I presented An Awkward Proposal for an Amendment to Correct Election Processes some time back.
Re-reading it now, I can find numerous holes in it. Some day I'll re-work the proposal, but today I want to think about voter fraud.
At this point in time, both the major US political parties are accusing each other of voter fraud. Dead voters, multiple voters, non-citizen voters, influencing absentee ballots, cutting voter districts to water down the opposition, ..., ..., ...
Thinking about ways to protect against voter fraud, I realize that most protections would have results worse than the fraud itself.
That is, being a computer scientist, I tend to quickly think of the vulnerabilities induced by electronic voting and by improper use of absentee ballots and such. I also tend to think about safeguarding the processes as they exist, and those tendencies are reflected in the post I link above.
But that does not really get at the source of the problem.
In order to get into the proper frame of mind to consider what to do about voter fraud, we should start with a realization of something I will point out in a few paragraphs. To get there, we should start with an understanding of what a voting process is.
Many times, it is described as a way to get a consensus of opinion from a body of people.
But what people mean by "consensus of opinion" varies widely.
For some, obtaining a consensus means getting support for their side. For them, the election process is a process of influencing opinions.
For others, obtaining a consensus means finding out whose side is supported by the majority. For them, the process is a statistical experiment, and influencing the result is the opposite of what they want to do.
For yet others, obtaining a consensus blends both of these concepts as a way for the members of the body of people to communicate with each other and come to a decision. This is not quite a middle-of-the-road approach, because it still leaves open the question of whether the winners have a responsibility to keep listening to the electorate or not.
Some ancient philosopher said, "Vox populii vox dei." And the Greek politicians tried to incorporate that concept in their government, in spite of the disagreement of many of their philosophers.
So, is the voice of the people the voice of God?
For those who consider the Book of Mormon to have some meaning, there are several salient verses. One reference is Mosiah 29: 26-27:
26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.How is this different from vox populii vox dei?
27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.
One, it happens that the voice of the people chooses evil on occasion, especially when they are become so corrupt that there really isn't any help for them any more.
(Jonah, who had to have a whale return him to his duty, wanted Nineveh to be so corrupt, but even they weren't quite there yet.)
Two, with all the negatives, it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right leaves a wide range of right possibilities for the people to be in favor of.
That the people usually don't choose the worst option does not mean that the people always choose the best.
You don't have to be a believer in the Book of Mormon to understand that much.
Why do I think this is important?
It demotivates the belief in the magic of winning, and the magic of winning is one of the enemies of freedom and of meaningful consensus politics.
With this emphasis on winning demotivated, perhaps it will be easier to understand the truth.
Statistics tell us that when sampling a population, a difference of a few percent is not likely to be meaningful. In general, 1 or 2% is near-equivalent to a tie.
A good statistical process will guard against biasing the result.
While that means that voter fraud should be guarded against, it would also mean that campaigning poisons the result. People change their votes based on all the argument and other exchange of rhetoric, and people are known to vote against their own opinions for a variety of reason.
Electoral processes have certain statistical natures, therefore 1 to 2% differences just are not meaningful. Ever.
But they are not, and, as long as we are dealing with humans, will never be proper statistical experiments. Therefore, even differences of 5% or more should be considered effective ties, at best.
Also, since any population should have some differences of opinion, large majority results are also indications of too much tampering with the sampling processes.
In plain English, 90% or more of the vote should be indication that something went wrong.
I'm going to stop there, and propose something really bizarre.
Our focus on who wins encourages fraud.
Can I repeat that? Heh. Well, go back and read that last one-sentence paragraph again.
If we had some way of recognizing a tie, we wouldn't be so concerned about things like the hanging chads in Florida in 2000. And if we had some way of reviewing wins by too large a margin, the majority would be demotivated in their attempts to make their majority position unassailable.
So I have a few proposals:
Any election where the difference between the top votes is less than 5% should automatically go back for a run-off.
The first run-off should be subject to the same rule.
If, in the second run-off, the difference is less than 2%, the top vote getters should be considered to have tied. In the case of an office, the top vote-getters should share the office according to an agreement they work out together. The voters should have another ballot to approve the agreement, and if the ballot fails, the court competent to review the election should review the agreement and make recommendations.
In the case of regulations and laws, etc., the body competent to implement the regulation or law, etc., should review it, seeking a new regulation or law that will more effectively reflect the opinions of the various sides. Then the new regulation or law, etc., should be voted on again, with the same rules of effective tie. After the second effective tie, the competent court should review the question and determine whether further rewriting and election will produce useful results, and, if not, should have power to determine that the question has been rejected.
Any election where the top vote-getter gets more than 80% of the vote should be automatically reviewed for tampering by the court competent to do so. Opposition voices should be heard first and last in the review.
The court would have power to order a new election, if it determined that too much improper influence of any sort had been brought to bear during the election.
In any election where the top vote-getter gets more than 90% of the vote, the court should consider whether the top vote-getter should be disqualified from standing in the subsequent election for reconsideration. Reasons other than fraud may be considered, but the court must make its reasoning public.
In any election where the top vote-getter gets more than 95% of the vote, the top vote-getter should be automatically disqualified from standing in the subsequent election for reconsideration.
These kinds of rules would help to discourage the source of the problems that lead to voter fraud, and would also help to discourage the polarizing debates and voter hate that accompanies bad-faith electioneering.
No comments:
Post a Comment