Best Voting System

[moda0306]

Assuming for a second that we're not going to get around voting as a fundamental part of the process in a modern government, what do people here think the best system is?

Plurality?

Majority?

Runoff?

Parliamentary?

Range?


Further, who should be able to vote?  Kids?  Criminals?  Only land-owners or tax-payers? 

I find this topic immensely interesting.  If we could please stick to this within the context of already acknowleding that voting is going to happen and we just have to pick the best system, that would be great... Otherwise this could get way too scattered.

Personally, I hate plurality voting.  I much prefer runoff or range.  Even parliamentary has its positive traits.  I just hate anything that so efficiently consolidates power into two parties and the tribalist mentality that it creates in government and society.

[moda0306]

RE: Employed

How do we define this?  What if I run a knitting business that earns me $5 per year?  What if I'm retired?  What if I'm ill?


Re: Not on public assistance

How do we define this?  Use public roads?  Kids go to public schools?  Collecting SS?  Got a tax-credit last year?  Use the USPS?  Collected unemployment for 3 weeks?


Re: Felony

So someone arrested for a drug felony should NEVER be able to vote again?  I'd be more in favor of this if we had fewer victimless crime laws.  As it currently stands, I think felons votes should count 10x .

[Pointedstick]

Wherever possible, parliamentary with proportional representation, voting for parties rather than people, and arbitrary parties, hands-down.

Races for individual positions (e.g. governor, secretary of state, etc) are done by rank-order preferential instant runoff voting. These positions are limited to a single term of 20 years, but recall elections can be held at any time. Pay is $2 million per year, inflation-adjusting.

Any relevant districts are mechanically calculated by a computer algorithm rather than politicians.

Being able to vote requires one of the following:
1. be a military veteran
2. be a net taxpayer, calculated at each level*
3. anyone not meeting either of those qualifications can pass a difficult civics test to be able to vote

* e.g. if you are were a net federal taxpayer last year but not a net local taxpayer, then this year can vote in federal elections but not local elections. This calculation of "net taxpayer" would be taxes paid - transfer payments and the monetary value of all welfare services.

[moda0306]

When you say "federal taxes," I suppose you mean the federal income tax.  Rather than federal gas taxes, FICA, Medicare, etc.

A few things here:

- Lotsa SS recipients don't pay income tax.

- Even a decent amount of super rich folks avoid in in certain years where they donate a lot or don't earn a taxable income, or have all their wealth in IRA's, life insurance and muni bonds.

- Should a voter in local/state elections use different taxes (state taxes & local taxes) to determine the tax payment requirement, or should it still be federal?

- Now we have to have a verifiable tax-return in-tow for every voter?

- Why pick the federal income tax... one of the most progressive taxes.  Why not pick others?



Re: Assistance:

Why not medicare?  Why not lucrative military contracts awarded to your company?  Why not unemployment?  Why not Social Security (I mean... there is no real fund... they're simply stealing from me to pay for promises that shouldn't have been made).  How do you determine if someone who comes in to vote is on any of these things?  Also verifiable via the new tax forms that you carry into the voting booth?



I'm asking this for both benevolent and snarkastic reasons... I really do wanna hear if there's any bit of reason behind how many hardcore conservatives want our voting laws to move, but mostly I've seen arguments like this before, and they're usually full of the types of holes, exceptions, conveniently arbitrary preferences, etc that most reasonable conservatives HATE about government.  Sorry if it seems a bit pointed, but you seem to be pretty confident that putting classist limitations on who should vote is grounded in reasonableness and righteousness.  I tend to think it eliminates the entire principal behind voting to begin with.  If voting needs that many restrictions, perhaps we simply need a technocratic dictatorship. 

PS and Tenn for co-dictators.  Feuds settled over chugging a beer.  Sorry PS... Gotta give the edge to the statist pigs .

[moda0306]

Wherever possible, parliamentary with proportional representation, voting for parties rather than people, and arbitrary parties, hands-down.

Races for individual positions (e.g. governor, secretary of state, etc) are done by rank-order preferential instant runoff voting. These positions are limited to a single term of 20 years, but recall elections can be held at any time. Pay is $2 million per year.

Any relevant districts are mechanically calculated by a computer algorithm rather than politicians.

Being able to vote requires one of the following:
1. be a military veteran
2. be a net taxpayer, calculated at each level*
3. anyone not meeting either of those qualifications can pass a difficult civics test to be able to vote

* e.g. if you are were a net federal taxpayer last year but not a net local taxpayer, then this year can vote in federal elections but not local elections. This calculation of "net taxpayer" would be taxes paid - transfer payments and the monetary value of all welfare services.

PS,

If using a road is NOT a welfare service, but Medicaid is, pardon me if I call BS... we have to put a FMV on all services, not just transfers of cash.  I mean... unless we really are just being classist a-holes... right?



Don't you find it interesting that plurality for INDIVIDUALS results in monopolistic PARTIES that subjugate the individual... and parliamentary voting for PARTIES results in far less monopolized power at the party level, and probably quite a bit more individual influence?

No real conclusions here... just interesting counter-intuitive observation.

[Pointedstick]

PS,

If using a road is NOT a welfare service, but Medicaid is, pardon me if I call BS... we have to put a FMV on all services, not just transfers of cash.  I mean... unless we really are just being classist a-holes... right?

Purely a convenience thing. Calculating the FMV of road services utilized is a practically impossible task in a works without private roads. At least for something like Medicare, there's a dollar figure that the government paid to the providers.

But it's basically arbitrary. Once we leave anarchist-land, we have to think about designing incentives that tilt people toward doing things we consider to be socially good. Some things are obvious, e.g. being a criminal is bad and should be discouraged, and working productively to build things for other people is good and should be encouraged. Those are no-brainers that only certain crazy liberals could disagree with.

But we also have to think from the perspective of a statist, too. For example, the government wants people to send their children to government schools to be tilted toward statism, so the FMV of per-pupil public schooling (if it could even be calculated) won't be included in this calculation. But SS payments and Medicare will be included because we want people to pay for these things themselves by being productive, which increases GDP and generates more tax revenues, which the government wants.

Etc.

[moda0306]

PS,

Will you help me push my wheel-barrow of paperwork to the voting booth with me?

[Pointedstick]

PS,

Will you help me push my wheel-barrow of paperwork to the voting booth with me?

That's an easy one. You determine all of this during voter registration, and need to present an ID to vote so they can make sure it's you and you're registered. No-brainer.

The data can even be electronically collated for you by the government, as they already know all of the numbers. They can present you with the data and the results, and if you disagree with the data, you can appeal.

[Xan]

On a related note: Anybody who ran for re-election and lost should immediately lose any power.  This session where the losers are still in power is dangerous.

There are logistical issues with that, of course, but I don't think killer ones.

[Mountaineer]

Lottery system among all USA born citizens age 30 through 70.  When your name is drawn, you serve in whatever office you are chosen for.  Salary to be the highest of your last 5 years of work.  Pension available immediately when leaving office will be two years salary.  Automatic reemployment in your old job or equivalent for a minimum of 4 years when your service is over if you want it.  Single term limit of 4 years for all federal and state elected offices with one forth of the offices up for refilling each year.  Those drawing unemployment for more than 26 weeks cumulative are not eligible to vote.  Felons are not eligible. 

... Mountaineer

[D1984]

Lottery system among all USA born citizens age 30 through 70.  When your name is drawn, you serve in whatever office you are chosen for.  Salary to be the highest of your last 5 years of work.  Pension available immediately when leaving office will be two years salary.  Automatic reemployment in your old job or equivalent for a minimum of 4 years when your service is over if you want it.  Single term limit of 4 years for all federal and state elected offices with one forth of the offices up for refilling each year.  Those drawing unemployment for more than 26 weeks cumulative are not eligible to vote.  Felons are not eligible. 

... Mountaineer

When you say "your name is drawn and you serve in whatever office you are chosen for" I'm assuming you mean that you have the option to serve and  that if you don't want to then you simply say "no" and another person's name is then drawn, right? Because if not (i.e. if it is mandatory), there are three issues:

One, there's that pesky little 13th amendment...slavery and involuntary servitude prohibited,

Two, what if someone cannot serve due to job commitments (i.e. they run a small business and the business would fail without them there. Merely paying them a salary equal to what they earned would be a cruel insult--and quite possibly a grounds for an involuntary taking suit--since they would still be losing their business)?

Three, what if someone has genuine conscientious objections (whether religious or non-religious) to serving in a general or specific governmental office or capacity? For instance, a strict Jehovah's Witness likely could not serve in any position that required them to be in charge of the military or appropriate money for any of the armed services or declare war (so no House armed services committee member, or SecDef, or Presidency for them) or a Theravada Buddhist could not serve as a Federal or State judge (since by at least some interpretations their religion prohibits judging others as they believe karma will judge them instead). It doesn't even have to be religious....someone who was philosophically an anarchist or voluntaryist or Lefevrian pacifist could not in good conscience serve in ANY governmental capacity because (to use the legal turn of phrase for the test that is currently in use for non-religious objection to conscripted military service since that's the closest comparison to conscripted officeholding that we have to go on) "their conscience would give them no peace" if they did participate in any kind of office that involved exercising involuntary authority over others.

Making the hypothetical lottery-based political service voluntary avoids all three of the above issues.

[WiseOne]

Wherever possible, parliamentary with proportional representation, voting for parties rather than people, and arbitrary parties, hands-down.

Races for individual positions (e.g. governor, secretary of state, etc) are done by rank-order preferential instant runoff voting. These positions are limited to a single term of 20 years, but recall elections can be held at any time. Pay is $2 million per year, inflation-adjusting.

Any relevant districts are mechanically calculated by a computer algorithm rather than politicians.

Being able to vote requires one of the following:
1. be a military veteran
2. be a net taxpayer, calculated at each level*
3. anyone not meeting either of those qualifications can pass a difficult civics test to be able to vote

* e.g. if you are were a net federal taxpayer last year but not a net local taxpayer, then this year can vote in federal elections but not local elections. This calculation of "net taxpayer" would be taxes paid - transfer payments and the monetary value of all welfare services.

Interesting idea!!

I'm going to guess that the number of citizens eligible to vote under these rules would be quite small, depending on your definition of "net taxpayer".  I think pretty much everyone over 65, retired, and receiving Social Security will instantly be ineligible.  As would a smattering of other groups:  students, early retired people, small business owners posting a loss for the year, non-working spouses staying home to care for their children.  I get that you're trying to exclude people who are disabled and/or jobless and relying on government assistance...with which I can sympathize.  It's a bit of a conflict of interest to be voting to keep your monetary benefits.

I would argue that Social Security and Medicare should be exempted (but not SSI), as presumably if you are receiving it you paid into the system for years and have earned the right to collect.  However - what about people like me who have applied for and received government grants for scientific/medical research?  Note that the money doesn't go to me directly, it goes to the university who counts it as a professional feather in my cap but doesn't otherwise provide me with any monetary benefits as a result.

If you think about it though, that conflict of interest exists everywhere.  For example, take the corporate CEO who votes for a senator who promised to introduce a bill that is advantageous to the corporation.  Don't tell me that doesn't happen!  Out and out bribes are probably quite common (they're called "campaign contributions" and protected as "free speech"), but it doesn't have to be that overt...could be something as simple as a widget manufacturer voting for someone who promises some sort of tax break for widgets, but didn't decide to do that because of any requests from that particular company.

I saw a rather amusing story that Chevron poured millions of dollars into the mayoral race in Richmond, CA, the site of their repeated oil plant disasters, to try to put in their own candidate, but the guy who spent only $40K on his campaign won.  It's the exception that proves the rule though... the well funded campaign is far more likely to win.

Also you'd have to exclude anyone connected with GE, AIG, and most of the major banks that received taxpayer-funded bailouts in 2008 and haven't yet paid it back (counting interest and inflation).

[LC475]

Condorcet Method.

And obviously open to net-taxpayers only.  Any voting by tax recipients would be a conflict of interest.

[Pointedstick]

Condorcet Method.

And obviously open to net-taxpayers only.  Any voting by tax recipients would be a conflict of interest.

I think WiseOne actually brings up a great point. Voting itself is kind of inherently a conflict of interest since one is always able to vote oneself various benefits or relief from difficulties no matter who one is. This leads me to believe that either the franchise should be near-universal, or else the extent of the franchise should reflect a widely-societally-agreed-upon utilitarian determination as to which voting-related conflicts of interests should be discouraged and which ones should not. Voting being open to net taxpayers only would indicate a social tolerance for the kinds of conflicts-of-interest that WiseOne brought up: voting by the very wealthy to directly benefit themselves.

[LC475]

voting by the very wealthy to directly benefit themselves.

This would be a laughably impotent and stupid strategy.  There are not very many very wealthy people.

Of course, voting in general is usually a laughable and stupid way of making decisions.  If only it were more impotent.

[Pointedstick]

voting by the very wealthy to directly benefit themselves.

This would be a laughably impotent and stupid strategy.  There are not very many very wealthy people.

Yes, but governments have tremendous power to hurt them and their businesses, especially when they cause damage to their customers and the environment. There is a very impactful benefit in being exempted from the penalties for these kinds of damages, and many powerful businesspeople actively pursue such exemptions, either explicitly or implicitly.

Of course, they do this without voting, so preventing them from voting is probably moot.

Of course, voting in general is usually a laughable and stupid way of making decisions.  If only it were more impotent.

Agreed. I love how this article sums it up:

https://mises.org/daily/5036/How-to-Win-an-Election

Things are quite different in a political democracy. Choosing between two candidates is analogous going to Walmart and being presented with two shopping carts already filled with items. Everyone will leave the store with the same cart of goods. Each cart contains products that a person may want and products that one wouldn't choose to have, but the voter is not able to take anything out of either cart.

[...]

Also, for reasons that will be explained later, the two carts are very similar. They contain many of the same items, the items that are different are still similar (e.g., both carts contain a shirt — one red and one blue), and the two carts cost about the same amount. In addition, each taxpayer will end up paying for one of the carts even though he wouldn't voluntarily purchase this basket of items.

[...]

Returning to the Walmart shopping cart analogy, when you are presented with the two carts, you are allowed to vote on which cart you want. However, you vote infrequently, say, once every four years, and your vote doesn't matter. You will end up with the same cart regardless of your vote. In fact, even if you don't vote, this will not affect the bundle that you receive in your cart.

[Mark Leavy]

Have you tried voting on the weather?
What is the best system?

Seriously.  Politics is like the weather.

I watch the forecasts.  I follow the trends.  I get angry at the day to day swings.  I shake my tiny fist at the gods.  But I don't cast lots trying to sway the results.

It strikes me that most people on this board have more than a passing ability at math.

When I don't like the weather, I arrange my life so that the storms and flurries don't impact me.  If it is consistently not to my liking, I move.  I move a lot.

I never vote against the weather.  Other than shaking my impotent fist at it.  Or I put on a raincoat.  Or I build a shelter.  Or I move to where the sun shines more often.

[MachineGhost]

Direct ala Greece style.  Sortition.  Liturgy.  Citizen's Propositions.  What's old is new again.

[MachineGhost]

Any one over the age of 21 [If you can't be trusted to drink, how can you be trusted to elect?] who is employed and NOT on any public assistance should get to vote, unless you have EVER been convicted of a felony, in which case you should lose your right to vote forever.

Thank goodness the proposition to downgrade smokng pot to a misdemeanor from a felony passed in CA.  Now we can hopefully end the permanent unemployed underclass your misguided stoopid opinion endeavors.  Only 37% of Republicans support marijuana legalization.  The difference represents a lot of morons (or just corrupt cronyists)!

[MachineGhost]

I do not, however, appreciate the comment that my opinion was 'stoopid'. It would be more persuasive if you corrected my 'misguided' thought process [according to YOU] with a better opinion rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks. Especially on this forum. Thanks in advance for the civility.

I like to kick it up a notch now and then.