From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Wed May 28 2003 - 14:35:12 MDT
Damien Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 05:44:33PM -0500, Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
>
>>> ### Try the non-territorial bicameral supermajoritarian IQ-weighed
>>> demarchy with automatic sunset laws, vernier voting, and with a
>>> prohibition of delegation of legislative authority. These are my
>>> pet ideas for the best
>
> What's vernier voting?
### MP's first vote extensively on what they want - they vote on hundreds of
issues of interest, with the results available for everybody's perusal. The
votes do not become law, though - until there is a vernier vote. Each MP has
to decide on the degree of majority needed to pass all of the previously
voted-on issues. E.g. you voted for a ban on abortion and 51% of MP's did,
too. But if vernier vote sets the majority at 51%, then you might have to
accept a ban on prayer in public parks, voted on by, say, 52% of MP's. If
your minimum majority is too low, you end up with a lot of laws you hate,
because there will always be some majorities against you. On the other hand,
if you set your minimum majority too high (99%?), you will end up with laws
against murder not being passed. Presumably, most humans would choose the
kind of majority least likely to impose a lot against their wishes, while
still making sure the really important issues are addressed.
Vernier voting offers an opportunity to choose the whole set of social
parameters based on one aggregate vote, taking into consideration
conflicting wishes, rather than voting on everything piecemeal, and losing
the sight of the big picture. I am not sure how it would work in practice,
but I would definitely give it a try. It wouldn't cure the short-sightedness
inherent in democratic politics, but it should improve the
conflict-resolution among competing demands.
-----------------------------------
>
> Sunset laws and what I called 'randomocracy', random selection of
> legislature plus details which seems related to demarchy, I like too.
> IQ-weighed, eh.
### Good!
IQ-weighed, means here that the upper 10% of the MP's chosen by lot from
among volunteers would form the upper chamber of parliament, allowed to
write law, or initiate writing a law but not pass it. The remaining 90%, the
lower chamber, would then pass or reject laws, hopefully using vernier
voting. So the smart people write law, and the rest of us keeps them honest.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 28 2003 - 11:47:38 MDT