Venezuela: Voters Repeal Presidential Term Limits

[The Mad Monk]

On Robert Mugabe “I give you a replica of liberator Simón BolÍvar’s sword . . . For you who, like BolÍvar, are and will always be a true freedom fighter [who] continues, alongside his people, to confront the pretensions of new imperialists”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5747992.ece

I am interested in knowing when and where Chavez said this.

[Barnabas]

Some perspective

William Lyon Mackenzie democratically ruled for 21 years, Helmut Kohl 18 years, Gordon Menzies 18 years, Nehru 17 years, Felipe González 14 years, Francois Mitterand 14 years and Thatcher 11 years.

Hugo has only ruled for 10 years.

[Darius871]

We just have a prejudice for democracy in the way we used to have a prejudice against blacks. Merely having a prejudice does not make it right.

I don't disagree with that one bit. I just fail to see how even 100% ironclad empirical proof that "X is bad" necessarily means that a superior Y could ever exist in reality, since there is no empirical evidence as to Y (yet). In theory there's a thousand reasons Y would be just dandy, but I thought you just eschewed theory in favor of empiricism.

[Felch]

Let's suppose that Nader and Gore are the main competitors in the 2000 election. Let's say I support Nader first, then Gore, then Bush. And suppose I don't have a strong preference for Nader over Gore (so an "honest" ranking might be Nader 100, Gore 95, or something like that). I also know that there are folks with a roughly opposite perspective (they prefer Gore 100, Nader 95). Now, let's ignore the impact of Bush and reduce the electorate to two people, for simplicity.

I have the choice between 100 N/0 G or 100 N/95 G. The other guy has a choice between 0 N/100 G or 95 N/100 G. Defining the N-G total as my "gain" and the other guy's "loss," there's trivially a "saddle point" (where my minimum gain is maximized, and his maximum loss is minimized): 100/0 and 0/100.

That system is pretty terrible. A better one would be instant run-off voting.

Personally, I'd like an IRV first past the post system in one house and a proportional representation system in the other house (with all districts within a house equally sized and controlled by nonpartisan redistricting).

Reducing the race to two candidates might make it simple, but it also defeats the purpose of range voting. Your analogy is coherent, only because it's arguing a point that range voting sidesteps. If there were only two sides to consider, range voting wouldn't make a difference. That is not the case in the real world. In the real world it was not Nader vs. Gore. It was Nader vs. Gore vs. Bush vs. Buchanan vs. (Browne?). I forget the Lib candidate from 2000, but the point is that it wasn't a two way race. Our political system simply tends towards two way races.

IRV is good, and I'd certainly prefer it to the current system. I don't believe that it is better than range voting though. As an example, here's how I would vote if voting systems were being voted on.

Under IRV I would vote:

Range voting 1
IRV 2
Plurality 3 (or not at all)

Under range voting I would vote:

Range voting 100
IRV 95
Plurality 0

Under the current system I would vote:

Range voting

You see how there's a definite difference between those three. In both IRV and range I state a preference, but under range voting I'm able to quantify the degree to which I prefer the choices. Clearly plurality voting is inadequate. It limits a voter's voice, without any real benefit.

Nonpartisan redistricting is another point that you bring up. I'm all for that. How do you feel about the shortest splitline algorithm?

[Felch]

We just have a prejudice for democracy in the way we used to have a prejudice against blacks. Merely having a prejudice does not make it right.

Merely having a prejudice does not make it wrong either.

[Ramo]

Reducing the race to two candidates might make it simple, but it also defeats the purpose of range voting.

I was reinforcing the point that pity votes would dry up as third parties become competitive.

The system becomes more complicated as you add credible candidates, but the point that I was making is that the distribution you choose would not be reflective of your cardinal preferences. Rather, the distribution would be an indirect reflection of your ordinal preferences (if you're gaming the system rationally). So instead of making the election about gaming the system correctly, the straightforward thing to do would to have instant runoffs.

Under range voting I would vote:

Range voting 100
IRV 95
Plurality 0

Suppose the polls say that primary support is at:
Range: 40%
IRV: 40%
FPTP: 20%

The rational thing for you to do is to vote:
Range: 100
IRV, FPTP: 0

If the polls show a three way tie, then you want:
Range: 100
IRV: 100
FPTP: 0

Basically the distribution you would choose is a not terribly straight-forward function of both your preferences and the polls.

Nonpartisan redistricting is another point that you bring up. I'm all for that. How do you feel about the shortest splitline algorithm?

There are any number of acceptable algorithms. I don't have a preference.

[Felch]

I'd rather have the choice to make a rational decision than not to have the choice at all. I'd be happy with IRV. I'd be happier with range. Range voting to me is superior because it offers a broader choice. I can choose to by cynical and vote the way you and Kuci describe, or I can choose to vote my conscience. No one says that I have to vote rationally. In any event it's better than the current system.

I push for range voting, but I'd settle for instant run-off. Does that make sense?

[Ramo]

My point is that we could have a system where voting rationally is coincident with voting your conscience, such as IRV.

Range voting is a lot of pointless complication. I'm not convinced that it's better than the status quo (due to associated confusion).

[Felch]

Associated confusion? Do you mean that voters wouldn't understand? Range voting is just assigning a value to each candidate, higher numbers mean you like the candidate. Pretty simple.

If you can't handle voting, you should seriously stay out of the booth. I'm not kidding, and after eight years of Bush I don't think it's too much to ask.

IRV and range voting are both better than the status quo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system#Criteria_in_evaluating_single_winner_voting_systems

There's a handy chart to compare criteria. Range voting fails a couple criteria simply because it's a different way of voting. IRV is good overall. It really comes down to your priority. My priority is to open up elections to minority parties, and I believe that range voting is the best way to do that.

[snoopy369]

I would object to the comparison to Britain (for example) as regarding term limits. The powers of the Prime Minister in their system are dramatically lower than those Chavez wields.

To me, he's making moves towards becoming a dictator, whether he is one or not. Not being able to recognize that these sorts of moves are not dissimilar to other dictators (see Adolf Hitler ... there you go, Godwin's Law is satisfied) is a poor idea regardless of politics. I won't say that dictators are always bad - benevolent dictators can be a superior form of government, after all - but typically the personality that causes someone to want to be a dictator is usually a bad thing in my book.

[Felch]

Well, yeah, the guy is a megalomaniac douche.

[snoopy369]

Honestly I'd rather keep his personality out of it, and even whether he is a dictator or not at the present, not to mention whether he's acted evilly or not. A lot of what he's done depends on your point of view; while I don't like a lot of it, I think that some people could quite legitimately strongly support his actions (and not just communists hoping for a successful communist revolution). Venezuela was a screwed up place before he got there, and from one reasonable point of view, it's a far better place now.

Honestly, if he'd freed slaves, imprisoned evildoers, and given $50,000 a year (USD or Euro, your choice) stipends to the entire country based on oil revenues, I'd still have a problem with the obvious slide into dictatorship. I'd oppose removing term limits retroactively (ie, such that they can cease to apply to a currently sitting leader) under ANY conditions. If Jesus Christ came down and ran for President, I'd vote for him for his two terms, and then send him on his merry way afterward.

Even Putin had the decency to change jobs after his term limit came up... he may still be running the country but he didn't have to break the law, or remake it for his own benefit, to do so.

And, why is a simple majority not good enough for constitutional changes? Because what good is having a constitution if you can change it any time the majority wants to. What's the point of having things that protect minority rights, for example, if the 51% can change it at any point? Imagine if the 14th - or 13th... - amendment had been able to be changed based on a single majority vote of those who chose to vote in the early 1900s. I wonder if we'd have reverted to slavery ...

[Ramo]

Bloomberg just changed his term limits, and didn't even go through a public referendum (it was a city council action). Where in the dictator scale does that place him?

As for Constitutional change, the same ease in putting in bad things applies to putting in good things. The US is pretty unique in having tons of counter-majoritarian institutions. Given the arc of history from relatively crappy to relatively benevolent societies, I'd say that on balance that's a bad thing (specifically, most of our institutional problems with the Senate). Consider how many decades federal civil rights legislation have been delayed due to a powerful minority. I think it might do us some good if we had a constitutional convention every few decades.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Bloomberg is also, in the words of Felch, "a megalomaniac douche".

Really scary move, IMO, to allow Bloomberg to lift term limits so he can have another term.

[Ramo]

I'm not a fan of Bloomberg, but really? That's "scary?"

I think a lot of systemic problems that the US has lies in term limits. Why should cities spend a lot in infrastructure projects, say mass transit, when you can't get credit for the benefits that would be realized long after you're out of office?