Hello, --- Abd ulRahman Lomax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > At 10:36 AM 6/15/2005, Chris Benham wrote: > >>Since Mike has stated that the purpose of AERLO is for >>"acceptable/unacceptable" voters to enter below the acceptable set of >>candidates, I suppose there's no reason not to >>call it an "approval cutoff". But I see a problem in justifying how it >>works. If we say "This is so that if some voters don't like the result >>of the (first,'provisional') election, then they >>can change their vote (for the second, 'final' election)" then this just >>prompts the natural question "How is that fair? If some voters can >>change their votes after the 'first election', >>why can't other voters change their votes after the 'second election'? >>Why stop at only two elections?". I don't know any good answer to that.
Of course, Chris is talking about AERLO recounts rather than actual elections. > >Why stop at only two elections?". I don't know any good answer to that. > > One of my general points is that elections, especially elections for > representatives, are inherently unfair, for they almost guarantee that some > voters will end up unrepresented. Proxy systems avoid elections entirely > (for representatives) by allowing the free choice of representatives. Does this mean you feel a system is "unfair" unless *every* voter can select a representative? That sounds difficult to implement. > Such > systems may still "elect" officers, but probably, as with proxies, they > would not have terms. In other words, the election process is continuous, > whenever a majority of the electorate wants to make a change. It would be > more like hiring officers to serve at will than like electing them. A > deliberative process. This is what is already done under parliamentary systems, correct? > But until such systems are in place (I do expect that eventually they will > be), we are faced with elections by secret ballot and with terms and such > limits. That is why only two elections (in the example given by Mr. > Benham). It is a practical limit, not necessarily a full expression of > democracy. It seems to me it would be rather chaotic if a representative/proxy could lose his job overnight. (Or, perhaps you're talking about elected *officers* having terms. But we can already avoid electing officers. Do you think a proxy representative should have a term?) Kevin Venzke ___________________________________________________________________________ Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger Téléchargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info