Noelle-Neumann describes the spiral of silence as dynamic process, in which predictions about public opinion become fact as mass media's coverage of the majority opinion becomes the status quo, and the minority becomes less likely to speak out (Miller 2005:278). The theory, however, only applies to moral issues, not issues that can be proven right or wrong using facts.
Other than that, I cannot imagine internet voting ever being secure enough. We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
More also here You can't be me, I'm taken
I think that State reprisals against voters for particular parties or candidates is not a particularly huge concern in the so-called developed world. But there are still plenty of people within our "Western" societies who could face personal or professional repercussions if their political leanings were to be known, or who for a variety of reasons would rather not have their co-workers or family members know who they vote for, even within the confines of a particular political party.
I'm certain some abusive spouses already force their spouses' votes this way. Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Please consult the MCC Laws of Cricket for comparison: 42 detailed laws each with numerous subclauses, 4 appendices, and a preamble. Cricket might be described as a game of trying to hit a bowled ball with a bat while surrounded by obstacles. And indeed if you play on the beach with the family, that just about covers it, because any disputed detail will be resolved in trust, a sense of fairness and the knowledge that it is being played for fun only.
But as you move up from fun to school to amateur to professional games and gamesmanship, it becomes necessary to define, with ever-increasing detail, a universal set of rules that cover every possible bureaucratic anomaly.
All games are inherently emergent. And democracy too. We are still in the process of defining the new rules of emergent democracy.
I would hope however that we could find very simple rules for interaction that would still produce the required complexity of output. You can't be me, I'm taken
MCC and the Art of Democracy is a good start!
European Tribune - Iowa Caucus -- More Than You Want to Know
VII. Formation of Presidential Preference Groups Before Presidential preference groups form, the caucus chair must read [a] statement to all caucus attendees [saying the caucus is open to any member of the Democratic Party -- see link for text.] At this point the caucus will divide into Presidential preference groups. Caucus participants have up to 30 minutes to align with a preference group. If the caucus wishes for more time, it should go to a vote of the whole caucus. When the caucus divides, the caucus chair will direct the various preference groups to different areas of the room or different rooms, as the case may be. Each group will then select a preference group chair. The first formal action of the preference group chair shall be to count their members and report the size of their preference group to the caucus chair. At this time any preference group(s) that is not viable (has fewer members than the viability threshold) must be given an opportunity to realign. Non-viable groups can join with other viable preference groups or with other non-viable preference groups in order to attain viability. Members of non-viable groups can choose not to realign, however they will not be awarded any delegates if they remain non-viable. Members of viable preference groups are also allowed to realign if they so desire. VIII. Awarding Delegates When all the remaining preference groups are viable, the caucus chair will determine the number of delegates that each preference group is entitled to elect. The number of delegates to be awarded to each preference group is determined by: ... the SAME number that was used to calculate viability, above. After delegates are awarded to all viable preference groups, the caucus chair will total up the delegates awarded and compare it to the number of delegates to be elected at the precinct. Note: See link, Steps 23 and 24 for special situations.
VII. Formation of Presidential Preference Groups
When all the remaining preference groups are viable, the caucus chair will determine the number of delegates that each preference group is entitled to elect. The number of delegates to be awarded to each preference group is determined by: ... the SAME number that was used to calculate viability, above. After delegates are awarded to all viable preference groups, the caucus chair will total up the delegates awarded and compare it to the number of delegates to be elected at the precinct.
The number of delegates to be awarded to each preference group is determined by: ... the SAME number that was used to calculate viability, above.
After delegates are awarded to all viable preference groups, the caucus chair will total up the delegates awarded and compare it to the number of delegates to be elected at the precinct.
Note: See link, Steps 23 and 24 for special situations.
I live in a caucus state (Minnesota) that uses mostly the same rules as Iowa. And yes, caucusing seems absurdly complex compared to going into a booth and pulling a level.
To me, that is the charm. It requires folks to spend an evening doing politics. It requires an active participation in the process.
This means that there are institutional limits to the politics of mass merchandising. Spending a lot of money is no guarantee that you win--as Mitt Romney is about to discover in Iowa.
Besides, it is an excellent way to get to know your neighbors. "Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"
I mean, I guess having people physically line up behind their candidates eliminates the possibility of ballot-box-stuffing (though not of vote-buying), but in a public vote, there will always be a possibility for people to be pressured (by family, by neighbors, by employers) to vote for a given candidate.
Perhaps its because we've both spent time in environments where the voting system is rather openly subject to such pressures? Hence we're sensitised to the possible problem?
But even in the States, I also know that one of my relatives was "expected" by her (abusive) husband to vote a certain way, and while usually that coincided with how she probably would have voted anyway, it didn't always, and I'm pretty sure she's glad for secret ballots.
Daily Kos: State of the Nation
Yet remember, these aren't the kind of numbers we'll see when the caucuses are over. This isn't a secret ballot situation. This is a social event, where campaigns will be herding people around trying to reach the magical "viability" numbers to garner delegates and deny them to their opponents. There will be a "first ballot" that might approximate what the polls tell us, but then the horse trading will begin, and then all predictive efforts get tossed to the wind. In 2004, Iowa's results were impacted by Gephardt's unexpected collapse in a state where he was a co-front runner, requiring his supporters to unexpectedly choose a rival campaign to caucus with once their candidate had been eliminated. It was affected by Kucinich's decision to direct his supporters toward Edwards to harm Dean (who had, in Kucinich's view, unfairly taken the "anti-war" mantle from him). It was affected by Kerry's superior organization -- utilizing trusted local political leaders to run the caucuses, and using their experience and skill to herd caucus goers toward Kerry. (Remember, this is not a secret ballot, what better way to suck up to the local political bosses than to publicly caucus for their candidate?) It was affected by inexperienced Dean caucusers, who huddled together quietly as their rival campaigns skillfully scooped up caucausers for the non-viable candidates. (A fate that might befall Obama's also inexperienced base of support?) Iowa isn't an accurate reflection of the will of Iowa's voters. It's a reflection of a tiny percentage (6-10%) of Iowa voters who turn out, and then a reflection of the bizarre whims of the caucus as chairs get shuffled around the deck all night until a final result is announced. I'm glad this is likely to be Iowa's swan song in the primary process. This is a horrible way to pick a nominee. But I must betray that -- especially since I have no strong feelings for or against any of our top candidates -- this is about as exciting as political theater is ever going to get. If this is Iowa's final bow, it's sure going out with a bang.
Yet remember, these aren't the kind of numbers we'll see when the caucuses are over. This isn't a secret ballot situation. This is a social event, where campaigns will be herding people around trying to reach the magical "viability" numbers to garner delegates and deny them to their opponents. There will be a "first ballot" that might approximate what the polls tell us, but then the horse trading will begin, and then all predictive efforts get tossed to the wind.
In 2004, Iowa's results were impacted by Gephardt's unexpected collapse in a state where he was a co-front runner, requiring his supporters to unexpectedly choose a rival campaign to caucus with once their candidate had been eliminated. It was affected by Kucinich's decision to direct his supporters toward Edwards to harm Dean (who had, in Kucinich's view, unfairly taken the "anti-war" mantle from him). It was affected by Kerry's superior organization -- utilizing trusted local political leaders to run the caucuses, and using their experience and skill to herd caucus goers toward Kerry. (Remember, this is not a secret ballot, what better way to suck up to the local political bosses than to publicly caucus for their candidate?) It was affected by inexperienced Dean caucusers, who huddled together quietly as their rival campaigns skillfully scooped up caucausers for the non-viable candidates. (A fate that might befall Obama's also inexperienced base of support?)
Iowa isn't an accurate reflection of the will of Iowa's voters. It's a reflection of a tiny percentage (6-10%) of Iowa voters who turn out, and then a reflection of the bizarre whims of the caucus as chairs get shuffled around the deck all night until a final result is announced.
I'm glad this is likely to be Iowa's swan song in the primary process. This is a horrible way to pick a nominee. But I must betray that -- especially since I have no strong feelings for or against any of our top candidates -- this is about as exciting as political theater is ever going to get.
If this is Iowa's final bow, it's sure going out with a bang.
The caucuses are a mixture of wonderful participation and thuggish behavior. WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Either you see the process as a party deciding on their candidate. Like the french socialists deciding who they will run for president. Or the UK lib-dems deciding on their chair. Its an internal affair. In that case caucuses sounds like a reasonable way to go. (You can also argue for other methods as better in some way.) Meeting and discussing is essential to the process.
Or you see it as the first step in a national run-offish election, and then secret ballots and high participation is prefered.
As I see it the discussion here arises from the fact that the US primaries/caucuses are a bit of both.
Primaries give power to candidates that can buy ads, caucuses place a premium on participation in the decision making process. I think that all states should use caucuses for this reason. If would force candidates to develop grassroots organizations, and lessen the influence of money on the system. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
You're forgetting the important issue of pressure, from friends, family, coworkers, etc. It's not exactly clean democracy if you find your boss strictly supporting Richardson and pressuring you for supporting Edwards. And it's not exactly clean democracy when Little Suzie wants to cross over to support Obama but is yelled at by Daddy to stay in the Hillary camp.
And, yes, that does happen in Iowa.
It's nice to talk politics with your neighbors as an institutionalized part of the process, but let's not romanticize the caucuses. And let's not forget that we may well be leaving the decision on our next president to a (white, rural, subsidy-sucking) state that can hardly claim to be a good representation of America. WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
I'm not sure it qualifies as being any more democratic than primaries. More interesting, perhaps, but not more democratic. I find it very anti-democratic to not decide the outcome based purely on the popular vote.
If a person isn't willing to publicly stand up, be counted for what they believe, and then take the consequences what good are they?
I submit, that is the only way for Democracy to not be a Tyranny of the Majority. A doo run-run-run, a doo run-run
Getting beat up is one of the RW consequences a person faces when they Stand Up. And not the worst of them, either. Read any history of the American Left in the 20th century for what can, and will happen, to those who trouble the Powers That Be. A doo run-run-run, a doo run-run
Further, it's ridiculous to allow some parent to take advantage of his or her power over (say) an eighteen year old daughter who wants to support an Edwards or an Obama when Mommy or Daddy supports Hillary.
It adds the unnecessary potential for bullying, and people get enough bullying already. WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
We are very far from that, obviously. Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
