[phil_20686]

hrothgar, on 2012-July-22, 17:30, said:

Nice theory, but it doesn't line up with the facts.

The vast majority of Bain Capital's profits were made off a small number of large deals...

...most of which involved tax dodges and offloading pension liabilities to the Pension Benefits Guarantee Corp.

In a many of these cases, Bain created overindebted companies that failed with a few years.

(1) This is normal for a venture capitalist firm. Rule of thumb is that that 50% of your investments go bankrupt, 4/10 break even, and 1/10 pays for all the rest. At least thats what the VC guys who invested in my parents company said.

(2) If your tax (and bankruptcy) law is badly set up, fix it. Its naive to believe that corporations will not utilise loop holes to profit maximise. I do not think you can hold Romney responsible for avoiding tax in legal ways. If it was illegal, that would be different, but no suggestion of that here.

(3) Most companies fail within a few years. The number of listed companies that last more than a couple of decades is very small. The average lifetime is about eight years for small/medium. for an SP500 company it's less than 15 years. It doesnt seem like Bains record is poor in terms of VC companies. About half of their deals were successful, a small number wildly so, the rest not so much. If you buy a company hoping to make it profitable, and you later realise that it will never be profitable, you strip mine it and sell it off in parts, its not pretty, buts its surely more efficient than the messy bankruptcy that would otherwise have occurred.

I just don't see much in the way of evidence that Bain was any different from normal VC firms, except possibly that it was more successful than most.

[blackshoe]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-July-23, 04:47, said:

Sorry, I thought this truth was self evident. Enabling proportional representation (which would obviously require constitutional change), would then lead to the election of minor parties. It is likely that at some time these minor parties would hold the balance of power. Having to form a coalition with others forces you to negotiate and compromise rather than engage in the increasingly partisan bickering in the US. This behavior is easily seen in the European parliaments, such as Germany. I am unclear why giving each state more senators would result in a reduction in representation for that state, though it would make the fundamental inequities in the system more clear.

The purpose of the United States Senate, as Stefanie mentioned upthread, is to protect the rights of States and to present the views of States. It seems you believe that this should not be its purpose. Rather you seem to believe that the Senate should represent the people directly, same as the House of Representatives. While I would say that it seems to me we've been moving that way ever since the method of selecting Senators was changed (17th Amendment, 1913), I have never thought it was a good idea.

F.A. Hayek proposed a bicameral legislature in which, iirc, the lower house makes laws, and the upper house unmakes laws — IOW, the upper house reviews every action of the lower, and vetoes those it feels inappropriate or flawed. Both houses were, in his scheme, to be elected by popular vote, but in order to get on the ballot for election to the upper house candidates would have to be over 45 and be backed by a minimum of 5000 voters who know the candidate. None of this knock on the door, and say "I realize you don't know me from Adam, but please sign my petition so I can run for <whatever>". There's more to it, but it's been years since I read it. (Ref: Law, Legislation, and Liberty, Volume III).

[Vampyr]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-July-23, 04:47, said:

Having to form a coalition with others forces you to negotiate and compromise rather than engage in the increasingly partisan bickering in the US. This behavior is easily seen in the European parliaments, such as Germany.

It is certainly true that the partisan bickering in the US is counterproductive, and more parties (the Founding Fathers believed that there should be none), so that there would be no majority party, would be helpful. The concept of "forming" a coalition, though, has no real meaning in the American context; coalitions would be made and later broken for every vote.

[Cthulhu D]

Edit: optus ate my post will redo later

[phil_20686]

Vampyr, on 2012-July-23, 08:08, said:

It is certainly true that the partisan bickering in the US is counterproductive, and more parties (the Founding Fathers believed that there should be none), so that there would be no majority party, would be helpful. The concept of "forming" a coalition, though, has no real meaning in the American context; coalitions would be made and later broken for every vote.

I think that people have an unrealistic opinion of how much politicians matter. Is there any matter where there is a broad consensus among the population at large about what the government should be doing, that is being prevented? I don't think so, you have a bitterly divided country on any number of issues. Politics always descends into partisan bickering when the population at large has no agreement. Its nothing to do with the electoral system. I'm sure the people of belgium, who recently went 541 days without forming a government, no longer believe that more parties is helpful.

In the US its even more diffucult, since you can be blocked if there is a majority in the HR, or the senate, and since one is roughly population based, and one is state based, you have two chances to block a proposal.

TO a certain extent, politicians can shape the political dialogue, but they cannot overcome what, at its heart, is a pretty fundamental disagreement about the nature of man, and man's purpose in life. Until this settles out one way or the other, there will be no agreement about how to proceed. I suspect similar disagreements are coming to a European country near you.

[mike777]

Just so I understand posters are advocating America should be much more like Europe...like Germany...that is your plan?

We should have a Parliment and with many minority parties?

[Cthulhu D]

There are a number of cases of majority will being blocked c.f gay marriage in Australia. US weed legalization is 50% yes 36% nay, much stronger that abortion rights

Also, you misunderstand Belgium - there are only one divisive position - what do we do with Walloon, amd they still do not know. They passed legislation for those 500 days though. But yes Belgium is the argument for two houses.

[Cthulhu D]

@Mike777

Your union is imperfect. There is 200 years of experience to draw on to improve it. We hold up American private sector reinvention as 'good' why not reinvent the body politic with all that we know now?

Much can be learnt from Europe, Australia, NZ and Canada and much should be left behind. Take the gems, leave the dross.

There is no grounds on which first last the post voting should be retained for example. You may dispute whether Borda count or STV is the best replacement, but both are better replacements

[phil_20686]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-July-23, 09:25, said:

There are a number of cases of majority will being blocked c.f gay marriage in Australia. US weed legalization is 50% yes 36% nay, much stronger that abortion rights

Also, you misunderstand Belgium - there are only one divisive position - what do we do with Walloon, amd they still do not know. They passed legislation for those 500 days though. But yes Belgium is the argument for two houses.

When I said "broad consensus", i think that is much more stringent than "majority". If you are winning teh debate, and have a majority, its almost always right to wait for a stronger consensus to develop, as generally you only get good law when there is a consensus. Thin majorities lead to compromise. Look at the healthcare law in the US. If you were going to do it, you should cut the insurance companies out of the loop. Single payer is the only way to go here in terms of efficiency, with an opt out if you get private insurance where you get your "share" back to pay for your health insurance. Instead you got a series of terrible compromises, mostly because Obama didn't have the kind of consensus that you really need for a broad social change.

[phil_20686]

mike777, on 2012-July-23, 09:19, said:

Just so I understand posters are advocating America should be much more like Europe...like Germany...that is your plan?

We should have a Parliment and with many minority parties?

Some are. Personally I do not.

I like first past the post systems. Historically, the UK has had an incredibly stable democracy for centuries under a first past the post. The nightmare for PR systems is when its clear that "something has to be done" but noone is quite sure what, and so nothing gets done and it leads to social unrest. The best feature of FPTP systems is the ability to throw out unpopular governments. This is remarkably cathartic for a society. One danger in PR is that even a ten percent swing in votes, still leaves the largest party in power, just in a slightly broader coalition, and this can be very frustrating for voters. And ten percent swings in voter preference are rare, there have only been two since 1950 in the UK I think.

[Cthulhu D]

phil_20686, on 2012-July-23, 10:29, said:

When I said "broad consensus", i think that is much more stringent than "majority". If you are winning teh debate, and have a majority, its almost always right to wait for a stronger consensus to develop, as generally you only get good law when there is a consensus. Thin majorities lead to compromise. Look at the healthcare law in the US. If you were going to do it, you should cut the insurance companies out of the loop. Single payer is the only way to go here in terms of efficiency, with an opt out if you get private insurance where you get your "share" back to pay for your health insurance. Instead you got a series of terrible compromises, mostly because Obama didn't have the kind of consensus that you really need for a broad social change.

Gay marriage in Australia is a 62% majority in support, no hope of being passed.

Drug legalisation - 50 to 36 isn't a slim majority. If I take out the 'don't cares' it comes to 60-40 in favour. That's pretty big. No hope of being passed. I guess you can say this is a slim majority, so lts consider something else. Let's consider your healthcare example. Pre Obamacare, 62%(!) of Americans were in favour of a single payer universal healthcare system(!!). Did that even come close to getting up? Hells no. If 62% in favour is a slim majority, I would love you to identify what a comfortable majority would be, and which laws actually have it.

Note that failure to pass these laws doesn't lead to compromise - it just means they don't pass.

Quote

It is certainly true that the partisan bickering in the US is counterproductive, and more parties (the Founding Fathers believed that there should be none), so that there would be no majority party, would be helpful. The concept of "forming" a coalition, though, has no real meaning in the American context; coalitions would be made and later broken for every vote.

The de jure and de facto status of parties is essentially irrelevant though - why are their ballot access restrictions to minor parties in the US? Because de facto the parties rule the roost.

Quote

The purpose of the United States Senate, as Stefanie mentioned upthread, is to protect the rights of States and to present the views of States. It seems you believe that this should not be its purpose. Rather you seem to believe that the Senate should represent the people directly, same as the House of Representatives. While I would say that it seems to me we've been moving that way ever since the method of selecting Senators was changed (17th Amendment, 1913), I have never thought it was a good idea.

I do not understand how changing the number and method of election of senates has any impact on their role. This conflation seems unfounded. I would suggest that the role of the senators is to represent the people of the state directly, for what is the state is nothing if not the will of its people.

How familiar are you with other countries legislative systems? At least one has exactly the same challenge you had (multiple independent colonies forming a state and whom wanted to protect their rights equally in some sort of.. senate), and manages the objectives of protecting states rights while having 10 senators proportionally elected by each state.

Quote

I like first past the post systems.

Why? It is simple to show the problem. Consider this 11 voter electorate.

There are 5 Nationalist voters, 4 Patriot voters and 2 'Third Way' voters. Each bloc has nominated its own candiate.

1) Nationalists prefer their candidate to both other candidates, but prefer the 'Third Way' candidate to the Patriot candidate.
2) Patriots prefer their candidate to both other candidates, but prefer the 'Third Way' candidate to the Nationalist Candidate.
3) 'Third Way' candidates prefer their candidate to both other candidates, but prefer the Patriot candidate to the Nationalist candidate

Who should win the election?

The first past the post problem is that the 'Third Way' candidate shouldn't run - he damages the interests of his electors by doing so! This is insane - instant run off voting is clearly better, though still does not return the Condorcet winner.

This is hardly a hypothetical either, if Nader had not run and exit polling is representative, the flow of preferences would have been sufficient for Al Gore to win the 2000 presidential election. Is this really the result you desire from democracy, where it is better not to participate in the democratic process? STV/IRV is strictly superior to first past the post against any criteria you care to name.

[phil_20686]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-July-23, 19:03, said:

Why? It is simple to show the problem. Consider this 11 voter electorate.

There are 5 Nationalist voters, 4 Patriot voters and 2 'Third Way' voters. Each bloc has nominated its own candiate.

1) Nationalists prefer their candidate to both other candidates, but prefer the 'Third Way' candidate to the Patriot candidate.
2) Patriots prefer their candidate to both other candidates, but prefer the 'Third Way' candidate to the Nationalist Candidate.
3) 'Third Way' candidates prefer their candidate to both other candidates, but prefer the Patriot candidate to the Nationalist candidate

Who should win the election?

The first past the post problem is that the 'Third Way' candidate shouldn't run - he damages the interests of his electors by doing so! This is insane - instant run off voting is clearly better, though still does not return the Condorcet winner.

if by instant run off you mean `preference voting', then I am quite sympathetic, but obviously that is still a FPTP system. If you think this thought experiment makes the issue clear cut, you need to think about this some more (!). Its almost word for word the argument against Proportional representation, suppose in stead of 11 voters, you had 11 candidates, with their three preferences for legislation, and the rule that you need at least 6/11 to pass a bill. Then you might have the same question of "which legislation should you pass".

FPTP has three main advantages over PR:
(1) You elect your representative directly, and can therefore hold them personally accountable.
(2) You get stronger and more stable governments. Having a government with a healthy majority is nearly always a good thing when there is a crisis, as often you have multiple competing plans, any of which might work, but the end result is often doing nothing.
(3) It is much easier to get rid of unpopular governments.

It is not obvious at all that a more representative government is necessarily a better government.

[Cthulhu D]

phil_20686, on 2012-July-23, 20:14, said:

if by instant run off you mean `preference voting', then I am quite sympathetic, but obviously that is still a FPTP system. If you think this thought experiment makes the issue clear cut, you need to think about this some more (!).

We need to be really careful about terminology here. Instant Run Off voting (or 'single transferable vote') is a form of preference voting (but not the only form) and is not a first past the post system. The decision to use multiple member or single member electorates is also seperate.

Quote

Its almost word for word the argument against Proportional representation, suppose in stead of 11 voters, you had 11 candidates, with their three preferences for legislation, and the rule that you need at least 6/11 to pass a bill. Then you might have the same question of "which legislation should you pass".

What does this have to do with proportional representation? If it was 11 single member electorates you would have the same problem. This issue is not related to proportional representation. Legislation is not amenable to these solutions because 'piss off' is a valid position, but it is mandatory that the electorate return a representative.

Quote

FPTP has three main advantages over PR:
(1) You elect your representative directly, and can therefore hold them personally accountable.
(2) You get stronger and more stable governments. Having a government with a healthy majority is nearly always a good thing when there is a crisis, as often you have multiple competing plans, any of which might work, but the end result is often doing nothing.
(3) It is much easier to get rid of unpopular governments.

It is not obvious at all that a more representative government is necessarily a better government.

It is possible to directly elect your representative in a multi member constituency, depending on the selection method used. Borda count would be out, but a single transferable vote would satisfy this criteria. Indeed, you are much more likely to have representation.

It may be instructive to draw on my personal experience. I am a voter in three electorates, one PR as part of a bicameral house, one PR as part of a single house and one single member. In the single electorate, my current local member in a single member constituency is from a party I do not support on a comfortable margin. Why would she listen to me in the slightest, I am literally never going to vote for her. How can I hold her accountable in any meaningful fashion?

2) Australia has PR and non-PR houses at a state and federal level and strong governments. PR does not lead to stronger governments or visa versa. The two are completely disconnected. If anything, I suspect that public would regard the bicameral houses with PR and non-PR representation as the strongest.

3) Is there any evidence to support this position?

[Zelandakh]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-July-24, 00:43, said:

We need to be really careful about terminology here. Instant Run Off voting (or 'single transferable vote')

This made me smile. Instant runoff voting (IRV) is often referred to as AV (Alternative Vote). Single Transferable Vote (STV) generally only refers to multi-candidate elections where the aim is to produce a result that is approximately proportional. If you generalise STV to a single winner election then you reach an IRV/AV method. However, this is typically kept separate in discussions of STV. Phil's point, I believe, is that under AV a winner still has to pass a "winning post", it is only that under AV this winning post is 50%, whereas in the method usually described as First Past the Post (FPTP) the winning post is simply the highest percentage/number of votes achieved by a different candidate. Thus, AV is not designed as a proportional method. It is a "winner takes all" method at heart and as such still favours large parties, tending to exclude smaller ones.

In elections that are held in FPTP it is beneficial for a faction to have as few candidates as possible in order not to dilute the voter pool for this ideology. This in turn leads to the observation that such electoral systems tend to produce candidates from 2 or 3 parties. It is (generally) simply not beneficial for supporters from a subset of an ideology to put up a candidate. Instead you must try to push the closest party towards your ideology from within. Many feel that the overall effect of this is to restrict choice for voters. One of the advantages of AV is that it reduces this effect.

STV on the other hand is designed as a proportional method. The problem is that it is very easy to manipulate the proportionality, particularly by controlling the number of representatives per district. In extreme cases, this produces an effect identical to that of "safe seats" in FPTP, even though the actual result may be winners from more than one party. For example, in many districts of America, if there was a return of 2 representatives there would probably be one from each major party and the candidates would simply ignore the voters there. Thus STV is not automatically an answer to avoiding voter disenfranchisement. This also illustrates how susceptible STV can be to gerrymandering if the districts are too small, while if they are too large the voters might feel a disconnect from their representatives.

FWiiW, I am a firm believer in more proportionality in parliamentary representation. Which form of this is best seems to me to be somewhat dependant on the existing political landscape. For example, countries used to a local representative (Phil's point #1) would do well to avoid a pure party list system. It is not true that proportional methods cannot directly elect a representative, although this is often (misleadingly) given as a reason against changing from FPTP by politicians. Other countries that have many very small parties, or who wish to avoid the effects of having too many parties with only one or two represntatives, might choose to implement a cut-off point. For example, the German (mixed) system does not appoint representatives for any party with less than 5%. This reduces the proportionality but results in stronger governments and more effective parliaments (Phil's point #2). There are lots of things one can do here.

[Cthulhu D]

Zelandakh, on 2012-July-24, 03:08, said:

This made me smile. Instant runoff voting (IRV) is often referred to as AV (Alternative Vote). Single Transferable Vote (STV) generally only refers to multi-candidate elections where the aim is to produce a result that is approximately proportional. If you generalise STV to a single winner election then you reach an IRV/AV method. However, this is typically kept separate in discussions of STV. Phil's point, I believe, is that under AV a winner still has to pass a "winning post", it is only that under AV this winning post is 50%, whereas in the method usually described as First Past the Post (FPTP) the winning post is simply the highest percentage/number of votes achieved by a different candidate. Thus, AV is not designed as a proportional method. It is a "winner takes all" method at heart and as such still favours large parties, tending to exclude smaller ones.

Yeah you're right, whoops.

Quote

STV on the other hand is designed as a proportional method. The problem is that it is very easy to manipulate the proportionality, particularly by controlling the number of representatives per district. In extreme cases, this produces an effect identical to that of "safe seats" in FPTP, even though the actual result may be winners from more than one party. For example, in many districts of America, if there was a return of 2 representatives there would probably be one from each major party and the candidates would simply ignore the voters there. Thus STV is not automatically an answer to avoiding voter disenfranchisement. This also illustrates how susceptible STV can be to gerrymandering if the districts are too small, while if they are too large the voters might feel a disconnect from their representatives.

This is why an odd number of seats is required

[Zelandakh]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-July-24, 03:56, said:

This is why an odd number of seats is required

3 seats produces the same issue in any district with a roughly 2:1 majority for a given party. A 17% swing is required for anything to change. In other countries, such as the UK, 3 representatives would also have a problem in "3-way marginal seats". Even if you got around that problem, you still have the issue of multiple 51:49 districts against a single 30:70. You are effectively trading one form of disproportionality for another. The trouble is that I doubt very much whether smaller States would be too happy about clumping together to form larger districts. That means you either live with a system that is not greatly (perhaps not at all) better than the current one or hugely inflate the number of politicians in the parliament.

I suspect that a better solution for the USA, should it ever be wanted, would be to move to a mixed system. For example, each state selects one or more representatives (by population) with a certain number of additional representatives selected via a top-up list in order to make the parliament proportionally representative by the national count (single district). To be honest though, I am quietly confident that such a change will never even be considered in my lifetime. The status quo suits the 2 ruling parties very nicely so why should they ever change it?

[Cthulhu D]

Zelandakh, on 2012-July-24, 06:21, said:

3 seats produces the same issue in any district with a roughly 2:1 majority for a given party. A 17% swing is required for anything to change. In other countries, such as the UK, 3 representatives would also have a problem in "3-way marginal seats". Even if you got around that problem, you still have the issue of multiple 51:49 districts against a single 30:70. You are effectively trading one form of disproportionality for another. The trouble is that I doubt very much whether smaller States would be too happy about clumping together to form larger districts. That means you either live with a system that is not greatly (perhaps not at all) better than the current one or hugely inflate the number of politicians in the parliament.

Indeed, that's why I started at 5 previously! That said, very few seats are that safe, except gerrymandered ones. No lower-house seat in Australia has a 2:1 margin, though some are close. I'd note that the 51-49 districts are ripe for a 3rd party candiate to take the odd seat.

Quote

I suspect that a better solution for the USA, should it ever be wanted, would be to move to a mixed system. For example, each state selects one or more representatives (by population) with a certain number of additional representatives selected via a top-up list in order to make the parliament proportionally representative by the national count (single district). To be honest though, I am quietly confident that such a change will never even be considered in my lifetime. The status quo suits the 2 ruling parties very nicely so why should they ever change it?

If you put me in charge of reforming the US electorate system I'd keep the congress as single member electorates and change the senate to proportionally representative with a fixed term aligned to the presidential cycle. I am not sure whether the German model you propose or an Australian style model is superior for the upperhouse, but I lean towards the German system. I agree that no such change will happen.

[blackshoe]

L. Neil Smith's North American Confederacy (see The Probability Broach, (1980)) has an interesting way of dealing with things. First, the Continental Congress rarely meets. It takes a major crisis to get folks to convene it. Second, representatives to the Congress are required to get 5000 people who know them to sign a petition so they can go be representatives. Thirdly, once the debate starts, it is broadcast on, well, the Confederates don't call it "the Internet", but close enough. Everybody watches — and they can instantly reassign their proxy on the fly. So the number of citizens each representative represents is constantly fluctuating. Each representative's vote counts proportionally to the number of people who have given that representative their proxy just before the final tally.

I'm sure we can pick lots of holes in this idea. I'm not saying that it's perfect, just that it's interesting, and I think we have the technology to do it now, if we want to.

[phil_20686]

Zelandakh, on 2012-July-24, 06:21, said:

I suspect that a better solution for the USA, should it ever be wanted, would be to move to a mixed system. For example, each state selects one or more representatives (by population) with a certain number of additional representatives selected via a top-up list in order to make the parliament proportionally representative by the national count (single district).

It seems like the US system is already quite mixed. The House of Representatives is generally reasonably close to the % of votes cast for each party over the whole country. The senate is two per state, so pretty much a clear case of representative government, and the president is a pure popularity contest. Its just mixed in a somewhat strange way due to historical accident.

A side point: I think safe seats are not necessarily a bad idea. I realise that in theory they disenfranchise some voters, but that is a small price to pay for the chance of getting uncharismatic but able people into politics. Its also nice if the party leadership is free to worry about the big picture. A structure with no safe seats would be bad for politics in the long run imo.

[phil_20686]

blackshoe, on 2012-July-24, 09:01, said:

L. Neil Smith's North American Confederacy (see The Probability Broach, (1980)) has an interesting way of dealing with things. First, the Continental Congress rarely meets. It takes a major crisis to get folks to convene it. Second, representatives to the Congress are required to get 5000 people who know them to sign a petition so they can go be representatives. Thirdly, once the debate starts, it is broadcast on, well, the Confederates don't call it "the Internet", but close enough. Everybody watches — and they can instantly reassign their proxy on the fly. So the number of citizens each representative represents is constantly fluctuating. Each representative's vote counts proportionally to the number of people who have given that representative their proxy just before the final tally.

I'm sure we can pick lots of holes in this idea. I'm not saying that it's perfect, just that it's interesting, and I think we have the technology to do it now, if we want to.

They tried something similar in Athens about 1000Bc. The end result was demagogues whipping up religious fever and they ended up burning down the city. Too much democracy can lead to mob rule. To paraphrase Churchill "The best cure for those in favour of more democracy, is five minutes with the average voter".