[ExI] elections again; was [Time Magazine: Person of the Year: Putin(!),my vote instead:Anna Politkovskaja]
stefano.vaj at gmail.com
Sat Dec 29 01:20:20 UTC 2007
On 12/28/07, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> Thanks J. Andrew, this I cheerfully recognize. There is a lot of game
> theory involved in national elections. Paradoxes abound. For instance
> assume there are elections between mauves and taupes. Assume a person is
> mauve to the core. She realizes her choice in the primaries appears safe
> (or hopelessly lost, either way.) Game theory suggests she should register
> as a taupe, then vote for the least electable candidate of the bunch.
Mmhhh, this is really very American. First, in many countries there no
primaries. Second, a system where the number of elected officers (say,
parliament members) were not proportional to the number of people who
voted for them countrywide would be considered as a "rigged" system.
Third, limiting the money the candidates can invest in their campaigns
would be considered as an infringement of their freedom to compete as
best as they can. Fourth, a choice between only two self-perpetuating
parties that have very limited differences in their views on the
political regime to be adopted or maintained would be considered as
fairly restrictive. Fifth, what about direct democracy?
Let us accept that elections are a better method in most cases to
renew officers than duels, hereditary monarchy or ordalic judgments,
and put all the other fancy ideas at rest.
More information about the extropy-chat