An Optimally-Weighted Issue-Based Tradeable Vote-Point Election System
Ganga Prasad G. Rao
http://myprofile.cos.com/gangar
Earlier, I broached how one could bring about a self-selected and optimally-weighted voting in an election by requiring voters to pay for the privilege of voting and providing them with vote points based on their issue-knowledge demonstrated to the computer in a questionnaire. Now consider a radically different system of people's representation based on vote points and issue-based ballots. Parliamentary representatives are elected by citizens who pay voting fees and allocate their vote points across competing candidates. The winner at the polls takes his seat in the Parliament. However, unlike the democracy we have, losing candidates do not hibernate in political oblivion if and until the next election beckon them. Instead, they serve as the keepers of vote points in annual issue ballots for those who did not vote for the Parliamentary winner. In other words, losers continue to play an important role in national policies, albeit from outside the Parliament. How? Read on.
Suppose issue ballots are held annually for the term of the Parliament. There are k candidates (one winner to the Parliament and k-1 losing candidates) from each constituency. Each candidate lists his or her issue priority. Let voters be provided up to xn points on paying their vote fees and answering an annual issue questionnaire. Voters allocate their earned vote points across issues, weighting them per their preferences ('issue salience'). This determines the importance of issues as perceived by citizens and provides the basis for the government/parties to prioritize issues to take up during a Parliamentary session. Next, voters assign vote points within an issue to one or more candidates in the fray, this time weighting them on the basis of candidate positions on those issues. (ie, they fill a matrix in which each cell represent vote points assigned to a candidate on a particular issue) Thus, candidates obtain different number of vote points on different issues. Candidate A (perhaps the Parliamentary representative) garners most votes on issues a, c and e, Candidate B scores in issues b and d, and so on. When the issue comes up for vote (on the basis of vote points) in the Parliament, alliances will be formed and there will be a demand for vote points (especially if a 2/3rd or 3/4th affirmative votes are required to enact on the issue. Incidentally, the degree of majority required to win an issue is a measure of the concern for the minority/opposition/losers. Typically, richer the nation, the more is the concern for the minority. A welfare state may require 90% affirmative vote points). Different parties will then seek the vote points vested with different representatives (and losing candidates) on the various issues before the Parliament. Those Parliamentary representatives whose prioritize did not match voter priorities or, in any case, did not score well in issue ballots may need to return to their constituency and negotiate with their poll opponents for vote-points. Thus, the concept of tradeable vote points is born. Representatives may trade vote points vested by voters with losing candidates in issue ballots (vote points are not transferable across issues) in exchange for monetary or non-monetary favors in an open, legal framework until the stipulated majority threshold is achieved. When those favors are collectively or indivisibly passed on to constituents, the scheme could be loosely interpreted as a pareto-optimal trade or 'compensation' in matters involving costs and benefits. For example, in the matter of river water sharing or dams, a 90% majority can only be obtained by buying out the opposition (who happen to represent the poor opposed to the project) which could be construed as compensation for the costs imposed on them. Further, the price of the vote points would depend on the vote-point strength and positions of the promoters and opponents of the project and how far the proposal is from the median preferences represented by voters. Thus, an ultra-right proposal in a centrist society would exact a high price in the form of a higher price for vote points. The high price on vote points would prod those behind the proposal to move left until a point is reached where the marginal condition (equating the benefits of moving the party's policy position against the price of vote-points) is fulfilled.
This system has many attributes to commend it. It permits voters to self-select issues of importance to them. The post-election tabulation of vote points provides politicians a measure of both the knowledge and priorities of voters, enabling them in turn to prioritize issues for parliamentary attention (presuming a knowledge-based society). It ensures that a particular Parliamentary representative does not claim the right to decide on all issues, including those on which he has no expertise or on which his position does not match those of his voters. It facilitates issue-based voting as opposed to party- or candidate-based voting. It permits differentiation in position on issues and forces citizens to consider pros and cons of various positions. Further, losing candidates retain an important role, as 'vote point banks' in policy matters post-election. It provides a theoretical and legal basis for political 'horse trading' that were hitherto banned, implicit, or underhanded. And more!
Make every vote count! Join the call for electoral reform!
Dare to Dream!
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
May Day!
WARNING: CONTENTS MAY BE IRRITATING
May Day!
Ganga Prasad G. Rao
http://myprofile.cos.com/gangar
Some time back, I broached a deep question in a silly context. Should we pay to vote, or more appropriately, Shouldn't we pay to vote? A question that smacks of disrespect to the framers of our constitution who vested in us the 'right' to vote. The right to vote is supposed to be sacrosanct part of our democratic traditions. Sad to say, it has turned in to a tool manipulated by politicians and their hackneys with impunity. Yes, it is still a right to vote. But to what avail? Whom do we vote for? With what information? And what expectations?
In the majoritarian system that our democracy is, the entire Parliament, indeed the nation, runs on a minority vote. The largest fraction of the our voting population has voted against those in power (including those sitting in the opposition). The government is run by a party that won on a minority vote and is opposed by a party that too won on a minority vote. Is this what we call representative democracy? In this system, it suffices to adopt a 'divide and rule' policy, split the opponent's vote and get away by promising goodies to a fifth of the voting population, hopefully localized in a certain part of the constituency! Or, adopt vote bloc politics by entering in to alliances with parties floated by or with local movie stars? And if that doesn't do it, it ain't that difficult to hire a few strongmen, have them congregate around the election booth and effectively turn it inaccessible after the first few hours of voting? Been there, seen that!
Talk about candidates. You don't see or hear them for all of 4 years and 364 days. And then they show up at your door and you shake hands and timidly nod your head like a 'boom boom maadu' (a bull that shakes its head in agreement) to their requests for votes. Issues? Candidates background, experience and qualifications? Party platform? 'Unholy' alliances? Wake up! This is the 20th century! No questions entertained! Jus' vote; better yet, stay away! The deals have already been made prior to elections – between parties, between parties and businesses, between candidates and between parties and unions. Your vote is merely another unnecessary signature to that deal! So what do you gain by the right to vote? A day off work? The satisfaction of voting against a government that did not raise the PF rates? Or, the ire of being in the majority that did not find its voice in the government? What are we waiting for? For a government that is all but democratically elected? For this democracy to crumble on its own? Do we even care one way or the other? I fear the overwhelming majority does not.
Shall we continue with this monstrosity that can only lead the nation to anarchy? Why? Is there an alternative? The answer: No, not all-in-one answer to all these ills. But a start can be made with open, ranked list-based proportional representation election system, perhaps with the 'vote points'-Borda Count suggestion I made in an earlier blog. To spice it up, we could turn voting in to a privilege that requires citizens to pay a-not-insignificant sum (in some proportion to their income) that can be earned back in proportion to the 'vote points' they obtain from the computer by answering a 'voter's issues quiz'. Think about it. It'd be voluntary; those not up to it, essentially uninformed voters, could vote traditionally and be counted as a single vote point. Those who care about issues, elections, democracy and nations will pay up, vote and make their vote points count (and earn their money back). The majority will no longer steamroll the minority. The Parliament will be more equitably represent diversity of this nation. Not a panacea for all our electoral and democratic ills, but a start. The beginning of a long journey toward true emancipation and a truly representative government.
Now let us all say 'Jai Hind' in unison and retire.
Tomorrow is May Day.......Get It?
May Day!
Ganga Prasad G. Rao
http://myprofile.cos.com/gangar
Some time back, I broached a deep question in a silly context. Should we pay to vote, or more appropriately, Shouldn't we pay to vote? A question that smacks of disrespect to the framers of our constitution who vested in us the 'right' to vote. The right to vote is supposed to be sacrosanct part of our democratic traditions. Sad to say, it has turned in to a tool manipulated by politicians and their hackneys with impunity. Yes, it is still a right to vote. But to what avail? Whom do we vote for? With what information? And what expectations?
In the majoritarian system that our democracy is, the entire Parliament, indeed the nation, runs on a minority vote. The largest fraction of the our voting population has voted against those in power (including those sitting in the opposition). The government is run by a party that won on a minority vote and is opposed by a party that too won on a minority vote. Is this what we call representative democracy? In this system, it suffices to adopt a 'divide and rule' policy, split the opponent's vote and get away by promising goodies to a fifth of the voting population, hopefully localized in a certain part of the constituency! Or, adopt vote bloc politics by entering in to alliances with parties floated by or with local movie stars? And if that doesn't do it, it ain't that difficult to hire a few strongmen, have them congregate around the election booth and effectively turn it inaccessible after the first few hours of voting? Been there, seen that!
Talk about candidates. You don't see or hear them for all of 4 years and 364 days. And then they show up at your door and you shake hands and timidly nod your head like a 'boom boom maadu' (a bull that shakes its head in agreement) to their requests for votes. Issues? Candidates background, experience and qualifications? Party platform? 'Unholy' alliances? Wake up! This is the 20th century! No questions entertained! Jus' vote; better yet, stay away! The deals have already been made prior to elections – between parties, between parties and businesses, between candidates and between parties and unions. Your vote is merely another unnecessary signature to that deal! So what do you gain by the right to vote? A day off work? The satisfaction of voting against a government that did not raise the PF rates? Or, the ire of being in the majority that did not find its voice in the government? What are we waiting for? For a government that is all but democratically elected? For this democracy to crumble on its own? Do we even care one way or the other? I fear the overwhelming majority does not.
Shall we continue with this monstrosity that can only lead the nation to anarchy? Why? Is there an alternative? The answer: No, not all-in-one answer to all these ills. But a start can be made with open, ranked list-based proportional representation election system, perhaps with the 'vote points'-Borda Count suggestion I made in an earlier blog. To spice it up, we could turn voting in to a privilege that requires citizens to pay a-not-insignificant sum (in some proportion to their income) that can be earned back in proportion to the 'vote points' they obtain from the computer by answering a 'voter's issues quiz'. Think about it. It'd be voluntary; those not up to it, essentially uninformed voters, could vote traditionally and be counted as a single vote point. Those who care about issues, elections, democracy and nations will pay up, vote and make their vote points count (and earn their money back). The majority will no longer steamroll the minority. The Parliament will be more equitably represent diversity of this nation. Not a panacea for all our electoral and democratic ills, but a start. The beginning of a long journey toward true emancipation and a truly representative government.
Now let us all say 'Jai Hind' in unison and retire.
Tomorrow is May Day.......Get It?
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Vote with a Difference!
Vote with a Difference!
Ganga Prasad G. Rao
Come voting time, and I get disillusioned with the mockery of campaigning that precedes elections. I fear that governments are elected, not by knowledgeable citizens who consider the candidate record, party platforms and the good of the nation, but by the masses who go for trinklets and promises. An entire nation's future is decided by voters who are either as clueless and disillusioned as me or are 'in the cut' (you know, the informal 'deals' involving keys as the candidate's 'morcha' passes through your street). Our democracy has turned in to a jambooree that elects those who promise more, without any regard to issues, or the cost to the nation. What we have is not democracy; it is a 'deal' on our trillion dollar future divided in to a billion parts with a few sharing 90% of it. What lies ahead? A society divided in to classes in which the poor masses grow ever poorer even as they work harder and vote en bloc for their movie idol at the polls while the rich makes their deals behind the back regardless of who wins?
What we need is a system in which knowledgeable, educated and intelligent voters vote with the heads after making themselves aware of issues important to the immediate family, community and the nation. No, I do not mean to disenfranchise the poor masses. This is not a vote based on educational achievements. It is one of interest in the party platforms and issues of import to the nation. The question is, how do we induce this? Consider a vote on whether a nation should switch from simple majoritarian plurality elections to a proportional representation (PR) type election. An important question, one that affects the representation of many minorities, but also a complex question that requires voters to be knowledgeable. Ideally, one would like voters to learn about the two types of elections and weigh their pros and cons before they deposit their vote. But how does one differentiate between a voter who has given due diligence to the question on the ballot and one who has not? Clearly, as a nation, we would like to weight knowledgeable voters more than those who did not care. How do we do that?
Why not design a ballot that facilitates voters to determine their own weight in the vote? In the example, why not pose ten random objective questions (say from pool of hundred questions) ranging from basic to complex on the issue of majoritarian vs PR elections that test the knowledge of voters on the issue. Voters who answer these questions receive voting points on being graded by the voting machine. Voters may then deposit these voting points in favor of one (or both) the options. A knowledgeable voter might receive 8 vote points, an ignorant voter 3 points. In such an election, vote points, not votes are the criterion for determining the winner/winning option. Knowledgeable voters who made an effort to understand the issue are weighted more than the average voter. The vote-point system is entirely voluntary and provides citizens an incentive to learn about the issues and vote intelligently. It also gives credibility to the election process; the outcome of the election may be validly construed as the considered opinion of the electorate – something that cannot be claimed of the current system.
This system could be adopted for multi-party elections and, especially for issue-ballots where voters earn vote-points by answering issue-related questions and assign the same across multiple issue options or alternatives. This system is not unlike the Borda count in which voters are asked to rank candidates and assign points to them. It could be thought of as a self-selecting, self-weighting Borda Vote. It is likely to be a 'high-fidelity' means to register the preferences of candidates and at the same time give higher weight to the knowledgeable among them.
Wish I had 10 million dollars to run this experiment (No, that's not the price for the idea)!
Ganga Prasad G. Rao
Come voting time, and I get disillusioned with the mockery of campaigning that precedes elections. I fear that governments are elected, not by knowledgeable citizens who consider the candidate record, party platforms and the good of the nation, but by the masses who go for trinklets and promises. An entire nation's future is decided by voters who are either as clueless and disillusioned as me or are 'in the cut' (you know, the informal 'deals' involving keys as the candidate's 'morcha' passes through your street). Our democracy has turned in to a jambooree that elects those who promise more, without any regard to issues, or the cost to the nation. What we have is not democracy; it is a 'deal' on our trillion dollar future divided in to a billion parts with a few sharing 90% of it. What lies ahead? A society divided in to classes in which the poor masses grow ever poorer even as they work harder and vote en bloc for their movie idol at the polls while the rich makes their deals behind the back regardless of who wins?
What we need is a system in which knowledgeable, educated and intelligent voters vote with the heads after making themselves aware of issues important to the immediate family, community and the nation. No, I do not mean to disenfranchise the poor masses. This is not a vote based on educational achievements. It is one of interest in the party platforms and issues of import to the nation. The question is, how do we induce this? Consider a vote on whether a nation should switch from simple majoritarian plurality elections to a proportional representation (PR) type election. An important question, one that affects the representation of many minorities, but also a complex question that requires voters to be knowledgeable. Ideally, one would like voters to learn about the two types of elections and weigh their pros and cons before they deposit their vote. But how does one differentiate between a voter who has given due diligence to the question on the ballot and one who has not? Clearly, as a nation, we would like to weight knowledgeable voters more than those who did not care. How do we do that?
Why not design a ballot that facilitates voters to determine their own weight in the vote? In the example, why not pose ten random objective questions (say from pool of hundred questions) ranging from basic to complex on the issue of majoritarian vs PR elections that test the knowledge of voters on the issue. Voters who answer these questions receive voting points on being graded by the voting machine. Voters may then deposit these voting points in favor of one (or both) the options. A knowledgeable voter might receive 8 vote points, an ignorant voter 3 points. In such an election, vote points, not votes are the criterion for determining the winner/winning option. Knowledgeable voters who made an effort to understand the issue are weighted more than the average voter. The vote-point system is entirely voluntary and provides citizens an incentive to learn about the issues and vote intelligently. It also gives credibility to the election process; the outcome of the election may be validly construed as the considered opinion of the electorate – something that cannot be claimed of the current system.
This system could be adopted for multi-party elections and, especially for issue-ballots where voters earn vote-points by answering issue-related questions and assign the same across multiple issue options or alternatives. This system is not unlike the Borda count in which voters are asked to rank candidates and assign points to them. It could be thought of as a self-selecting, self-weighting Borda Vote. It is likely to be a 'high-fidelity' means to register the preferences of candidates and at the same time give higher weight to the knowledgeable among them.
Wish I had 10 million dollars to run this experiment (No, that's not the price for the idea)!
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Trade IPO Rights? A May Day Special
Trade my IPO Rights – A May Day Special!
Ganga Prasad G. Rao
http://myprofile.cos.com/gangar
I don't know about you, but I am a very frustrated man, what with only GAIL, NTPC and Cairn to show for my participation in 20 IPOs over the past 4 years. I have tried every trick in the book: reading the prospectus, going to the company website, applying early on the first day, adopting a 'pick and choose' strategy, applying sequentially in the hope my luck will cumulate, ....., hoping against hope, but none seems to work. Perhaps I am not 'IPO savvy'! I am so disheartened that nowadays I buy bargains elsewhere when (and if) markets go down during the IPO period.
Then, this thought struck me as I was plodding through the gender equality paper. Why not issue IPO Participation (IPOP) Points to IPO investors and permit those points to be traded on the condition that those with 25 (or an 'IPO-specific cut-off' number of) points are guaranteed an assignment? Here is the idea: Every retail IPO investor earns a point for participation. Those who agree to pay a non-refundable fee of 2.5% of their total IPO bid amount subject to a minimum of Rs200, earn a bonus point for every Rs10,000 they invest in the IPO. These points are issued (as online certificates) by the stock exchange in consultation with the book runner; they are bankable, valid indefinitely and tradeable online at prices negotiated among retail investors. An investor submits an IPO application along with the certified number of IPOP points (own earned points, plus any purchased online). The book runner adds up the demand and stacks the applicants in descending order of their participation points. He determines a cut-off and assigns shares equally to those at or above the cut-off number of participation points. (One could think of this as claiming a right to IPO assignment by buying off the cumulative 'disappointments' of those denied in previous IPOs). Investors outbid one another in the purchase of IPOP points, in the process bidding up its price. The listing gains that accrued solely to the (1 in 1000) successful investor is now broadly distributed among the thousands of disappointed IPO investors who sell their IPOP points at a premium. The stock exchange and the book-runner are compensated for record-keeping and issue of participation certificates. Regular participants garner the required points in an years time; those with less points may purchase them from their brethren at negotiated prices. That price will vary with the 'juiciness' of upcoming IPOs. (In fact, it'd be a harbinger of the quality of IPOs in the pipeline)
Now, there are various other means of apportioning shares but it is possible to factor in the participation points in to the allocation to improve equity in the allocation of IPO shares. This scheme of tradeable IPO participation rights ensures, on one hand, that established, entrenched, 'in the know' investors do not make a regular habit of making a killing of the listing gains as companies hatch in to the stock market, and on the other, that the not so lucky small investor shares, at least minimally, in the economic rents associated with IPO allotment.
Works? Yes!
(Do I hear a 'May Day' call from Dalal street-wise guys?)
Ganga Prasad G. Rao
http://myprofile.cos.com/gangar
I don't know about you, but I am a very frustrated man, what with only GAIL, NTPC and Cairn to show for my participation in 20 IPOs over the past 4 years. I have tried every trick in the book: reading the prospectus, going to the company website, applying early on the first day, adopting a 'pick and choose' strategy, applying sequentially in the hope my luck will cumulate, ....., hoping against hope, but none seems to work. Perhaps I am not 'IPO savvy'! I am so disheartened that nowadays I buy bargains elsewhere when (and if) markets go down during the IPO period.
Then, this thought struck me as I was plodding through the gender equality paper. Why not issue IPO Participation (IPOP) Points to IPO investors and permit those points to be traded on the condition that those with 25 (or an 'IPO-specific cut-off' number of) points are guaranteed an assignment? Here is the idea: Every retail IPO investor earns a point for participation. Those who agree to pay a non-refundable fee of 2.5% of their total IPO bid amount subject to a minimum of Rs200, earn a bonus point for every Rs10,000 they invest in the IPO. These points are issued (as online certificates) by the stock exchange in consultation with the book runner; they are bankable, valid indefinitely and tradeable online at prices negotiated among retail investors. An investor submits an IPO application along with the certified number of IPOP points (own earned points, plus any purchased online). The book runner adds up the demand and stacks the applicants in descending order of their participation points. He determines a cut-off and assigns shares equally to those at or above the cut-off number of participation points. (One could think of this as claiming a right to IPO assignment by buying off the cumulative 'disappointments' of those denied in previous IPOs). Investors outbid one another in the purchase of IPOP points, in the process bidding up its price. The listing gains that accrued solely to the (1 in 1000) successful investor is now broadly distributed among the thousands of disappointed IPO investors who sell their IPOP points at a premium. The stock exchange and the book-runner are compensated for record-keeping and issue of participation certificates. Regular participants garner the required points in an years time; those with less points may purchase them from their brethren at negotiated prices. That price will vary with the 'juiciness' of upcoming IPOs. (In fact, it'd be a harbinger of the quality of IPOs in the pipeline)
Now, there are various other means of apportioning shares but it is possible to factor in the participation points in to the allocation to improve equity in the allocation of IPO shares. This scheme of tradeable IPO participation rights ensures, on one hand, that established, entrenched, 'in the know' investors do not make a regular habit of making a killing of the listing gains as companies hatch in to the stock market, and on the other, that the not so lucky small investor shares, at least minimally, in the economic rents associated with IPO allotment.
Works? Yes!
(Do I hear a 'May Day' call from Dalal street-wise guys?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
