[EL] Or we might try something completely different ...

Thu Sep 15 10:11:19 PDT 2011

               Folks:  I wonder whether a discussion at this level of generality is likely to be enlightening to list members.

               Eugene

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Jon Roland
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 10:10 AM
To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Or we might try something completely different ...

Of course, but at least we can structure their deliberation to remove the undue influence from supporters they need to get re-elected, because they are not elected.

It is the same principle we use in having verdicts rendered by juries and instruct them to consider only what is presented in court and not be influenced by outsiders. If you were an accused, would you want your fate decided by jurors who based their votes on the result of opinion polls they might conduct, or the instructions of someone who put them in their position?

There are no perfect solutions for systems in which humans are the principle deciders, but we can improve on the deliberative process in well-known ways.

On 09/15/2011 11:52 AM, Vladimir Kogan wrote:
Letting a group of "wise men" make the decisions doesn't get around the fundamental problem that people disagree about these things.

-- Jon

----------------------------------------------------------

Constitution Society               http://constitution.org

2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322           twitter.com/lex_rex

Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001  jon.roland at constitution.org<mailto:jon.roland at constitution.org>

----------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110915/e756c831/attachment.html>