It would appear that many of these problems would be circumnavigated, if voters were permitted to save their votes. In the case that none of the candidates were to my liking, I could then save up my vote for any forthcoming election. When, after a 50 years of waiting, I am finally offered a candidate of my liking, I may then have an opportunity to spend all 50 of my votes at once (great for minorities who are never offered a meaningful choice.)
A system based upon non expiring votes would likely be sufficiently unpredictable to discourage strategic voting (manipulation), as the total number of votes cast in any one election is variable. This could be extended to different types of election; perhaps, an initial equal allocation of 10 votes per year each, to be cast on any election of my choice, whenever I choose. I might just get to spend all of my 500 votes, saved up from 50 years of not voting for local and regional representatives, on a referendum to make one meaningful change to the system itself.
Sorry, this is a hobby horse of mine: the goods market offers bountiful choice, but unfairly allocates the number of spendable votes; the political market fairly allocates the number of votes, but never offers any choice of when and what these may be spent on. Does not appear that either system is democratic in any meaningful sense.
One problem with this system is that it can violate the “non-dictatorship” criteria for fairness, since a single voter (or small group of allied voters) could strategically withhold votes during potential landslide elections and spend them during close elections. With the right maneuvering among a well-organized block of voters, I could imagine a situation where the system becomes a perpetual minority rule.
Votes can not be counted more than once, and every vote counts (according to the voter.) As all voters have an equal opportunity to withhold or spend votes—how can this be unfair?
In current systems, a minority voter may never be offered a candidate worth a vote—all such votes don’t count (according to the voter.) This is clearly unfair, and has only an appearance of proportional representation.
With the right maneuvering among a well-organized block of voters, I could imagine a situation where the system becomes a perpetual minority rule.
And this does not happen now?
This is likely the reason for low turn outs in many elections—the voters simply do not care.
That’s just the problem. It does happen now, in a system where everyone is throttled at only one vote to spend per election. In a system where you can withhold that vote till another election, increasing the power of your vote over time, it only exacerbates this behavior.
Is the better fairness on a micro level worth the trade-off of lesser fairness on a macro level?
Downside is there would be a lot more bookkeeping involved, and a powerful incentive to compromise the secret ballot. Someone with a lot of “none of the above” votes saved up is obviously not a fan of the current government, and willing to stockpile resources toward an attempt to overthrow it, but has no actual elected representatives in that government. If some legislator proposed a program to monitor potential domestic terrorists with a level of scrutiny proportional to the cube of the suspect’s reserved votes, who would oppose that program?
There are numerous systems of verifiable secret ballot, for example this one.
Why should those whom are not ‘fans’ of any current member of the ruling regime, never be offered a meaningful vote? That is the point of non expiring votes, that minorities will have representation at least some of the time. The fundamental test of any democracy, is whether the incumbent regime can be peacefully overthrown.
It would appear that many of these problems would be circumnavigated, if voters were permitted to save their votes. In the case that none of the candidates were to my liking, I could then save up my vote for any forthcoming election. When, after a 50 years of waiting, I am finally offered a candidate of my liking, I may then have an opportunity to spend all 50 of my votes at once (great for minorities who are never offered a meaningful choice.)
A system based upon non expiring votes would likely be sufficiently unpredictable to discourage strategic voting (manipulation), as the total number of votes cast in any one election is variable. This could be extended to different types of election; perhaps, an initial equal allocation of 10 votes per year each, to be cast on any election of my choice, whenever I choose. I might just get to spend all of my 500 votes, saved up from 50 years of not voting for local and regional representatives, on a referendum to make one meaningful change to the system itself.
Sorry, this is a hobby horse of mine: the goods market offers bountiful choice, but unfairly allocates the number of spendable votes; the political market fairly allocates the number of votes, but never offers any choice of when and what these may be spent on. Does not appear that either system is democratic in any meaningful sense.
One problem with this system is that it can violate the “non-dictatorship” criteria for fairness, since a single voter (or small group of allied voters) could strategically withhold votes during potential landslide elections and spend them during close elections. With the right maneuvering among a well-organized block of voters, I could imagine a situation where the system becomes a perpetual minority rule.
Votes can not be counted more than once, and every vote counts (according to the voter.) As all voters have an equal opportunity to withhold or spend votes—how can this be unfair?
In current systems, a minority voter may never be offered a candidate worth a vote—all such votes don’t count (according to the voter.) This is clearly unfair, and has only an appearance of proportional representation.
And this does not happen now?
This is likely the reason for low turn outs in many elections—the voters simply do not care.
That’s just the problem. It does happen now, in a system where everyone is throttled at only one vote to spend per election. In a system where you can withhold that vote till another election, increasing the power of your vote over time, it only exacerbates this behavior.
Is the better fairness on a micro level worth the trade-off of lesser fairness on a macro level?
Downside is there would be a lot more bookkeeping involved, and a powerful incentive to compromise the secret ballot. Someone with a lot of “none of the above” votes saved up is obviously not a fan of the current government, and willing to stockpile resources toward an attempt to overthrow it, but has no actual elected representatives in that government. If some legislator proposed a program to monitor potential domestic terrorists with a level of scrutiny proportional to the cube of the suspect’s reserved votes, who would oppose that program?
There are numerous systems of verifiable secret ballot, for example this one.
Why should those whom are not ‘fans’ of any current member of the ruling regime, never be offered a meaningful vote? That is the point of non expiring votes, that minorities will have representation at least some of the time. The fundamental test of any democracy, is whether the incumbent regime can be peacefully overthrown.