Dear Raph, you replied to me: > > That leads me to the main problem with Range (as with any other majoritarian > > method): It is simply not democratic. It cannot be because every > > majoritarian method gives 100% of the power to less than 100% of the people > > (the "demos" in greek). > > They do have an equal vote. The move the median in their direction.
First, what does an "equal vote" help when the other group (the majority) can elect whomever they want regardless of what you do? Nothing. And, the median claim is plain wrong: When you're already on one side of a median, moving further away from it does never change that median. Basic statistics. > However, you do get degenerate societies where there is a majority > that is a bloc. > > In Northern Ireland, for example, the Unionists have a majority. This > led to discrimination of the Nationalist minority. That's exactly my point. There are lots of such examples which all show clearly that majoritarianism is not democratic. > The problem with this majority is that it is solid and unchanging. > > Ideally, majority should just mean the group of more than 50% on a > particular issue. Every person should sometimes be part of the > majority and sometimes part of the minority. That doesn't help because then the majority on issue A will still overrule the rest in every single decision on that issue. So a compromise option for that issue will have no chance. > If a certain group of > people are always part of the minority, then this leads to a poorly > functioning society. A split society will only function poorly when a majoritarian method is used. When they use a method like FAWRB instead, they will function well because then they will care what the other faction wants, will try to devise good compromise options, and will vote in a way which makes sure the good compromises are elected instead of the random ballot result. This is possible *precisely* because with a non-majoritarian method the majority cannot simply ignore the minority but has to figure out how to get them to approve a compromise that is sufficiently near to their favourite. Non-majoritarian methods encourage discourse and cooperation. > Germany has 'eternal' provisions. Some amendment proposals can be > blocked by their Constitutional Court. This I think is undemocratic. > The eternal provisions relate to fundamental rights, which is their > reasoning. The reason why we have such should be obvious from history. It saves us for example from such restrictions of civil rights our American fellows experience since 9/11. > Someone wrote: > > Then let me challenge you right away: I don't understand at all what those > > numbers a range-ballot asks me for are supposed to mean. They are not > > explained but instead it is simply assumed naively that each voter will be > > able to assign meaningful numbers to options. That someone was me. Yours, Jobst ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
