RE: Political systems (was Re: Reality bites)

From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Thu May 29 2003 - 17:05:49 MDT

  • Next message: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky: "Re: Status of Superrationality"

    owner-extropians@extropy.org wrote:
    > 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.

    ### Good point. Some votes, say, a defined class of emergency decisions,
    could be voted into law using the majority rule from the last vernier vote
    (and would be valid only till the next vernier).

    Rafal



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 29 2003 - 14:16:29 MDT