Comments on: Recounts

By: Nicholas Weininger

Nicholas Weininger — Sat, 14 Feb 2004 16:52:13 +0000

Ken MacLeod has, in one of his more recent books (_Dark Light_, I think, but it might be Cosmonaut Keep), a very nice exploration of how a choose-officials-by-lots system might work, complete with the line: “Elections are so undemocratic”.

By: raj

raj — Sat, 14 Feb 2004 12:29:17 +0000

One clear problem regarding counting votes in the US is that, in an election, the occupant of virtually every office is subject to the whim of the electorate. Moreover, there are often more than a few referenda. All on the same ballot. In one country with which I am familiar, Germany, when one goes to vote, one votes for the occupant of one office. I haven’t heard of any referenda there. That makes vote counting relatively simple.

By: Matt McG

Matt McG — Sat, 14 Feb 2004 09:24:29 +0000

It's an interesting point. I've thought a few times about the possibility of selecting democratic representatives at random. It seems the logical conclusion if one believes that who politicians are matters as well as what they represent. [For example, the plausible claims that are often made that our parliament ought to have more women in it... which is sometimes backed up by deliberate selection policies for candidates.] More here on this: Glaikit Feartie: Voting

By: sennoma

sennoma — Sat, 14 Feb 2004 03:04:11 +0000

It’s how we pick juries after all Offtopic a bit: not if my wife’s recent experience with jury duty is any indication, it’s not. Prospective jurors might be randomly chosen, but then some pretty heavy selecting-for-desired-qualities takes place.

By: Glen

Glen — Sat, 14 Feb 2004 00:53:06 +0000

Your parenthetical comment about selecting candidates by lot got me thinking about an alternative scheme: selecting voters by lot. See my post here.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Fri, 13 Feb 2004 22:36:22 +0000

This computer voting thing is going to be a mess.