Double-Simultaneous Vote

While doing research for a comparative politics class, ive become aware of a somewhat unique system of voting with different institutions and voting rules than we went over in class (lies somewhat outside simple majority/plurality/maj+runoff/alternative vote/single transferable vote borda count). Throughout much of its history Uruguay used a system known by ley de lemas. This was a system of double or multiple simultaneous votes (doble voto simultaneo). A person would choose a lema (a party) and a sub lema (essentially a faction of the party) or in some instances specific interest groups w/in the sub lemas. A person would vote for their sub lema of choice which would have a representative for office, lets say president. The votes for each sub lemas would be tabulated up for the party, and the party with most votes won, then they would look at which sub-lema got the most votes within the party to see who is the president. Essentially it is a primary and an election at once. (At times, there would be a list of representatives for parliment as well...that are included in the same way, making it a triple-simultaneous vote). This sounds somewhat confusing, and there is a somewhat simplified explanation here: http://www.country-studies.com/uruguay/the-electoral-process.html . In 1996 this system was drastically reformed. There is a complex and long list of political reasons; there was a significant shift away from a 2 party system, it encouraged factionalism, they were making changes to prevent the democratic collapse in the 80s, and many others that you can read about in depth here: http://www.diba.es/icps/working_papers/docs/WP_I_191.pdf But perhaps we can just analyze it using some of the ideas for class. If it shows major problems here, we can see the ECON333 reasons it needed to be reformed. Ordering Information? not really...you only cast a vote for your sub lema (a bit of ordering, for the other candidates in your lemas of your lema are helped by your vote and sort of ranked over the other lemas) Condorsat Efficiency? Definitely not. say there are 2 lemas (1,2) , and 2 sub lemas per party(1a 1b, 2a, 2b). If lema 1 has 51 percent of the vote, and 1a has 51 percent of the lemas votes. so candidate 1a gets president. Its possible in a pairwise election he might lose to all other candidates. its concievable that 1a could lose to 1b (if those that voted for 2 prefer 1b), 2a (if 2b and 1b prefer 2a), 2b (if those who voted for 1b and 2a prefered them over 1a). Minimized incentive for strategic behavior? well this isnt quite as bleak. It encourages people to vote for the person closest to them, even if they would have a small chance in a simple majority/2 party/pair-wise election. At least if their candidate cant win votes will go to their lema of choice. And anyone has a chance to win, since all you need to worry about is winning your lema, and others can worry about your lema winning. This voting system means the external costs might be considerably higher than normal. It is quite possible that tehre will be fewer middle of the road candidates selected in the long run, so althoguh decision making costs might be reduced (primary, and election in 1), external will go through the roof w/it being possible that only a small portion of the electorate actually voted for the candidates sub-lema. I apoligize if some of this is confusing, it took me a little while and a couple of readings to fully understand their electoral system.

US Limits Chinese Imports

As I was browsing the internet for an article that fit in with the curriculum of our public choice class, I stumbled across an interesting article from the Washington Post called "US Limits Chinese Sock Imports"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55580-2004Oct22.html. As we have learned in class, trade restrictions can be important for the economy. Yes, they can be damaging to the domestic economy, but they can create rent (monopoly profit) for the domestic producers, which is considered beneficial. But, have you ever wondered what would happen if these quotas were lifted. According to this article, if it wasn't for the Bush administration, who extended the quota restrictions for Chinese sock imports, the US economy might have felt the impact sooner rather than later. These quotas were set to be lifted January 1st, thus allowing apparel companies to freely import from anyone around the world, enabling China to take over because of their low costs and high efficiency. This would actually cause the US textile makers to suffer more losses and continue to drive many of them out of the market, which isn't good for the domestic economy. According to James Jochum, assistant secretary of commerce for import administration , Chinese imports have "had a significant impact on the US industry", which has helped to drive about one-quarter of all US sock manufacturers out of the business and reduced the market share of the domestic industry from 83 percent in 2001 to 68 percent last year. Also, Jochum said that capping sock imports would be good because they have caused "both disruption and a threat to disruption" in the US market. Hoping the sock import quotas weren't lifted, but extended, the US textile makers asked Washington to take action and extend the quotas, allowing US textile and apparel makers to stay afloat in a demanding industry. The administration looked at the issue and concluded that these quotas do in fact need to be extended, thus reducing the amount of Chinese sock imports, with hopes of helping the US economy. Not only does this decision affect the sock market, it has the potential to affect other imported products from China. Now, everyone is just waiting on the administration's decision. I find the administration's decision to be justified. By extending the quotas, I think the US economy will improve. I know that it will not fully correct the problem of importing cheaper products from foreign manufacturers, causing US textile makers to lose their jobs, but it is a step in the right direction for potentially getting more jobs for the people of the United States because when people demand less from foreign producers, their Price will increase, causing a greater quantity to be demanded domestically. Hopefully, this will allow more domestic firms to re-open and keep a close eye on the ones that have lower costs and higher efficiency.

Farah's Post

This is actually a comment on Farah's post, but old Gus just can't figure out how to put hyperlinks into comments... Anyway, Old Gus was struck by the odd idea that Hillary Clinton would be a move toward the median voter. Can this be?? Is Mrs. Socialized Medicine reeeelly more conservative than John Kerry? Well, Old Gus hasn't had a chance to keep up with Hillary's roll call votes in the Senate (with all my prospecting). So I had to do a little research. There are several groups that track roll call votes of legislators and then tally them for a liberal-conservative ranking. Two of the most prominent are the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), and the American Conservative Union (ACU). The ADA website is too grumpy for old Gus, so I looked up the ACU ratings for Hillary and John Kerry for the four years that Hillary has been in the Senate. These ratings go from zero to 100, with 100 being the most conservative. So, if Hillary is a move to the center, as is claimed in The Economist article, her ACU ratings would be higher than John Kerry's. Here are the ratings... Year Kerry Clinton 2003 13 10 2002 20 10 2001 4 12 2000 12 0 Lifetime 5 11 Well, crawdads and crayfish! Old Gus is onto something! If Hillary is a move toward moderation, her roll call votes over the past 4 years do not bear that out! On the other hand, perhaps Kerry has been moving himself over the past few years, in anticipation of his run for the Whitehouse (his lifetime rating is only 5). Anyway, Old Gus really liked your post, Farrah. I am just not sure that Hillary is a true move toward the median voter. If the Democrats really want to move over and try to pick up a few red states, they ought to nominate someone like Joe Lieberman.

Another approach to informative campaigning

Candidates stand to benefit from engaging in informative campaigning when doing so entices more voter support than it loses. The traditional approach is for the candidate to inform voters of his or her position in the issue space. In this way, all voters whose ideal point is closest to that candidate will vote for him or her as opposed to a more distant candidate. But what about ignorant voters? To clarify, not voters ignorant of the candidate’s position, but of their own position. Surely not every voter has settled into a comfortable position of the left-right political continuum. What if, instead of informing a voter of the candidate's position, the candidate informed the voter of the voter's position? If the two positions were to just happen to align, what an epiphanic moment that would be for the voter; not only would they have found their niche on the political spectrum, but also their candidate for the next election. Perhaps this is one of the motivations behind The World's Smallest Political Quiz (WSPQ), published by the Advocates for Self-Government. The Advocates, a “non-profit, non-partisan libertarian educational organization,” claim that while only 2% of the voting population identifies itself as libertarian, a full 16% is libertarian. The Advocates place much of the blame for this disparity on the following, widely used “left-right” political spectrum paradigm <------- left ------- center -------- right --------> They claim that: "...This model is misleading and fatally flawed. It doesn't have a place for many millions of people who don't fit neatly into some variant of liberal or conservative. "(excerpt from section 2) "... Libertarians are probably the largest group that the "left-right" line excludes. A more accurate political map shows that many people now labeled "liberal" or "conservative" are actually more libertarian than anything else -- but they don't know it, because the rigid and artificial division of American politics into "left-right" doesn't allow for that. Libertarians thus have a big stake in seeing a more accurate map accepted. "(excerpt from section 5)

For this cause, David Nolan created what is now referred to the as the Nolan Chart. The chart is a mapping of the political spectrum that separates out personal and economic issues. It is a basis for the WSPQ that the Advocates advocate (*groan*). As written above, the Advocates claim that the distribution of potential voters over Nolan’s chart is more favorably skewed toward libertarian views. If it is true that there are many “undiscovered” libertarians out there, voter-side informative campaigning may be a productive way for libertarian candidates to attract voters. But hey, if your quiz results don’t sway you, don’t give up on the libertarian viewpoint just yet. If not for the quiz, do it for your economic heroes, James Buchanan and Milton Friedman.

Democrats on the Move

I read an interesting article in the Economist entitled “The Great Democratic Crack Up” http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3353402 which discussed Hillary Clinton as being the most likely democratic candidate for the 2008 election because of her orientation towards the center. The article argues that Senator Kerry’s loss should be a wake up call for Democrats who need to stop moving towards the left and start moving towards the center. This will help in appealing to the more conservative constituency in Middle America who voted for the Republican party without fail this election. Hillary Clinton is considered to be a good candidate because “she has moved to the centre since becoming senator of New York: she has been careful to support the Iraq war and has found herself a seat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.” Hillary still appeals however to the left because of “her record (particularly on health care reform) and her sex (remember that the majority of voters in the Democratic primaries are women).” She is however more oriented towards the center than Senator Kerry was for example. The writer is entertaining the notion that Hillary’s move toward the center may be what the Democratic party needs to capture the median voter and to win the election for the Democrats in 2008. “Moving the party farther to the left is unlikely to do the job. Democrats need to learn how to relate to a culturally conservative country.” It is now evident that Senator Kerry was not very successful in achieving this goal. This is an interesting idea but after grappling with it for a while I had a few concerns. Let’s say that the Democrats do adopt a new strategy in the upcoming election and we see a huge push towards the center by the left in order to capture the median voter. Given the assumptions of the Median Voter Thereom particularly the condition of spatial mobility, it is likely that the right will push right back and also attempt to take over the median voter. At this point both parties will be moving more towards the center and there may be less of a distinction between both parties and their platforms. This may lead to voters abstaining from voting all together because of their indifference among both candidates resulting from their similar platforms. As both parties move toward the center to capture the median voter there will be a convergence of their political stances which may lead to either abstention or a less rational and more random choice made by voters. This idea of moving towards the center should be thought out carefully by Democrats so that they do not lose the median voter all together because of indifference and alienation. There will be those in the Democratic party that feel alienated and may feel that their party has compromised many of the liberal ideas that they cherish in order to move towards the center. These considerations should be made before the Democratic party implements a strategy for the 2008 election. http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3353402

The Old Prospector

Hello to the class from the old prospector... I just want to assure you all that I know a good deal about Public Choice Economics. In fact, I found an interesting link on vote motives by Tyler Cowen, of Marginal Revolution. His ideas on voting are here. One interesting argument that Cowen offers to justify voting is that voting may be "rational" in a non-standard long run sense: Most moral judgments reflect some mix of estimated marginal and average products, not just marginal products alone. In part morality means the ability to take a longer-run, universalizable, or more rules-based perspective. So you need not feel guilty if the economist tells you not to vote. Maybe you are not rational in one sense of the word, but surely having a disposition to be moral can be justified. My take: If voting is "rational" because your perspective is of a longer horizon, what other types of behavior might we assume are rational in this sense? Pickled Peaches!! Where does this idea of rationality lead us??