Is there any more representative country in the world between 1789 and let’s put the Civil War in 1864? Well, for sure Switzerland, but what else? Tocqueville opinion was that the US was not only formally, but also materially the most democratic among the world powers. I do not see many reason to doubt his observations.

Would UK have banned slavery if the US where still a British colony? Moreover, with a large un represented colonial empire of people of English descent, would the UK keep its parliamentarian path? Many British Whig took a pro colonial position for some reason…

Compared to what? How many countries had a more extensive political participation? Of course, slavery was an abyssal horror, but it was almost universally accepted until 1807. 

Until that date America was the most democratic country in the world, and regarding slavery was not worse than others (in fact, half of America always resisted slavery, finally at an enormous cost).

As Tocqueville understood, democracy is auto catalytic. When you begin with a 3% franchise in 1688, the slope towards 100% is in place. By importing the Glorious Revolution, the American Revolution both put the process in motion in a continental size nation and perhaps avoided involution in UK

Lincoln was always a very ruthless political operative, but we praise him because in the 1860s the direction of History was mostly “end slavery”.

In the 1770s, the frontier was “no taxation without representation”, and turning a blind eye to slavery was almost inevitable, specially if your political base was from Virginia.

Progress is about concentrating the social force in the place where it can lead to change.

That implies turning a blind eye to anything else.

William III began his career very probably by killing the de Witt brothers, and was always a very dry and extremely arrogant character. In Ireland probably he is still hated (by the Catholics).

But probably he and Newton are the most important persons of the Modern Era.

This is the dark side of Christianity (either religious or secular): salvation is only about ethics, so the rest or accomplishment is at most secondary, often suspicious.

What about Temistocles (for the Greek victory against the Persians), the Stadtholder King William III (for defeating the reactionary absolutism of Luis XIV and James II), Washington and Madison (for creating the United States), or Churchill for stopping Hitler? 

Who shall we praise, those in the past that had the purest intentions, or those who brougth more progress? Some of the people I have selected have biographies full of cruel ambition and large scale crime. All of them were the architects of moral and material progress (mostly defeding the statu quo against reactionary forces).

Too much praise for Altruism, because it gets universal sympathy. But what about Effectiveness? 

First of all, thanks for the suggestion. I will post this in the "Voting Theory Forum" (for papers I am also a participant in the "Decision Theory Forum"), and probably in electo wiki (the reddit looks too entropic).

I will read your paper and contact (by mail) you and Dr. Heitzig, including the gated version of my paper and some additional material and probably I will consult you on my next steps.

In any case, as commented before, in my view there is a massive difference between static voting and dynamic voting. With a single vote, Arrow is inevitable. When you vote many times in the i.i.d framework, you can communicate preference intensities, and the Arrow problem can be addressed. Unfortunately, when decisions interact, policy coordination by simple (sequential) voting looks intractable to me.   

Thank you very much for your comment,

Arturo

Both Lions and mosquitoes are enemies. As long as they are contained, I can tolerate them. Mosquitoes are not contained, so I want to nuke them from orbit. 

In fact, my whole point is that while chosing is a very real concept, and it is important for ethical reasoning, we really don't chose in the sense "I could have done otherwise" in this physicalist universe. 

The fact that lions and mosquitoes can not change goes against them. The more determined is your hostility, more reasons I have to answer in kind. 

Really I wanted to avoid goint into details (because I dont want to take insect sentience too seriously: that would be a defeat!), but this time is impossible:

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/nY7oAdy5odfGqE7mQ/freedom-under-naturalistic-dualism

:-)