[LINK] Democracy and bit rates ...

[Frank O'Connor]

Loved this explanation of the limits of democracy in SlashDot (the participants were discussing Obama with relation to his Privacy Reform panel reporting to the NSA).

"There are roughly 300 million people in the United States, of whom only one can be President at any given time.
With 300 million available candidates, many of whom are not nincompoops, why does America keep electing nincompoops to political office?

Sending a message to select 1 out of 300 million possibilities requires 29 bits. So if you vote in only the general election for the Presidency, then some mysterious force narrows the election down to 2 out of 300 million possibilities - exerting 28 bits of decision power - and then you, or rather the entire voting population, exert 1 more bit of decision power. If you vote in a primary election, you may send another 2 or 3 bits worth of message.

Where do the other 25 bits of decision power come from?

(...) Since around half the population is under the age of 35, at least one bit of the missing decision power is exerted by 55 delegates in Philadelphia in 1787. Though the "natural-born citizen" clause comes from a letter sent by John Jay to George Washington, a suggestion that was adopted without debate by the Philadelphia Convention.

(...) Likewise, not everyone would want to be President. (But see the hidden box: In principle the option exists of enforcing Presidential service, like jury duty.) How many people would run for President if they had a serious chance at winning? Let's pretend the number is only 150,000. That accounts for another 10 bits.

Then some combination of the party structure, and the media telling complicit voters who voters are likely to vote for, is exerting on the order of 14-15 bits of power over the Presidency; while the voters only exert 3-4 bits. And actually the situation is worse than this, because the media and party structure get to move first. They can eliminate nearly all the variance along any particular dimension. So that by the time you get to choose one of four "serious" "front-running" candidates, that is, the ones approved by both the party structure and the media, you're choosing between 90.8% nincompoop and 90.6% nincompoop.

I seriously think the best thing you can do about the situation, as a voter, is stop trying to be clever. Don't try to vote for someone you don't really like, because you think your vote is more likely to make a difference that way. Don't fret about "electability". Don't try to predict and outwit other voters. Don't treat it as a horse race. Don't worry about "wasting your vote" - it always sends a message, you may as well make it a true message.

(...) Oh - and if you're going to vote at all, vote in the primary. That's where most of your remaining bits and remaining variance have a chance to be exerted."

The full article that was quoted at SlashDot is at http://lesswrong.com/lw/mi/stop_voting_for_nincompoops/ written by Eliezer Yudkowsky and, strangely enough ... given the URL, entitled 'Stop Voting for Nincompoops'.

In Australia the figures are probably about 15 million voters and the politician count is up because we have a Parliamentary rather than a Republican system of government ... but conversely we have less Separation of Powers so the risks are higher for what, in the US, would amount to our Congressional elections. 

That said, I like the 'bit rate' explanation of the limitations of modern democracy and Presidential voting. Maybe we don't deserve the politicians we get. Maybe the numbers are stacked against us.            :)

Just my 2 cents worth ...