matt.msg at gmail.com
Mon Dec 27 20:20:51 GMT 2021
There is a difference between having a vote with two or more options
considered good, a vote with two or more options where some are good and
some are awful, and a vote with all the options being awful.
Just as inherited kingship wasn't established because it produced good
decision-making, but because it avoided the costs of warlords fighting over
kingship, voting hasn't become the standard because it produces good
Figuring out what terribly costly things voting avoids is a good skeptical
Matt "here's a hint: it's not better than any other system ever tried" G.
On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 11:13 PM Pouncer via Lois-Bujold <
lois-bujold at lists.herald.co.uk> wrote:
> Howard Brazee suggests:
> >When people vote for other reasons than for what they think is
> >best, we have problems.
> In general politics, "the best" is an individual concept,
> while the community must make do with "tolerable". It's not
> unlike Caz's observation about judges at courts. Half the
> people who arrive at court, leave it disappointed. Even a
> lunch menu -- in the marketplace I can buy a burger and you
> can buy a taco and we both get our personal "best"; when
> the public school cafeteria is planning the day's menu for
> the hundreds, it will be rare that any of us gets what we
> prefer as "best". It's why minimizing the scope of issues
> to be decided by vote is desirable.
> We have Miles orchestrating the vote among Counts in the
> questions regarding Dono and Rene. Setting aside Lady
> Alys's contributions, the techniques Miles lays out
> demonstrate what we in my peculiar jurisdiction and jargon
> call "log rolling". I will vote with DONO not because
> I think Dono best, but in exchange for your vote and
> preference regarding RENE. The color-coded overlay shows
> where we have voters solidly "against us" on two issues,
> already solid "for us", and the group with divided opinions
> who must be lobbied to flip. Trading votes on separate
> issues makes it obvious but more often the less obvious
> tactic is to roll up several issues into one omnibus
> vehicle. Imagine the "Feed Orphans, Paint Flagpoles, and Outlaw
> Pornography" Act: FOPFOP. A voter indifferent to parts
> of the package may even so find those provisions tolerable,
> to be favorably voted out along with the one desired
> best intention. But yes, voting in favor of all the other,
> "not the best" stuff does tend to accumulate awfulness.
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> Lois-Bujold mailing list message sent to matt.msg at gmail.com
> Lois-Bujold at lists.herald.co.uk
More information about the Lois-Bujold