poli-sci (07/13/82)
>From JoSH@RUTGERS Mon Jul 12 20:43:17 1982
Poli-Sci Digest Tue 13 Jul 82 Volume 2 Number 153
Contents: Preferential Balloting (6 msgs)
War in Lebanon
Eminent Domain
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 9 Jul 1982 3:30:40 EDT (Friday)
From: David Mankins <dm at BBN-RSM>
Subject: Australian ballot
The Australian ballot (voters rank their choices by preference) is
used in Cambridge, Ma., city council elections.
------------------------------
Date: 9 Jul 1982 0126-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Blank Ballots and Austrailian Balloting
My major experience has been in local and University elections, but 4%
blank ballots seems either too high or too low. ie if that is count
of TOTALLY blank ballots, then it seems far too high (unless of course
there are VERY few issues on the ballot); but if it is a count of those
ballots with just one issue left blank, then it seems too low.
Clarifications?
We once tried the Austrailian ballot system at Stanford. With a voting
population of about 10,000, the counting process took at least a week
(although little use then was made of optical scanning and the like)
and many people did not understand what was happening. It also has
severe difficulties in that the metric used cannot be easily varied.
ie suppose you like candidate 1 slightly more than candidate 2, and
both a lot more than candidate 3. Simply ranking them 1,2,3 is
an incorrect expression of your preferences. But allowing you to
rank them 1,2,10 allows for greater misunderstanding and added
complexity. Basically there is a trade off involved. After many
elections where the Austrailian system was misunderstood and held up
all the election results, we chucked it for a simple majority type
system (we may go back given advances in ballot counting technology,
but may not).
Jim
------------------------------
Date: 9 Jul 1982 09:25:27-EDT
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: Re: "Australian" ballot
This is difficult to do on a large scale since you can't simply count
slips of paper but have to sort them out several times over.
Cambridge MA does something similar, involving semi-random redistribution,
which is statistically the same as true "Australian" counting in a large enough
universe (say 10,000 or more ballots cast---I think Cambridge runs well over
that). If anybody is really interested in the gory details, I can dig them out;
suffice it to say that Cambridge election results take a week to determine (so
far they haven't worked out how to do this on computer---or perhaps Vellucci,
who is a small-scale Dapper O'Neil, has been claiming it would be too effete
and intellectual for the average Cambridge resident).
Incidentally, the term "Australian ballot" is a misnomer perpetuated by
SF convention committees (and perhaps by others). The proper name is
"reverse preferential" (since you start by discarding the least-favored
choice rather than picking the most-favored); "Australian ballot" is
suppposed to refer to secretly-cast paper ballots, or some such.
------------------------------
Date: 9 Jul 1982 1955-PDT
Subject: Voting Systems
From: Mike Leavitt <LEAVITT at USC-ISI>
I like the Australian ballot system, but only when combined with
a "None of the Above" option. In other words, would like to be
able to say that I prefer to see the office go vacant rather than
have candidates X, Y, or Z get elected, but I would prefer A and
B (in that order) to NOTA. That would be particularly
appropriate for something like the Hugos, since that would permit
an award not to be given in a given year (something that should
have happened a few times, as far as I am concerned).
Mike <Leavitt at USC-ISI>
------------------------------
Date: 10 Jul 1982 0403-EDT
From: Daniel Breslau <MDC.BRESLA at MIT-OZ at MIT-AI>
I agree -- there should be a "no op" choice on the ballot.
However, a fundamental problem remains. Some people, for a variety of
reasons, simply wish not to vote. Regardless of their reasons (most
of which I disagree with), the rights of these people should be respected.
The problem I had been addressing when I first brought up the
topic was that certain changes to the Voting Rights Act which were
suggested here could result in legislated pressures being brought
against those who did not vote. I feel that this is as much a
violation of people's rights as not allowing them to vote would be.
Dan Breslau
Mdc.Bresla@Mit-Oz
------------------------------
Date: Fri Jul 9 17:08:28 1982
From: npois!npoiv!harpo!decvax!utzoo!watmath!watarts!geo at Berkeley
Subject: Voting procedures
There was an article in Scientific American a couple of years
ago (I believe it was 1979) comparing various voting procedures.
------------------------------
Date: 9 Jul 1982 03:18:36-PDT
From: Kim.arens at Berkeley
Subject: Israeli invasion of Lebanon
I'm surprised that with Israel's invasion of Lebanon into its second month
now, we still haven't had any mention of it poli-sci!
To start, lets begin with the elimination of some myths:
Myth: The invasion was in retaliation for the wounding of the Israeli
ambassador to Britain by PLO guerrilas.
Truth: The possibility of an invasion of Lebanon had been openly debated in
the Israeli press for four months prior to its taking place. In an
article in the prestigious daily "Ha'aretz" from the middle of May the
paper's military correspondent claims that the invasion had been set to
start on four separate dates during the previous couple of months and
that each time it was postponed at the last moment. The last
postponement, he claims, was due to intense American pressure. Through
these debates in the press it became known that there existed a plan
known as the "Sharon plan" and purportedly espoused by him. According to
it Israel is to invade Lebanon, capture the southern half of it, and
unite with the Phalangists in the northwest. The Palestinians (not just
their leadership) are to be driven out of Lebanon and into Jordan which
is to become their homeland. The Phalangists are to rule a new Lebanese
state which will be allied with Israel.
As to the identity of the gunmen who shot the Israeli ambassador -- it
became known only days after the shooting that they were NOT associated
with the PLO, just as PLO spokespersons had claimed all along. Israel
didn't wait to find out.
Myth: The invasion was necessary in order to end incessant shelling by PLO
gunners of towns and cities in northern Israel.
Truth: There was a cease fire in effect for more than 10 months prior to
the invasion. According to reports of the UN peacekeeping force that was
stationed on the Israeli-Lebanese border, there was not a single case of
PLO initiated shelling of northern Israel during that time. There were
two cases of shelling, both during the month preceding the invasion, and
both in response to Israeli bombing of targets within Lebanon. A
previous bombing of Lebanon went without response by the PLO, which
promised then to continue abiding by the cease fire agreement if Israel
did not attack again.
Myth: Israel only wishes to push PLO gunners 40km so that Israel is out of
their range.
Truth: What can I say? Here's a joke that is currently circulating in
Israel -- Q: How far is Turkey from Israel?
A: 40 kilometers.
In addition, one who believes this claim should have some difficulty
explaining the mass arrests ('abductions' is a more descriptive term) in
Lebanon of Palestinians and leftist Lebanese. As early as June 9th the
Israeli defense ministry issued orders empowering all military officers
above a certain rank to 'arrest' any person deemed by them as posing a
risk to Israeli national security or public safety. There is (obviously)
no judicial review and no provisions for notifying anyone of such
'arrests'. No one knows for certain what goes on in the detention camps
that have been set up for these people in southern Lebanon and in
northern Israel. Unsubstantiated horror stories are circulating in
Israel.
Myth: The PLO threatens Israel's existence. It had enormous arms caches in
southern Lebanon which could have been used to attack Israel.
Truth: Regardless of what anyone, including the PLO, says, Israel is by far
the most powerful nation in the Middle East and it's survival is
threatened by no one. If one had other ideas concerning the comparative
power of the PLO, the events of the last month should have changed their
minds. And this was no surprise attack, mind you.
I suppose this will do to get the discussion started.
Yigal Arens, UC Berkeley
------------------------------
Date: 11 Jul 82 00:07:43 EDT (Sun)
From: Steve Bellovin <smb.unc@UDel-Relay>
Subject: Eminent Domain
I'm curious what folks on this list think of the power of eminent
domain, by which governments can forcibly acquire land. I'm not
especially interested in the libertarian viewpoint here -- that eminent
domain constitutes theft, and hence is never justifiable -- rather, I'm
curious what limits people think should be placed on it. (The reason
I'm excluding libertarian ideas here is not that I think they're
without merit; indeed, I find them more reasonable in this situation
than in most others. It's just that if you accept the basic
libertarian philosophy, emininent domain is so obviously wrong that
there's nothing to discuss; *no* situation could justify taking a
person's property. I take the view that it can be justified; I'm
asking when.)
This query was sparked by several recent incidents, some of which have
received national attention:
To prevent the Oakland Raiders from moving to L.A., the city of
Oakland has threatened to seize the team -- with "just"
compensation, to be sure. The California Supreme Court has
ruled that this is a permissible exercise of municipal power.
The Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority is building a new runway.
They've just begun condemnation proceedings against the
landowners who declined the single offer they were made for
their property. No attempt was made to bargain: "if you
negotiate with one of them, you have to negotiate with them
all." (An important point in the airport's favor is that they
*must* have that land; it's taken 8 years to agree on a runway
layout that would satisfy noise and other environmental
constraints. This sort of captive market is a blatant
invitation to exorbitant pricing requests.)
In Detroit, the city condemned an area that GM wanted for a new
plant. The city claimed that the new plant was vital for the
economic life of the city; the issue was tainted by charges of
racism, since the city administration is black, and the
community involved was white.
A town in Connecticutt -- Hartford, I believe -- just learned
that their new $2.3 million fire house was built on land the
city doesn't own. They're still not sure how that happened,
but for now, the owner is demanding $300,000 for the property
-- which was valued at only $8,000 for tax purposes.
[Also: within the past month or so, New Jersey laid claim to
huge amounts of land (hundreds of millions or possibly billions
of dollars worth), mostly people's houses but also including
everything from parking lots to churches to a municipal baseball
diamond. Ironically, the reason was that the Tidal Lands clause
in the state charter, which gave it the power to do this, had just
been repealed by a popular-vote amendment, and the state quickly
moved to grab all the lands they could before the amendment went
into effect. --JoSH]
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------