“Referendum democracy” and the Condorcet theorem

Linkey

A am sure that the best political system would be a “referendum democracy”: if an online referendum will be performed at least each week, and these referendums should cover not only laws, but also decisions within the competence of the judiciary power (fines and punishments). If the population votes to ban a mass media, so be it; and vice versa, if the population votes to fine people who slander this mass media, so be it. I hope my logic is clear.
However, with this system new problems can arise due to the Condorcet and Arrow's theorems:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_paradox

https://youtu.be/qf7ws2DF-zk

These theorems can be illustrated as follows. The voters have three candidates - A, B and C. A third of voters think that A is better than B and B is better than C; a third of voters think that B is better than C and C is better than A, and a third thinks that C is better than A and A is better than B. It is easy to show that it is a "rock, paper, scissors" situation, i.e., depending on who goes to the second round, anyone of A, B, C can confidently win.
Theoretically, this problem can be solved as follows: the voter does not just vote for one of the candidates, but gives each candidate a score on a ten-point scale. If these scores were honest, everything would work well. But voters can lie with these scores, i.e., for example, if there are many candidates, a voter can give one a 10 and all the others a 1. It is quite unclear how to solve this problem; but this will be a formulated scientific problem for future generations. For example, I can suggest the following solution: select three hundred voters by lot after voting and ask them to take a lie detector test.
Such a system would be necessary in case of implementation of the "dictatorship of the majority" that I propose: so that, roughly speaking, it does not happen that 90% vote to make the remaining 10% slaves.
I try to find a word to name this hypothetical correct political system, please help me with this.

T Clark

A am sure that the best political system would be a “referendum democracy”: if an online referendum will be performed at least each week, and these referendums should cover not only laws, but also decisions within the competence of the judiciary power (fines and punishments). — Linkey

This would be a monstrous, horrible, monumental disaster.

Theoretically, this problem can be solved as follows: the voter does not just vote for one of the candidates, but gives each candidate a score on a ten-point scale. — Linkey

There is already a better system than this in place in a number of jurisdictions. It’s called ranked choice voting. This from the web - https://campaignlegal.org/democracyu/accountability/ranked-choice-voting

Ranked choice voting is a process that allows voters to rank candidates for a particular office in order of preference. Consider a race where four candidates – A, B, C, and D – are running for a single seat such as Governor. In an election utilizing RCV, voters simply rank the candidates 1-4, with the candidate ranked as “1” being the voter’s highest preference for Governor. If a candidate is the first choice of more than half the voters, that candidate wins the election. But if no candidate gets the majority of the vote, the candidate with the least amount of support is eliminated, the second choice support for that eliminated candidate are redistributed, and this process continues until a candidate wins more than half of the vote.

unenlightened

Do we get a referendum on what topics we have a referendum on?

Linkey

There is already a better system than this in place in a number of jurisdictions. It’s called ranked choice voting. This from the web — T Clark

This is a good idea, but maybe I don't fully understand the principle from your quote. For me, the best system can be as follows: if we have e.g. 3 candidates, each voter ranks each candidate with 1-3 numbers, and rank 1 means 10, 2 means 5, 3 means 0. So this will be similar to the vote with scale I proposed, but the voter will be unable to choose 10 for one candidate and 0 for each of two others.
In my example in the op with A, B, C candidates, with this system, each of them will finally get 33%.

T Clark

This is a good idea, but maybe I don't fully understand the principle from your quote. — Linkey

The quote describes it simply and clearly and it's easy to understand. You should read it again.

It is quite unclear how to solve this problem; — Linkey

For me, the best system can be as follows: if we have e.g. 3 candidates, each voter ranks each candidate with 1-3 numbers, and rank 1 means 10, 2 means 5, 3 means 0. — Linkey

Why would we possibly bring in a new system when there is an existing one, ranked choice voting, that has been in use for a long time and works well?

Linkey

Why would we possibly bring in a new system when there is an existing one, ranked choice voting, that has been in use for a long time and works well? — T Clark

Probably there is no big difference, but I am not sure these two systems will always produce the same results. For me, the system I described is evidently optimal.

T Clark

Probably there is no big difference, but I am not sure these two systems will always produce the same results. For me, the system I described is evidently optimal. — Linkey

Millions of people in dozens of jurisdictions disagree with you.

Linkey

I'd like want to formulate my thoughts concerning the ranking vote again. If the voters have e.g. three candidates and the voting with the scale, it is possible that they will tend to vote "10 for one, 0 for two others". This vote seems selfish, and the state must try to fight the egoism of voters. If the ranking system is used. each voter will have to vote "10 for one, 5 for second, 0 for third"; and this distribution seems more fair for most cases; it represents a more common distribution of opinions. If there are not 3 candidates but e.g. 100, but most of them are spoilers, the ranking vote wil not help.

At the same time, for referendums, the ranking vote can't be used. I think that the voting with scale will be good for the referendums anyway, but the state must try to solve the problem of unfair voting (if a person votes 10 instead of 6).

Leontiskos

Do we get a referendum on what topics we have a referendum on? — unenlightened

:lol:

Hanover

↪Linkey

Can we vote to create a representational democracy where we have a House, a Senate, and a President so we no longer have to vote on everything personally?

Linkey

Can we vote to create a representational democracy where we have a House, a Senate, and a President so we no longer have to vote on everything personally? — Hanover

You have this "democracy" now, and in fact, the President and expesically the Senate use their powers for serving the financial aristocracy ("300 familities"), they have the full power and do not allow other people to become their competitorr; and it is becomes clear that smart people are not allowed to become presidents in US, because a smart president can become a threat for the power and money of these people.

BC

↪Linkey

No, we don't have a 'democracy' like the town meetings of New England. The devised a 'representational' system. Many of the founders were wealthy, and they didn't intend to set things up so that they could easily be dispossessed by the rabble (i.e., us). Yes, Virginia, there is a Ruling Class.

Intelligence is no bar to becoming president. "Brains' are no threat to the ruling class, because there are numerous safeguards protecting the interests of property--like law, the judiciary, the congress, the police, etc.

Is there any way for ordinary people to dispossess the rich of their wealth? Sure -- some sort of revolution. This has happened a few times. Societies operated for the convenience of wealthy people, however, discourage revolutionary thinking. It generally gets nipped in the bud, so to speak.

Have you investigated anarchy-syndicalism? There's a treatment of that in Monte Python and the Holy Grail. Here's a summary:

Monte Python specializes in the absurd, of course [long live absurdity!] but the peasants arguing with King Arthur have a serious point.

Hanover

You have this "democracy" now, and in fact, the President and expesically the Senate use their powers for serving the financial aristocracy ("300 familities"), they have the full power and do not allow other people to become their competitorr; and it is becomes clear that smart people are not allowed to become presidents in US, because a smart president can become a threat for the power and money of these people. — Linkey

My question was whether we could vote this system back in by referendum or whether you're limiting the power of referendum based democracy.

If you're limiting it, you're writing a constitution. I vote we write in the right to free speech.

T Clark

No, we don't have a 'democracy' like the town meetings of New England. — BC

I really like the idea of the town meeting and I've enjoyed participating. It can be inspiring and effective on a very small scale, i.e. a few hundred people. After that it becomes cumbersome and breaks down. I live in a town of about 14,000 people and the crowd at town meeting is usually a couple of hundred, although it's open to all registered voters. Is that direct democracy?

BC

↪T Clark

It's much more direct than your town electing representatives to meet and make decisions.

Somewhere, though, is a limit on how many people can practically meet together and make decisions. How many people make up a quorum? It would be very unrepresentative if only a handful showed up to a meeting to make decisions,

On the other hand, who is held responsible (later) for bad decisions? An elected assembly is in office long enough for bad decisions to sometimes come home to roost.

Referendum and initiative SOMETIMES lead to very bad law, and sometimes to very good law.

Proposition 13, 1978, capped property taxes, and allowed assessed value to change only when property was sold. According to the National Bureau for Economic Research:

Proposition 13, adopted by California voters in 1978, mandates a property tax rate of one percent, requires that properties be assessed at market value at the time of sale, and allows assessments to rise by no more than 2 percent per year until the next sale. This means that as long as property values increase by more than 2 percent per year, homeowners gain from remaining in the same house because their taxes are lower than they would be on a different house of the same value. Proposition 13 thus gives rise to a lock-in effect for owner-occupiers that strengthens over time. It also affects the rental market, both directly because it applies to landlords and indirectly because it reduces the turnover of owner-occupied homes.

Prop 13 was motivated by rapidly rising real estate taxes and taxes were reduced, but in the long run, Californians may have hurt themselves. Prop 13 had particularly negative consequences for education; k-12 is funded by local taxes. With tax revenue sharply reduced, the quality of k-12 education slid, reducing CA's rank from 18 to 42. In 1977-78, California spent 5.7 percent more on its public schools per pupil than the national average. By 1994-95, California spent 20 percent less.

One of the major problems in referendum and initiative is that much more HEAT than LIGHT is required to get a measure passed.

Hanover

Referendum and initiative SOMETIMES lead to very bad law, and sometimes to very good law. — BC

A referendum will capture the subjective preference of the majority at the moment, but whether a decision is good or not isn't always just a subjective question, but it's often something that can be assessed objectively. There's no reason to think the average half engaged voter will be better able to assess that than an elected representative.

T Clark

It's much more direct than your town electing representatives to meet and make decisions. — BC

When towns get to be a certain size, they do elect representatives to the town meeting by district.

How many people make up a quorum? — BC

Good question. I don't think there is a quorum. I'm not sure of that.

On the other hand, who is held responsible (later) for bad decisions? An elected assembly is in office long enough for bad decisions to sometimes come home to roost. — BC

There is also an elected board of selectmen and an unelected town manager who make the short term decisions. Town meeting mostly deals with budgets and other big issues.

T Clark

One of the major problems in referendum and initiative is that much more HEAT than LIGHT is required to get a measure passed. — BC

And this would be worsened a hundred-fold if the OP's plan for internet voting were implimented.

javi2541997

How many people make up a quorum? It would be very unrepresentative if only a handful showed up to a meeting to make decisions, — BC

Good question. I don't think there is a quorum. I'm not sure of that. — T Clark

What if we made it mandatory form a quorum with at least half of the possible attendees?

T Clark

What if we made it mandatory form a quorum with at least half of the possible attendees? — javi2541997

In my town, that would be about 4,000 people. As I noted, only about 200 choose to come.

BC

↪Hanover

Right. My wishy-washy statement about good and bad law by referendum is hereby retracted. A deliberative body (city council, county commissioners, legislatures, etc.) is ,ore likely to produce good results.

↪T Clark

I like the idea of town meetings making major decisions, like those the citizenry will pay for. The Yankees who had a large influence on the politics and culture of places in the upper midwest didn't bring town meetings with them. Maybe the ordinances of the Northwest Territories (shortly after the revolution) precluded town meetings. Don't know. Interesting question.

Citizens are asked to approve spending on public infrastructure, like schools, major water projects, sports facilities, and the like at regularly scheduled elections. In such instances, it seems like the public speaks pretty clearly and generally fairly thoughtfully.

What if we made it mandatory for a quorum with at least half of the possible attendees? — javi2541997

Even in a fairly small town with 1000 voters, 500 people showing up at a meeting would probably be an unwieldy number. It would take a highly divisive issue to get half of the voting public to appear at one time and place. Maybe a proposal to hold weekly drag queen story hours for pre-schoolers in the public school would get half the voters out. (That does sound like a stupid idea, but such things have been done.).

javi2541997

↪T Clark

and

↪BC

Interesting. So, one of the main issues regarding forming up a quorum or putting in practice "direct democracy" is that most people don't usually attend, as I expected.

I guess if most people choose not to assist, this could mean they are not very interested in taking part in decisions (or even vote), and I don't know whether this is positive or not. Forget my idea of making it mandatory. It is obvious that it will not help, and it will cause the opposite effect. Making the people not assist.

BC

his could mean they are not very interested in taking part in decisions — javi2541997

It might mean that. There are other possibilities:

a) practical problems like work, child care, bad weather, etc. may impede their participation
b) positively: perhaps they trust their neighbors to vote for the right thing
c) negatively: perhaps they are sure they will be outvoted
d) perhaps the meetings are tedious and long
e) perhaps the meetings seem to get predetermined results

In the US, 'precinct caucuses' are the first step in selecting candidates for elections. They are held in many locations--precincts are small voting areas) in the evening. The caucuses are run by the dominant political parties, and are more or less well managed. It's a good place to meet one's neighbors and one may pick up news on what one's neighbors are concerned about, politically.

But... precinct caucuses can also seem like an empty process, and a, b, c, d, and e above can all apply. I live in a very liberal precinct and my neighbors generally vote to my liking. Whether I am there, or not, doesn't seem to make much difference. Some of the locations have been very inconvenient for me to get to.

Still and all, direct participation in civic affairs is a good thing.

Vera Mont

A am sure that the best political system would be a “referendum democracy”: if an online referendum will be performed at least each week, and these referendums should cover not only laws, but also decisions within the competence of the judiciary power (fines and punishments). — Linkey

And who would set the question for this Friday? Do the voters get advance warning to inform themselves on the subject? It's not a lot of time to prepare. How would a new mandate be implemented, when, and by whom? Who owns the platform on which the voting takes place and how are votes tallied? What percent of the votes would it take to win, and would that be the same requirement for imposing a parking fine, changing a zoning regulation, eliminating/reinstating the death penalty and declaring war? What if the public mood shifts before the law goes into effect?

There is already a better system than this in place in a number of jurisdictions. It’s called ranked choice voting. — T Clark

Yes, that's a good one.
So is proportional representation.

Proportional representation is an electoral system that elects multiple representatives in each district in proportion to the number of people who vote for them. If one third of voters back a political party, the party’s candidates win roughly one-third of the seats. Today, proportional representation is the most common electoral system among the world’s democracies.

Neither could function with that crazy referendum thing going on. Direct virtual participation could only work if the government consisted of a supercomputer with lots of enforcer and expediter peripherals and veto power over the dumbest public gestures.

T Clark

Proportional representation is an electoral system that elects multiple representatives in each district in proportion to the number of people who vote for them. If one third of voters back a political party, the party’s candidates win roughly one-third of the seats. Today, proportional representation is the most common electoral system among the world’s democracies.

In the US Senate we have the opposite of this. Each state gets two senators, no matter what it's population. That means California, with 34 million people, gets the same number as North Dakota with 750,000. Something similar happens with our presidential elections - each state gets a slate of electors matching its number of senators and congressmen. Whoever gets the majority of votes in 49 of the states gets all the electors from that state. One state, Nebraska, has proportional representation for presidential electors.

Hanover

↪T Clark

I'd also add that even when we do divide the districts into equal numbers of voters, we divide the districts in a way to maximize power of one group or the other by gerrymandering.

An interesting instance in unit voting: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_unit_system

T Clark

An interesting instance in unit voting: — Hanover

As the article notes, it seems a lot like the electoral college system. I place both of them under the classification of “seemed like a good idea at the time.”

Linkey

And who would set the question for this Friday? Do the voters get advance warning to inform themselves on the subject? It's not a lot of time to prepare. How would a new mandate be implemented, when, and by whom? Who owns the platform on which the voting takes place and how are votes tallied? What percent of the votes would it take to win, and would that be the same requirement for imposing a parking fine, changing a zoning regulation, eliminating/reinstating the death penalty and declaring war? What if the public mood shifts before the law goes into effect? — Vera Mont

Some of your questions are trivial. Concerning the necessity to gather information before voting, I have an idea of using a lot: a group of 200 random people would be chosen, the state will give them the money for studiing the subject, and possbly they will vote instead of the whole population. This is one implementation of the "lottocracy", for me there are better ones, but they are more difficult for explaining.

T Clark

Some of your questions are trivial. Concerning the necessity to gather information before voting, I have an idea of using a lot: a group of 200 random people would be chosen, the state will give them the money for studiing the subject, and possbly they will vote instead of the whole population. This is one implementation of the "lottocracy", for me there are better ones, but they are more difficult for explaining. — Linkey

So somehow you’ve gone from hundreds of millions of people voting on laws to 200 people voting. I don’t think you’ve thought this through very well.

Linkey

So somehow you’ve gone from hundreds of millions of people voting on laws to 200 people voting. I don’t think you’ve thought this through very well. — T Clark

For me, a better solution would be as follows: these 200 people will perform a vote, also they can vote for spending some state money for creating a video illustrating their argues and decisions; and after the vote of these 200 people, all nation will vote on a referendum with the suggestion to simply accept the result created by these 200 people. If the referendum will be rejected - a usual voting for all nation is performed.

Hanover

As the article notes, it seems a lot like the electoral college system. I place both of them under the classification of “seemed like a good idea at the time.” — T Clark

I agree with their similiar structures, but I'd say the Georgia unit system was more openly nefarious than the electoral college. Georgia's was created to stem the growing power of metro Atlanta and the decreasing power of the historical racist ruling class.

The electoral college was created as a compromise between having Congress elect the President and a direct democracy, with no other nation at the time electing the President directly. It was based upon distrust of the Chief executive. You can argue it has done nothing to control the power of the President and that it does nothing other than to change the way voting works in the US, but it hasn't predictably helped one group over another. It's just a strange way the game gets played.

What I like about it is that my vote really matters and no one cares about yours. Massachusetts is a slam dunk for Harris, but Georgia is a swing state. Everyone is begging for my vote, but yours is a given and so you don't get dozens of fliers in your mailbox every week.

“Referendum democracy” and the Condorcet theorem

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions