As a former election commissioner (Cambridge, MA), long-time (or some-time) advocate for PR, and perpetual student of elections, law, and government, I am impressed with your book so far, and to answer your specific question, I think you should include all of chapter 4. The reason being that most of your observations confirm mine, which are quite cynical about the possibilities for reform, and I appreciate that you or your sources nicely de-bunk most of the proposals that are intended to save us. What I think is my bottom line is that turnout in most elections is a function of the candidates and/or the issues, and appeals to civic duty and ease of voting, among other proposals, will not work. And the turnout in elections stimulated by candidates or issues is not necessarily a good thing, as these seem to be driven by slogans, single issues, advertising, smear, fear, or other non-constructive forces.
I obviously cannot respond to all of your work without trying to write a book of my own, but there is one thought that has occurred to me recently that you briefly touch upon, the idea that special interests can effectively buy a politician with targeted donations. Back at the turn of the last century, the left, liberals, progressives, whatever they might be called, were dismayed by the numerous rulings of the Supreme Court that eventually went under the name "substantive due process," and threw out much pro-labor legislation. These were denounced as anti-democratic and based on interpretations of the Constitution that had no basis in the text. When the Court eventually switched to a pro-labor, pro-democracy regime in the mid-1930s, substantive due process was denounced. However, now it has returned, this time favoring the left. In both eras, the idea was that government had not "stayed in its lane" and it was up to the Court to create rights (out of the due process clause, usually), to bring it back to the proper role of government in a democracy/republic. Thus we got the legitimization of business or labor fighting for their interests in elections and buying representatives with either money or union support. In the current era, it is money and mobilizing culture war groups. I can't see how this can be avoided -- presumably democracy means our legislators should address our collective problems, whether they are a $15 minimum wage or bans on abortions -- but it has certainly affected the political process in ways you have described.
George, I remember relying on your experience back when I was helping implement ranked choice voting in Burlington, Vermont a couple of decades ago... hoping to move towards Cambridge-style PR. My next posts both talk up PR, but fundamentally bemoan its inadequacy for a true democracy. Any reactions you have to the next two posts will be particularly interesting.
Just finished listening and reading this chapter. I also think it should all be included in the book. It so goes with the title (the trouble with elections)! Even though it focuses on the US, there are several references to other countries, and in any case, the conclusions you come to affect the premise of the book and will help with the alternative you’re going to outline later. Please keep it in!
There are again some English errors in here, but I have figured out that putting them in text comments like these is too burdensome. Better to use word-processing and editing software or techniques to point out English errors. I’d be happy to do that with the text you’ve released so far and send it to you separately.
Finally, I think you mention none of the above reforms but don’t delve into them in detail. This might be the only reform that could actually work. I think the biggest problem with elections is that the candidates chosen to compete in the final election are generally not people with ideas that are representative of the vast majority and also reasonable. Even with rational ignorance, most slates of candidates I think would be beaten by none of the above, forcing a do over with new candidates. Or is there evidence against this view?
Bob, Can you copy and paste the whole document into a Google Doc, then use "Suggesting" rather than editing to make the changes you see needing to be made? For the final paper book I am maintaining a separate set of documents that have the cleaned up versions of each post.
I enjoyed reading this long but informative takedown of voting reforms, because it made me realize I haven’t put the time into thinking critically about their efficacy.
If you do include this in the book, I think you need to provide a concluding paragraph or paragraphs which sum up the reforms you just wrote about in the chapter. It was confusing for me to end the chapter on market voting reforms, rather than to remind the reader what you had just explained to them. Since it is a dense chapter, I felt I needed a recap of what the reforms were and a 1 sentence description for why they would not be effective.
Yes, I agree that it needs a conclusion. Originally it went on to include a section on proportional representation (PR) reform, which DOES have a bit of a conclusion for the whole reform chapter. That PR section is now designated chapter 5, and will be coming in two emails shortly... but it is too short to be a chapter of its own... so I am now leaning towards putting it back with chapter 4, but making the WHOLE THING an appendix for the paper book, rather than a chapter.... not sure.
I think this section on more well-known reforms should be left where it is. It is a thorough take down of the adequacy of election-based reforms. I think it really helps to make the case that sortition based reforms are worth trying, despite perceived risks and unfamiliarity.
Hello, Terry.
As a former election commissioner (Cambridge, MA), long-time (or some-time) advocate for PR, and perpetual student of elections, law, and government, I am impressed with your book so far, and to answer your specific question, I think you should include all of chapter 4. The reason being that most of your observations confirm mine, which are quite cynical about the possibilities for reform, and I appreciate that you or your sources nicely de-bunk most of the proposals that are intended to save us. What I think is my bottom line is that turnout in most elections is a function of the candidates and/or the issues, and appeals to civic duty and ease of voting, among other proposals, will not work. And the turnout in elections stimulated by candidates or issues is not necessarily a good thing, as these seem to be driven by slogans, single issues, advertising, smear, fear, or other non-constructive forces.
I obviously cannot respond to all of your work without trying to write a book of my own, but there is one thought that has occurred to me recently that you briefly touch upon, the idea that special interests can effectively buy a politician with targeted donations. Back at the turn of the last century, the left, liberals, progressives, whatever they might be called, were dismayed by the numerous rulings of the Supreme Court that eventually went under the name "substantive due process," and threw out much pro-labor legislation. These were denounced as anti-democratic and based on interpretations of the Constitution that had no basis in the text. When the Court eventually switched to a pro-labor, pro-democracy regime in the mid-1930s, substantive due process was denounced. However, now it has returned, this time favoring the left. In both eras, the idea was that government had not "stayed in its lane" and it was up to the Court to create rights (out of the due process clause, usually), to bring it back to the proper role of government in a democracy/republic. Thus we got the legitimization of business or labor fighting for their interests in elections and buying representatives with either money or union support. In the current era, it is money and mobilizing culture war groups. I can't see how this can be avoided -- presumably democracy means our legislators should address our collective problems, whether they are a $15 minimum wage or bans on abortions -- but it has certainly affected the political process in ways you have described.
George Goverman
George, I remember relying on your experience back when I was helping implement ranked choice voting in Burlington, Vermont a couple of decades ago... hoping to move towards Cambridge-style PR. My next posts both talk up PR, but fundamentally bemoan its inadequacy for a true democracy. Any reactions you have to the next two posts will be particularly interesting.
Good to hear from you. Keep up the good work. I look forward to reading them.
George
Just finished listening and reading this chapter. I also think it should all be included in the book. It so goes with the title (the trouble with elections)! Even though it focuses on the US, there are several references to other countries, and in any case, the conclusions you come to affect the premise of the book and will help with the alternative you’re going to outline later. Please keep it in!
There are again some English errors in here, but I have figured out that putting them in text comments like these is too burdensome. Better to use word-processing and editing software or techniques to point out English errors. I’d be happy to do that with the text you’ve released so far and send it to you separately.
Finally, I think you mention none of the above reforms but don’t delve into them in detail. This might be the only reform that could actually work. I think the biggest problem with elections is that the candidates chosen to compete in the final election are generally not people with ideas that are representative of the vast majority and also reasonable. Even with rational ignorance, most slates of candidates I think would be beaten by none of the above, forcing a do over with new candidates. Or is there evidence against this view?
By the way, you can share such a Google Doc with me at the email I use to post each portion terrybour@gmail.com
Ok. I’ll try it. Thanks.
Bob, Can you copy and paste the whole document into a Google Doc, then use "Suggesting" rather than editing to make the changes you see needing to be made? For the final paper book I am maintaining a separate set of documents that have the cleaned up versions of each post.
I enjoyed reading this long but informative takedown of voting reforms, because it made me realize I haven’t put the time into thinking critically about their efficacy.
If you do include this in the book, I think you need to provide a concluding paragraph or paragraphs which sum up the reforms you just wrote about in the chapter. It was confusing for me to end the chapter on market voting reforms, rather than to remind the reader what you had just explained to them. Since it is a dense chapter, I felt I needed a recap of what the reforms were and a 1 sentence description for why they would not be effective.
Yes, I agree that it needs a conclusion. Originally it went on to include a section on proportional representation (PR) reform, which DOES have a bit of a conclusion for the whole reform chapter. That PR section is now designated chapter 5, and will be coming in two emails shortly... but it is too short to be a chapter of its own... so I am now leaning towards putting it back with chapter 4, but making the WHOLE THING an appendix for the paper book, rather than a chapter.... not sure.
I think this section on more well-known reforms should be left where it is. It is a thorough take down of the adequacy of election-based reforms. I think it really helps to make the case that sortition based reforms are worth trying, despite perceived risks and unfamiliarity.