Source
r/Libertarian•
Strangering

What's wrong with direct election?

This tanked in politicaldiscussion for suspect reasons. I'm curious to see what specifically libertarian people think of it.

Imagine this system: at election time, the director of the election sends each voter a postcard. On this postcard, the voter writes in the name and address of his chosen candidate. Then, on election day, those candidates who hold the most of these postcards are chosen as the members of government. Those who have more postcards than they need to be elected can share theirs to bring in persons who didn't quite make the cut, and those who don't have enough can pool their votes with another individual to get one of them into government.

This way, every voter will make a vote of pure conscience and elect only those that truly represent their interests.

The chosen candidates will then meet in an assembly and then elect an executive from their members to administer the affairs of the state, and possibly fire this government when it loses the confidence of the assembly.

Now, this will almost certainly lead to a lot of 'nutty' candidates who hold bizarre beliefs concerning very specific topics, but these candidates are certainly able to make competent decisions over the state's budget, and as representatives of a sufficiently large segment of the population they are entitled to. Those niche issues that do need reform would have a solid block lobbying in its favor permanently, until they could gather the necessary majority to reform the law.

Posted Aug 28, 2012, 12:39 PM UTC

048
cavilier210minarchist•

I wouldn't support this method of electing anyone. All you have here is a popularity contest where the MOST popular can then share that popularity, thus infringing on the wishes of another electorate who's most popular choice is now less popular than the guy who had surplus popularity.

So unless you can somehow show me how this isn't just another form of a popularity/beauty contest, I don't see why anyone should support such an electoral system.

Also, there's the inherent problem that the masses could potentially force a person into government service over that persons wishes.

What we have now is far better. A group of volunteers who willfully compete in a competition to govern a people, via earning their consent by vote (in the case of local and state elections) and by the electoral college (for president).

5
StrangeringOP•

Also, there's the inherent problem that the masses could potentially force a person into government service over that persons wishes.

No one will be forced to serve. I explicitly allowed for candidates to transfer their votes to someone who will stand in their place.

0
cavilier210minarchist•

Which I also addressed. So your allowing the most popular guy to then appoint someone without the consent of the people who will be represented.

1
StrangeringOP•

Your objection is meaningless. If people did not want a stand-in candidate as their representative, they could vote for someone less popular.

-2
cavilier210minarchist•

Except you've said absolutley nothing about that option.

Lets go over the process you outlined.

  • the secretary of state mails "postcards" to every voter in the state, and they are sent back with the voters pick of their chosen candidate. No restrictions have been mentioned by you. All you've said that the voters choose somebody.

the director of the election sends each voter a postcard. On this postcard, the voter writes in the name and address of his chosen candidate.

  • Then on election day the results are revealed, giving no opportunity for someone to opt out, because they have no idea they're in the running in the first place.

Then, on election day, those candidates who hold the most of these postcards are chosen as the members of government.

  • Those who have more than they need can just hand over their surplus to another person they pick.

Those who have more postcards than they need to be elected can share theirs to bring in persons who didn't quite make the cut,

  • Then the ones who aren't popular enough can pool their "votes" to get someone who may have been the least popular to the voters themselves to be placed into government.

and those who don't have enough can pool their votes with another individual to get one of them into government.

  • You claim that since this is a vote of pure conscience, anyone can vote for anyone else. In reality this would be anyone can vote for whoever they like the most.

This way, every voter will make a vote of pure conscience and elect only those that truly represent their interests.

  • And then you go on to essentially describe a parlimentary system of governance, with the executive appointed by popular vote of the parliament.

The chosen candidates will then meet in an assembly and then elect an executive from their members to administer the affairs of the state, and possibly fire this government when it loses the confidence of the assembly.

So, what we have here is a mess of an election system, where the people are removed from the election of their commander-in-chief and head-of-state. A parliament of one group of people solely voted on via popularity contest.

So, my objections are completely valid.

Don't come here asking for criticism if your going to act like no one knows what your talking about. Your idea here honestly sucks more than any psuedo democratic system I've ever seen.

If you think my objections are meaningless due to your inability to completely describe the idea in its entirety, that's on you. You haven't described at all how these people become eligible to be elected. You haven't addressed any possible concerns of equal representation. Or even the powers of your complete new structure of the government. For all know, your describing a pure democracy with a puppet figurehead as an executive, who has absolutley no power and purpose besides waving his hand to the people as he passes by.

So address the concerns, or GTFO.

Edit: I decided to use a US states structure to describe some of this, as I'm more familiar with my states system where it would be applicable (Secretary of state for instance).

1
mfwitten•

Democracy involves forcing one person's opinion on another, which is exactly what a dictatorship is all about.

The essence of the virtue of moving from a dictatorship to a democracy is that it is a step away from a centralized power structure toward a decentralized, localized power structure. When you take it to the limit, you end up with libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism—society that is an emergent phenomenon engendered by voluntary contracts between each pair of individuals

Society, like everything else of complexity in the Universe, must evolve. The process of evolution is what we call the combination of the process of variation and the process of selection. These processes are the most robust under decentralized, localized power structures; indeed, a centralized power structure—by its very nature—tends to quash variation and restrict selective forces in order to inhibit competition with its monopoly.

5
StrangeringOP•

This is a criticism of statism, but it says nothing about the mode of ownership and administration of the state.

Is the party system preferable to direct election to you?

2
mfwitten•

it says nothing about the mode of ownership and administration of the state.

It says that your question is a waste of time, because the real question is this:

  • What is government?

Any organization—any organization at all—that confiscates resources by threat of strike-first violence is a "governmental" organization. When one such organization becomes a monopoly, we call that organization "Government".

Government is simply a bad company that doesn't go out of business because it is able to confiscate your resources by threat of violence; it doesn't give you the goods and services for which you personally think you are paying, but you have to pay them anyway—it's totally absurd and unconscionable; it is a violation of the NAP.

It is not a modern value to coerce resources from people by threat of violence. So, in fact, centralized Big Governments are actually the last barbaric vestige of our pre-modern civilization. We don't want or even need governmental organizations.

3
StrangeringOP•

I'm not posing this as a question of government but one of administration. Any non-government organization has the same ownership issues, and so would your favored system.

2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
mfwitten•

Any non-government organization has the same ownership issues, and so would your favored system.

Central Planning does NOT work. A particular organization will evolve a particular.... well... organization.... under the Free Market; it will be more effective than any would-be Intelligent Designer could hope for.

0
choplatepuddin•

r/Anarcho_Capitalism seems to be quite a bit like your views, you might want to take a look if you haven't already.

1
mfwitten•

Here.

2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
[deleted]•

the problem with direct election, at least in my opinion, is size. the ancient greek city states where direct democracy was used were very small in terms of population and land area compared to today, and had tiny voting populations(land owning males). That is a far cry from the US, having 300 million citizens about half of whom are eligible voters, and covering over 3 million square miles. in Athens, all the voters could be assembled in one place and they could vote. In the US, there is no way to practically do that without spending an absolute ton of money and having quite a bit of corruption. direct democracy and direct election are unfortunately just not practical today

3
StrangeringOP•

I am not talking about direct democracy, but representation by direct election of the representative (no intermediates in the form of parties or districts).

1
[deleted]•

i figured that by direct election you meant election without representatives(electoral college) or voting without representatives. direct election does not necessarily involve parties or districts. districts are simply for organization, so people know where to go to cast their votes, and parties would exist whether or not we had direct elections or direct democracy, because they are a group of like-minded people who come together over a broad platform of issues.

EDIT: Added some stuff

1
Joakal•

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

2
StrangeringOP•

That's a scam.

1
Joakal•

Enlighten me?

3
StrangeringOP•

Beginning in the early 19th century, political parties seized power from electors and their representatives and then began to consolidate it. PR concludes this process by giving total control to the parties over the members of government.

Under district-based elections, a candidate who falls out of favor with his party, but is still a legitimate representative of some electors, can switch sides or run as an independent and continue to fulfill his duty. Under PR, the party whips would hold absolute power over them: not only do you have to do what the party says and vote the way the party does, but we decide how high or low on the list your candidacy will be next time.

Parties are institutions that are corrupt and need to be destroyed. PR gives them ultimate power.

3
hemingsoftOppose tyranny in all forms, be it government or corporate•

I don't believe that the concept of parties can ever be eliminated from politics. Anytime several people find that they agree on key points, they will try to form a coalition regardless of the voting procedure.

Regardless, could you clarify which government officials are elected this way? Congressmen, Senators?

5
sinfultrigonometryRaggedTrouseredPhilanthropist•

It's a double edged sword. PR in Scotland has allowed independents and minor parties to get into office.

The drawback is that the parties really get too much power over who represents them. For example, in last years election the Scottish minister who released the Lockerbie bomber was at the top his party's list in region they dominated. He was basically guaranteed a seat and never had to go round a constituency explaining why he released a convicted terrorist.

4
rcglinsk•

Easy fix. Instead of voting for a party, you vote for a list of 50 candidates, and anyone can supply any list they like. Yes, some people still vote for the party's list, but they can swap out names they don't like. The party list is just there for voters to coordinate strategy.

0
BackOffTurkey•

That's a terrible idea.Not only is it mob rule. But once you vote for someone they can simply hand the vote to someone else. That system would quickly and easily be abused.

2
cavilier210minarchist•

OP thinks this criticism is meaningless apparently. I said the same thing.

3
Krackorcryptoanarchy•

I'm not sure I see how this would be functionally much different from our current system. True, no one is cooking up a pre-made ballot with the "official" candidates listed on it, but the results would still be a popularity contest. Political parties would form to attract voters with the most mainstream-friendly views. They would still hold caucuses and primaries to select the "official" candidate. The only difference is that the constraints of the ballot would be dictated by popularity in the minds of the public rather than by whoever printed off the ballot cards.

Of course, it depends a lot on where you set your threshold for elected candidates. Does each candidate only need 5 votes or 50 million votes? If it's 5 votes, then we'd probably see more diversity in elected representatives, but we'd probably also have a legislature size on the order of 1/10th of the population, which aside from making it difficult for the legislature to get anything done (which might be a good thing!) would also be a massive drain on the public's productive workforce. If it's 50 million votes, then we'd probably see a two/three-party hegemony emerge.

2
StrangeringOP•

The only difference is that the constraints of the ballot would be dictated by popularity in the minds of the public rather than by whoever printed off the ballot cards.

I find that to be much better.

1
Krackorcryptoanarchy•

I also think that the popularity in the minds of the public would be somewhat dictated by the party officials. If the Presidential ballot showed up blank in November, most people would still write in Romney or Obama.

1
[deleted]•

Won't people buy and sell these postcards? What about faking them? I guess in a perfect world it could be done electronically and securely, but it doesn't seem completely feasible in that regard.

People will want to maximize their voting power in this system just like in the current one. They won't just send it to a middleman, they would want to send it to someone who could actually end up winning. Parties serve the purpose of letting people know you have a large amount of support, so they would soon naturally form. I believe them to be an inescapable part of representational democracy. Your proposed system is still subject to Duverger's law, which tells us that it will likely end up with two parties, although these parties would likely be more emergent than the ones we see today.

Maybe I'm missing the point, but I don't see any real outcome changes coming from this system.

1
StrangeringOP•

Your proposed system is still subject to Duverger's law, which tells us that it will likely end up with two parties, although these parties would likely be more emergent than the ones we see today.

I'm not sure I see how this law applies. From my understanding, it only applies in a winner-takes-all, simple majority system.

1
[deleted]•

I guess it would depend on the amount of votes needed to enter the government. I don't think this system has really been studied AFAIK, so I'm just looking for voter incentives. Upon another read of your explanation it seems like Duverger's law might not really fit, but the outcome could be similar depending on the specifics.

If the bar is set relatively high, voter incentive would be to flock to ultra-popular candidates who would then give out their extra votes to their cronies, thus creating a small number of parties. If it is low, then you could see more parties. It seems where the bar is set is of utmost importance.

1