Journal Journal: Voting Stuff
The problem is that there are so many levels on which it is flawed. The first problem is that even if you find a perfect counting mechanism, you have to ensure that there won't be meddling. So the blackboxvoting.com thing is really important. Second is that all this talk about theoretical problems with vote counting methods is stupid, because they all make the assumption that every voter feels - to an equal degree - that they have a candidate that represents them. When large percentages of the voters don't feel represented they'll pick arbitrarily.
After all that, if votes are counted accurately and people's desires are reflected accurately, it begs the question of if that's what we really want? People vote after being manipulated or not being educated properly about the issues. What if we could all assign where our money would go in tax revenue? I'm not sure what would happen but I bet it would be a mess.
Which is what brings us back to republican democracy. We're not voting on issues, we're voting on candidates that we are sure will represent our beliefs and then do the intelligent thing. But then they enter a culture where they are not rewarded for going for consensus, but to backstab each other into going for 51-49 votes.
It all leads me to wondering if with new technology it might be possible to put an aggressive system into place that would require people to move towards consensus. Rather than adding pork to a bill, it would slice bills apart to find elements that everyone agrees upon, and pass them piecemeal.
