3 ms·

I always figured that sampling, and electoral voting, are legacy mechanics from when it wasn't as easy to tally large numbers quickly (via technology). Real, pe

by clebio 12y ago

I always figured that sampling, and electoral voting, are legacy mechanics from when it wasn't as easy to tally large numbers quickly (via technology). Real, per-person voting (there's probably a term for that?) -- and even itemized taxation (e.g. choose schools, sanitation, law enforcement, 'defense', etc.) -- should be entirely within our capabilities now. But, of course, politics is a slow-rolling stone.

byroot 12y ago
> Real, per-person voting (there's probably a term for that?) I suppose you mean direct election[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_election http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_election
- ctdonath 12y ago
  There are very good reasons for the "electoral college" outside of "real per-person voting" issues.
  - mhurron 12y ago
    And they are? The Electoral College is in place just for Presidential Elections because it used to be that it was impossible for the various candidates to peddle their platform all over the country. No other position had that issue, governors, senators, congressmen are all far more local elections. That issue doesn't exist anymore. There is no reason the president can not be directly elected.
    - ctdonath 12y ago
      This is the United STATES Of America. The states cast their vote, balancing the equality of states vs population - ensuring both that one large state doesn't get outvoted by a couple much smaller ones, and that one large state doesn't render multiple small ones politically impotent. CA & NY have strong leanings toward urban political interests which conflict with legitimate interests of WY, MT, AK, etc ... but in a direct vote, the former would completely overwhelm the latter rendering their cumulative votes irrelevant. With electoral college, we have a "progressive" vote whereby neither the majority overwhelms the minority, nor the minority have an undue power over the majority - instead, we have a sensible balance. Switch to direct election, and there will be no need for the various candidates to peddle their platform all over the country: candidates will focus on high-density population regions, ignoring "flyover country" entirely and unfairly biasing political power toward urban interests.
djur 12y ago
Representative democracy isn't just about the difficulty of arranging a plebiscite for every single decision the legislature would make. At some point, the electorate of a democratic society has to delegate decision-making. Legislatures name committees to originate, review and flesh out bills, and even those bills tend to consist of authorization and funding to hire people to coordinate particular tasks ("bureaucracy"). In the fantasy version of direct democracy, every decision there is to be made is a clear yes or no on an easily defined question ("Do we invade Iraq?"). In such a system, the power would end up belonging to the people who write and pose the questions. Look at the history of the initiative system in the US for an idea of what that looks like even on a limited scale -- the potential for graft, corruption, incompetence, and capture by special interests makes the current system look like rule by benevolent genius saints.

by clebio 12y ago

byroot 12y ago

> Real, per-person voting (there's probably a term for that?) I suppose you mean direct election[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_election http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_election

ctdonath 12y ago
There are very good reasons for the "electoral college" outside of "real per-person voting" issues.
- mhurron 12y ago
  And they are? The Electoral College is in place just for Presidential Elections because it used to be that it was impossible for the various candidates to peddle their platform all over the country. No other position had that issue, governors, senators, congressmen are all far more local elections. That issue doesn't exist anymore. There is no reason the president can not be directly elected.
  - ctdonath 12y ago
    This is the United STATES Of America. The states cast their vote, balancing the equality of states vs population - ensuring both that one large state doesn't get outvoted by a couple much smaller ones, and that one large state doesn't render multiple small ones politically impotent. CA & NY have strong leanings toward urban political interests which conflict with legitimate interests of WY, MT, AK, etc ... but in a direct vote, the former would completely overwhelm the latter rendering their cumulative votes irrelevant. With electoral college, we have a "progressive" vote whereby neither the majority overwhelms the minority, nor the minority have an undue power over the majority - instead, we have a sensible balance. Switch to direct election, and there will be no need for the various candidates to peddle their platform all over the country: candidates will focus on high-density population regions, ignoring "flyover country" entirely and unfairly biasing political power toward urban interests.

djur 12y ago

Representative democracy isn't just about the difficulty of arranging a plebiscite for every single decision the legislature would make. At some point, the electorate of a democratic society has to delegate decision-making. Legislatures name committees to originate, review and flesh out bills, and even those bills tend to consist of authorization and funding to hire people to coordinate particular tasks ("bureaucracy"). In the fantasy version of direct democracy, every decision there is to be made is a clear yes or no on an easily defined question ("Do we invade Iraq?"). In such a system, the power would end up belonging to the people who write and pose the questions. Look at the history of the initiative system in the US for an idea of what that looks like even on a limited scale -- the potential for graft, corruption, incompetence, and capture by special interests makes the current system look like rule by benevolent genius saints.