed it. But do you remember the 2000 campaign when Gore was lamenting the "greedy drug companies" and also endorsing a liberal prescription drug benefit? Guess who benefits the most from such a program. If you said the drug companies, pass go and collect $200.
What could possibly be more attractive to drug companies than to force the government to pay for drugs? You can be 100% sure that people will "need" more drugs when someone else is paying for them.
Hence the saying, "Subsidies for the rich. Market discipline for the poor," and the related saying, "Privatize the profits. Socialize the costs."
As I said, subsidies should end for everyone -- not just the rich.
Note also that,
"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators." --P. J. O'Rourke.
According to no less an authority than the late Hugh W. Nibley, the old adage "The idle shall not eat the bread of the laborer" originally meant that the idle rich should not be eating the bread of the working poor.
If the "idle eat the bread of the working poor" it is usually (though not always) because the "idle" (or their parents) somehow managed to *produce* something that the working poor either *need* or *want* bad enough to pay for voluntarily.
Having said that, I will also say that I differ with many libertarians in that I believe that anti-trust laws should be enforced (against Microsoft, for example). But we're already far enough off topic.
--Russ ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
