Bravo. Effecting choices is integral to our being human. So, I am surprised you did NOT write about our voting system, Stephen, because this is the instrument that makes our choices effective. But first one more compliment, because you articulate yourself in an excellent manner otherwise.
There are two forms of democracy, and District Voting leaves the voter with far less control over their own government making choices than voters in Proportional Voting.
I may have pointed this out before that voters have about twice as much control in Proportional Voting than what we have in the USA.
The example:
In 2006, I calculated the number of voters that voted for US Senators. On average, almost 60% of the voters picked the ones sitting in the seats, meaning 40% of the voters did not. Compared to the absolute minimum required (50% plus one vote), this 60% is a reasonable outcome.
In Proportional Voting, however, and with my using the same number of 100 seats, 99.01% of the voters can point to the person or party they handpicked themselves sitting in the seats. This is the minimum number, and the difference is therefore an improvement of 49,01% over the minimum in our voting system.
And that has major implications for the amount of control we exert on our government making choices, and therefore in effect our choices.
When our representatives make a decision, this is often a Minority Decision because we apply Majority Rule twice.
0.6 x 0.6 = 0.36. If the US Senators follow the filibuster rule, then their being elected by 60% of the voters means in reality that only 36 percent of the voters are in support of these decisions. Even if we want to state that those that did not receive their choice in a seat can find their political colors via other seats, then we must recognize the mechanism itself still that cuts away voter effectiveness in district voting. In the tug-of-war between voters and government, District Voting hands the government far more power than in Proportional Voting.
When 40% of the voters are not seated at the table of decision making, then the decisions made at that table will be capable of ignoring that group; these representatives are not dependent on those that did not deliver them the win. There is an enormous ignorant aspect contained within our voting system; not something a good writer like yourself should ignore.
In District Voting we are engaged in a single round of divide-and-conquer first, meaning we as voters are slashed once and only then are we given our ‘representatives.’ It is a form of separate-but-equal, occurring once, with our being captivated in districts, and it should not be allowed.
It is therefore astonishing that you do not mention the voting system, Stephen. It has far more reach than discussing the specific beliefs or ethics at stake, I hope you agree. If we can't be represented for who we are, then the game in place has more control over us than anything else. We vote with both our eyes wide open, but in the results we can see that One-Eye controls the land.
There is no game in Proportional Voting. Pro-portional means that if there is a 10% portion of the population that votes Libertarian, then that same portion of 10% of the seats will be occupied by Libertarians. In some nations, the Libertarian Party is the largest party.
Clearly, that result is not possible in the USA because our two Cronuses eat all the babies before they are mature. Where is our Zeus?
THE libertarian ideal is violated in the USA because we are not free in voting for who we want to vote for because our votes are slashed in a game of winner-take-all first. Other nations do not suffer from this governmental overreach. Nations such as Germany and France have our system, too, but they added a single layer of Proportional Voting to the mix. We can do the same.
Can I politely ask that next time you discuss Justice that you have a big fat finger pointing at the system that restricts us in districts?
Thank you for an otherwise excellent article.
