On 3/15/2013 1:27 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 04:16 AM 3/14/2013, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
On 03/13/2013 05:09 AM, Michael Allan wrote:
If the experts in the Election Methods list can't find a serious fault
with this method, then it might be possible to bring down the party
system in as little as a few years. Mind you, it would be no bad
thing if it took a while longer, given the disruption it might cause.
Regarding liquid democracy methods in general, I think the vote-buying
problem is pretty serious. Or rather, that's not the worst part of it,
but it's a symptom of a more general aspect.
Kristofer is asseting as a serious problem something on which there is
zero experience. It's not clear that "vote-buying" is *ever* a serious
problem.[...]
Vote-buying would become quite serious if "liquid democracy" (direct
voting on issues) were adopted.
Many years ago I lived in a neighborhood that the police often had to
visit, and I saw that the illegal behavior that the police responded to
was just the tip of the iceberg. Just making vote-buying and
vote-selling illegal would not stop low-income people from selling their
vote. An underground ("black") market would develop. Trying to stop it
would have the same non-success as trying to stop the use of illegal drugs.
Also consider that the reason elections require people to appear in
person to cast their votes is that it greatly reduces voter fraud, which
is common without that requirement. Of course there are exceptions.
Here in Oregon everyone votes by mail, but that approach would not work
in most other states because they are noticeably more corrupt.
Richard Fobes
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
