John,
I participate in a number of these lists. At least one of them is as internationally
based as this one, all are close. This is the *only* list where this topic of
discussion has been questioned. The others are using it for good purpose.
Don
"Norman K. McPhail" wrote:
> John:
>
> I've been trying really hard to convey some important political ideas
> that also have a direct bearing on some of the modeling issues we're
> interested in. In a way, once a person gets the hang of navigating
> these political waters, it's easy to transfer the skills towards a much
> better understanding of the modeling relation. This includes the
> individuals involved in political processes and the flow of changing
> ideas that you mentioned as having something like a Baldwin effect.
>
> While there is something akin to Darwinian variation and selection going
> on in what might otherwise be what Hawkins described as the evolution of
> memes, the political models we are talking about are so numerous,
> diverse and varied that they defy comprehension. What's more, we are
> attempting to model both physical and non physical realities. More
> important, the interconnected relations between all these models are
> very intricate and virtually impossible to pin down.
>
> Our models include our legal system, our constitutions, our social and
> cultural conventions as well as underlying values. All these are
> superimposed on our biological needs and processes which, in turn, are
> superimposed on chemistry, physics, geology, geography, ecological and
> environmental factors and phenomena. To say all this is complex is such
> an understatement that it is just silly to even give voice to.
>
> Our friend Francis mistakenly thinks that all this is off topic. He
> also apparently thinks that there is no place in pcp to discuss current
> political issues and individuals. From what you say below, you seem
> agree with this assertion. However, I would argue that by using a real
> developing situation with real people, it potentially becomes much
> easier to sort through all the uncertainties and confusion. That is
> exactly what I was trying to do.
>
> My purpose was to deal with all the conflicts and misinterpretations
> that come from our attempts to simplify the models we will use to build
> a viable political system. The very fact that we humans strive to
> simplify our models leads to the very difficulties that most of us have
> in understanding and navigating through these political issues.
>
> This is my home territory John. This is the background with which I
> feel most comfortable. To me, it is much more challenging than trying to
> understand physical phenomena. What's more, one can not use the thought
> modes that work in the physical realms to understand these mostly non
> physical phenomena.
>
> I've been trying to take you step by step through some of the political
> labyrinths in hopes of connecting with you and perhaps others who might
> be following our discussion. My sole purpose is to give you a
> demonstration of the thought processes and models that I think are
> essential to understanding and dealing with these non physical realms.
>
> I hope you can see that it is the very insistance upon these simple
> abstract ahd objective models that makes a fruitful discussion
> impossible. So if you insist on confining these discussions to abstract
> and objective principles, then there is not much sense in continuing our
> dialogue.
>
> Norm
>
> John J Kineman wrote:
> >
> > Hi Norm,
> >
> > Please recognize that I am not supporting either candidate in this
> > disucssion, nor even espousing values that either has differentially
> > identified. I'm commenting on the nature of a complex system and the
> > appropriateness of our mathematical model. I am not saying what Gore
> > thinks, or anyone else, nor presuming to agree or disagree with the
> > candidates. Of course they are merely actors in a play. I'm talking
> > about the plot scenario and the stage. Let's agree on that level of
> > detachment, or drop the discussion, otherwise we're merely arguing
> > political views. I want to focus on the modeling question about how to
> > best represent voter opinion in a decisive manner. Just to clarify by
> > answering your questions:
> >
> > 1. I say apportioning electors doesn't increase Federal power at the
> > expense of the State's power in elections because: (a) the deciding body
> > (EC) is not Federal, and (b) the "power" is incorrectly calculated at
> > present because it is based on gaming semantics rather than survey
> > semantics. They maximize opposite values in a close vote.
> >
> > 2. I am not suggesting the courts have any role in implementing a change
> > other than interpreting existing law. Only legislatures can change the
> > law, as was confirmed this weekend. so, yes, the change would have to go
> > through the normal legislative process(es).
> >
> > 3. I think you misunderstand my argument about changing the rules. Its
> > for the future. I'm not talking about the present election, except as a
> > case study of what needs to be fixed. The basic principle I would
> > suggest is this: that the "value" of any election result is proportional
> > to its "representativeness," not to the decisive "power" of any
> > individual in the process. If it ends up representing a single
> > individual who exercises control over the result (Bush, Gore, Harris,
> > the judges, etc.), then its value is very small in terms of representing
> > the public. So the issue I'm identifying is that the value of the
> > election result diminishes as the gap narrows, unless, beyond a certain
> > threshold where "representativeness" has gotten too small, there is
> > another way to re-introduce representativeness. Having the legislatures
> > make the decision in close races is one way to do that. Creating a fully
> > functional EC that can make decisions is another. Implementing "Instant
> > Runoff Voting" nationwide is another alternative that has been proposed.
> > The main point is to address the problem of representativeness by some
> > method that reintroduces it in tight situations. The present system
> > maximizes individual influence in those situations, which I argue is the
> > wrong value and something to be strenuously avoided.
> >
> > 4. Yes, indeed, a constitutional amendment may be necessary to correct
> > the semantic and statistical error in our current system. You may be
> > correct that a law will not be able to do this because, if I heard
> > correctly this weekend, there already is a constitutional power granted
> > to the State legislators that they and they alone must determine the
> > method of assigning electors. Even the State constitution cannot
> > intervene on that power according to Article II. However, again being no
> > expert, I believe there are other Federal statutes, such as sufferage,
> > which DO in fact dictate some limits on what the States can or can't do
> > in exercising that authority. A State cannot enact legislation to
> > exclude a minority group from the poles, for example. It would take a
> > constitutional lawyer to determine if proportional representation can be
> > enacted in a similar manner (as a separate provision that in effect
> > limits what can be done under Article II), or if it would have to first
> > change those existing powers. I don't have that answer.
> >
> > 5.
> >
> > 6. On the reference to the "zeno thing" which you didn't understand,
> > please see the article I referenced. Its about the semantics assumed in
> > our current system and a stistical paradox it catches us in.
> >
> > "Norman K. McPhail" wrote:
> > >
> > > John:
> > >
> > > Interesting arguments, but probably way off topic for this list. Then
> > > again, what is politics if not a very complex adaptive system?
> > >
> > > My thoughts below:
> > >
> > > John J Kineman wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I like your points about trying to fit the Presidential election process
> > > > > into either a zero sum game model or a survey of voter preferences
> > > > > model. However, I don't think this should be viewed as an "either/or"
> > > > > choice. To my way of thinking, our Electoral College system has
> > > > > elements of both the models you are suggesting.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, as presently formed it is statistically based on the game/contest
> > > > model, althought it is advertised as a survey model.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I may be wrong, but I think that under the current set up, states do
> > > > > have the option to split their Electors in proportion to the popular
> > > > > vote. But I would estimate that there is practically no chance of
> > > > > getting two-thirds of the states to ratify a Constitutional amendment
> > > > > that would require a proportional split of a given state's Presidential
> > > > > Electors as opposed to the winner-take-all method currently in use.
> > > >
> > > > Right. I have no idea of the feasibility of implementing the idea, just
> > > > its statistical correctness. A convincing argument would have to be
> > > > made. The fact that the issue itself wasn't even mentioned in the first
> > > > week following the election results indicates to me that there is a huge
> > > > educational hurtle to overcome.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Keep in mind that the way the Presidential election system works now,
> > > > > the states themselves have a certain amount of power. But a
> > > > > proportional or popular election system would reduce the power of the
> > > > > states and increase the power of the federal or central government. To
> > > > > my way of thinking, this would tilt the balance of power too far towards
> > > > > the central government.
> > > >
> > > > Well, it would indeed decrease the "power" of the State legislatures,
> > > > but it doesn't increase the Federal power at all.
> > >
> > > This makes no sense to me. It's a little like saying that the repeal of
> > > the federal Constitutional amendment authorizing the direct federal
> > > income tax increases the central government's power, but does not
> > > diminish the power of the states. I just don't buy it.
> > >
> > > > It could result in an
> > > > increase in power of the EC as a temporary representative body, but that
> > > > is not Federal, it is composed of State party members. Also, the "power"
> > > > of the State legislature may be limited anyway (we'll see today!) if the
> > > > courts eventually rule that the legal exercise of their authority
> > > > requires their decisions to correspond with the popular vote, as best it
> > > > can be determined.
> > >
> > > Certainly the courts have done things like this in the past, but I think
> > > it is highly unlikely that this U. S. Supreme Court will consider this
> > > kind of judicial activism. Are you arguing that the Supreme Court can,
> > > on its own initiative and under its own authority, make such a
> > > revolutionary change in our Constitution? Don't you think that this
> > > should go through the established process for amending the federal
> > > Constitution?
> > >
> > > > That would leave their strong influence to operate
> > > > only during a very close election, such as this, where the argument can
> > > > be made that the vote was ambiguous. But in that case, I think most of
> > > > the public would prefer to see that ambiguity reflected in a more even
> > > > split of electors, rather than a either-or switch that ultimately gets
> > > > based on some factor of individual influence in the system that is
> > > > completely unrelated to the vote.
> > >
> > > I submit that if we use the standard of what "...most of the public
> > > would prefer..." to change the whole structure of our constitutional
> > > form of self governance, the social, political, economic and cultural
> > > fabric of the American experiment would quickly unravel. You seem to
> > > buy the Gore mantra that the supreme authority in this nation ought to
> > > be making sure all the votes are counted.
> > >
> > > Do you really think Mr. Gore cares that much about counting votes?
> > > Can't you see that the main thing he cares about is winning the
> > > presidency? To me, he seems to be willing to sacrifice anything that
> > > gets in his way including the clear and unambiguous U. S. Constitutional
> > > provisions for electing a president.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Keep in mind that do not have a direct democracy. We have
> > > > > representative democracy through several overlapping and yet independent
> > > > > jurisdictions. These overlapping jurisdictions are self governing at
> > > > > the local and state levels. Then the states and the individuals within
> > > > > them combine to empower a central government. So we end up with a
> > > > > federation of local self governing units organized within and by states
> > > > > and a central government that has a Constitution that empowers and
> > > > > protects both in a balanced system. The tension between these competing
> > > > > levels of self governing entities helps ensure that our individual
> > > > > rights and sovereignty are protected.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I realize that. I think the model gets stretched beyond these
> > > > limits when we fall within this scale problem (the Zeno thing); which I
> > > > don't think anyone anticipated.
> > >
> > > I have no idea what this means. But you seem to be saying that the
> > > American form of constitutional self governance isn't flexible enough to
> > > meet the needs of changing conditions. I respectfully differ.
> > >
> > > > The States have authority to conduct and
> > > > resolve internally organized elections, then to represent their vote
> > > > results to the EC for a final decision. I believe (but am not certain -
> > > > again todays Supreme Court discussion may shed some light) that they are
> > > > legally bound to reflect their internal popular votes as accurately as
> > > > possible in their electoral decision.
> > >
> > > Again, I'm not sure what you're advocating here. But if you're saying
> > > that the U. S. Supreme Court may be legally bound to to rule that the
> > > prime directive of the U. S. Constitution is to count every vote, I
> > > would invite you to take the time to review the Constitution itself, the
> > > Federalist Papers along with the history and deliberations of the
> > > framers at the Constitutional Convention.
> > >
> > > > A State could not, for example,
> > > > assign its electors oppositely to a decisive popular vote.
> > >
> > > I beg to differ. The state legislators chose every U. S. President for
> > > the first 60+ years after the ratification of the Constitution. I'm not
> > > certain, but would guess that they made no effort to discern what the
> > > popular vote would be other than to perhaps reflect on their own popular
> > > mandates and party affiliation.
> > >
> > > > I think this
> > > > may have a legal basis, not just a political one -- again, I'll be
> > > > listening closely to the Supreme Court debate.
> > > >
> > > > I think two states have proportional representation now.
> > >
> > > I think it's not exactly proportional representation but something
> > > loosely akin to it. As I recall, one state, Vermont?, awards Electors
> > > according to the popular vote in each of its two Congressional districts
> > > and then awards the two remaining votes according to the candidate that
> > > gets the most votes state wide.
> > >
> > > > I suspect, but
> > > > don't know, that a Federal law could require proportional representation
> > > > of electors.
> > >
> > > I don't think this would be Constitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution
> > > is Congress given the power to tell the state legislatures how to
> > > determine the way they select Electors. As I understand it, Congress
> > > did pass a law after the 1876 election saying how they would deal with
> > > counting Electors. In addition, they even went so far as to spell out
> > > in detail what rules they would use in the event of a controversy
> > > regarding the Electors sent by a given state. What leads you to suspect
> > > that Congress could require proportional representation of Electors?
> > >
> > > > Naturally it would have to be passed by Congress, and the
> > > > biggest implication is that it would instantly empower 3rd parties,
> > > > because in that model even someone getting 3% of the vote like Nader
> > > > would end up with an influencial number of votes in the EC.
> > >
> > > I agree. In fact, I think it would seriously weaken the two party
> > > system that has developed as an integral part of our national political
> > > processes. Many people object to the two party system and claim that a
> > > multiple party system similar to most parliamentary European models. I
> > > happen to like our model better and would argue that we ought not to
> > > tamper with the underlying structure.
> > >
> > > > I think that
> > > > would be the main issue of contention, not a States ability to overturn
> > > > its popular vote.
> > >
> > > Today it's not likely that any state legislature would reverse the clear
> > > and unambiguous results of a statewide vote for President of the U. S.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think the federal government already has too much power in this system
> > > > > of checks and balances. If we make the mistake of swinging the balance
> > > > > even further towards the central government, we run a risk of losing
> > > > > more and more of our individual sovereignty and human rights. So I for
> > > > > one would strongly oppose the proportional state Electoral voting you
> > > > > propose or any system of direct popular voting for the United States
> > > > > president.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well, consider my argument that the EC is NOT Federal, but locally
> > > > composed and temporary so it can more easily reflect the immediate
> > > > issues surrounding the election.
> > >
> > > The presidential election provisions of the U. S. Constitution create
> > > the Electoral College. If the EC is the offspring of this supreme
> > > controlling federal document, how can it be anything but a national
> > > institution?
> > >
> > > > In fact it would do just what you want,
> > > > keep it farther away from the federal government by keeping it out of
> > > > the Supreme Court, first of all, and by minimizing the chances of it
> > > > being thrown into Congress secondly.
> > >
> > > First of all, I think Congress, as a popularly elected political body,
> > > should be involved in resolving conflicts and counting the votes of
> > > Electors. I much prefer these decisions being made in the political
> > > arena as opposed to the legal or judicial arena. This is what we have
> > > now, and I would argue strongly that this is the way it should be.
> > >
> > > > Take an extreme case like Florida
> > > > (25 electors) or California (54 electors). If the State legislature,
> > > > which normally just certifies a vote, inherits the power due to a close
> > > > election to decide the entire outcome, then the Fed becomes very
> > > > concerned.
> > >
> > > First, I think that like Florida, in most cases, someone in the
> > > executive branch is authorized by the state legislatures to certify the
> > > Electoral College vote. So the state legislatures do not normally
> > > certify the votes for president.
> > >
> > > Second, the state legislatures don't inherit the power to certify a
> > > presidential slate of Electors, they are specifically delegated the
> > > power and authority to make this decision in their respective states.
> > > They can do this in almost any way they choose so long as the citizens
> > > and voters in a given state concur.
> > >
> > > Third, Congress has already passed laws to help guide the certification
> > > and counting of presidential electors when there is a controversy. This
> > > is exactly what may happen in this case. So please tell me why you
> > > think that the fed will become very concerned?
> > >
> > > > That's too much influence from too small a representative
> > > > base.
> > >
> > > If this is your answer to my last question, then I would point out that
> > > this is simply an argument why you think Article Two of the U. S.
> > > Constitution must be changed. Recall that it grants the state
> > > legislatures full authority, power and responsibility to determine the
> > > presidential Electors for their respective jurisdictions.
> > >
> > > Norm
> > ========================================
> > Posting to pcp-discuss@lanl.gov from "John J Kineman" <John.J.Kineman@noaa.gov>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Name: norm.vcf
> norm.vcf Type: VCard (text/x-vcard)
> Encoding: 7bit
> Description: Card for Norman K. McPhail
========================================
Posting to pcp-discuss@lanl.gov from Don Mikulecky <mikuleck@hsc.vcu.edu>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Dec 06 2000 - 14:19:22 GMT