Good Morning, Michael
re: "... you speak of those who lack faith - not in a particular
judgment of the people - but more generally, in all such
judgments."
Yes. I think you could say that, but I'd like to look at the issue more
closely:
To say we believe in democracy is to say very little because, unless we
know how democracy is implemented, we can not evaluate the extent to
which the people control the government. The practice in the United
States (which most Americans think of as the epitome of democracy) is
profoundly anti-democratic. (I will post the rationale for this
assertion within a few days. I urge those who would rebuke me for it to
wait until then, so they can address the issues rather than bluster
about generalities.)
My belief in democracy is a belief that there are among us people of
intellect and integrity who are suited to represent us in our government
and that is it our right and our responsibility to find these people and
raise them to positions of leadership. So, in terms of your comment, I
speak of those who lack faith that there are among us good
representatives of the people, people who can and will make the
judgments that advance society.
re: "I also intended my answer to apply to particular institutions
of democracy, such as a newly proposed election method. We
cannot judge such a proposal on the basis of its principles
alone. We must also look on the practical side. There too,
faith is too much to ask."
For the most part, I agree with you. My sole demur is on the question
of practicality, an argument that can be used to deter virtually any
proposal without regard to its merit.
Judging a proposal on its principles alone is unwise but judging it on
the basis of reason is not. All advances are built on a foundation of
reason. They can't exist until they are conceived.
re: "Generally, do you think it's useful to look at other, similar
election methods?"
Of course, if there are any. Studying alternatives is the essence of
the spread of knowledge.
re: "Can you explain these informal arrangements (i.e., "You drive,
we're drunk.") in more detail?"
In terms of problem-solving ... which should be government's role in our
existence ... the natural tendency of rational individuals is to select
the most qualified people in the troubled group to work out the
solution. We should not let the fact that ego plays a large part in
selecting the most qualified people (often, if not usually, to the
detriment of the group) blind us to the essential nature of the way we
solve problems. Free of external constraints ("It's my car, I'll
drive."), we always seek the most competent person we can find to
resolve the problem.
Since, in terms of political choices, the external constraints are many
and varied (most people won't take a cab, even when they know the driver
is drunk, because of peer pressure and cost), devising an electoral
method that frees us of these constraint is vital, but non-trivial.
After I post the promised comments on partisan politics in the United
States, I'll suggest a method of implementing a truly democratic
electoral process ... a method that gives every member of the electorate
an equal opportunity to influence the government ... a method that
resolves the problem of external constraints ... a method that allows
the people to select the best of their number to represent them in their
government ... so we can examine it carefully. If we find its
shortcomings exceed its benefits, the process should point us to a
better solution.
Fred Gohlke
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
