From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Wed May 28 2003 - 23:13:18 MDT
Rafal writes:
> > 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.
Interesting idea. But aren't you overlooking the need for MPs
and parliaments to respond to urgent exogenous shocks. Lots
of things economic, military, epidemiological, can change that are
outside the national boundaries and planning horizons of MPs
weighting things up in a given parliamentary session yet still need
a response. How would the Vernier voting cater for the
unexpected and urgent issue? Perhaps a need or the desirability
to declare marshal law say or to to impose a quarantine due
to a particular outbreak.
Brett Paatsch
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 28 2003 - 23:24:37 MDT