I see that you are trying, and getting into long missives. I will try for
helpful thoughts. I will speak from New York state, where some of the laws
make sense.
Parties can be useful, but the framework needs to facilitate control by the
party members.
Part of this is for party committees being elected by party members.
Actually committee members could be nominated by the kind of committee
you seem to fear - but with ability of voters to do their own nominating
this can be corrected when such is needed.
While parties properly nominate candidates, voters should also be able to
do nominations outside the party structure.
Candidate qualities should be visible to all voters with reasonable voter
effort. To me this is campaigning, and I do not understand your apparent
fear of that word.
Voters will decide for themselves how much effort they are willing
to invest in elections - what is needed is maximizing the amount they can
learn with reasonable effort.
As to election methods, we need to do better than Plurality. I suggest
more thought as to score, IRV, and Condorcet - which let voters vote for
more than one candidate.
DWK
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:21:00 -0500 Fred Gohlke wrote:
Good Morning, Juho
re: [my comment] "There is no reason why [the people] must, or
should, let self-interested groups arrogate the selection of
candidates to themselves. We have the means to let the
people make their own choices and ... if we believe in
democratic government ... we have an obligation to enable
them to do so." [end of my comment]
[To which you responded] "Yes. Voters may also need more
information on those candidates that are not already well
known to the voters. That may mean also campaigning, by the
candidates themselves or by some interest group."
Whether or not campaigning is necessary depends on the means by which
the candidates are selected and elected. If the mechanism guarantees
careful examination of each candidate by voters with a vital interest in
choosing the best person, then participation, itself, is all the
campaigning that is necessary or desirable.
As you said to Kristofer Munsterhjelm on this thread (Thu, 26 Feb 2009),
"The citizens should decide what to do, not just approve the proposals".
In the same way, the citizens should also decide who they want to
represent them, not just approve the choices made by self-interested groups.
In short, if the voters need more information on the candidates, they
must be able to get the information during the electoral process.
Clearly, letting parties choose the candidates and 'sell' them to the
people fails to do that.
re: "My basic thinking was that the better information the voters
have the better (democratic) decisions they make."
I absolutely agree ... and the best information they can get is by
carefully examining the aspirants BEFORE they are accepted as
candidates. No intermediary, whether media, party or friend, can
provide unbiased information about a candidate.
re: "Market driven economy is expected to follow this principle
... I think market economy is considered to be the leading
model of economy by many."
We are not discussing the economy. We are discussing electoral methods;
more specifically, the role of political parties in the electoral process.
re: "In politics / democracy the one-dollar-one-vote principle is
not usually considered good, although I have seen light
references to its possible benefits (e.g. "let the experts
decide in economical questions", "good candidates will get
also lots of campaign money", "lobbyists as a central part
of the decision making process", "better make decisions that
please the investor's needs")."
Which helps to show that such euphemisms open a Pandora's Box of
obfuscation, justification and nonsense. All it does is deflect
attention from the original, and very important, question:
"Is it not obvious that campaigning, itself, is the problem?"
re: [my comment] "The point is, using that expression masks the
fact that campaigning is a primary cause of corruption in
politics. Campaigning is expensive and 'He who pays the
piper, calls the tune.'" [end of my comment]
[To which you responded] "Yes. Also I wanted to point to this
phenomenon as a problem and form of corruption rather than as
a target."
I'm sorry. I do not understand your response. I think you are saying
that you also wanted to point to campaigning "as a problem and form of
corruption", but I don't understand what you mean by "rather than as a
target".
re: "OK, that is more straight forward talk. I however wanted to
express the theory that covers campaigning and also other
areas ... "
To what end? The scope of politics is incredibly broad. We are
discussing one tiny part of that topic ... the harmful aspects of
political campaigning. Rather than branching out into other areas,
we'll be better served by examining campaigning more carefully. For
example, we need to acknowledge that, not only does the need for
campaign funds invite financial corruption, the act of campaigning
corrupts the candidate's psyche. The nature of campaigning encourages
candidates to believe the persistent laudatory claims made on their
behalf. If we do not understand and acknowledge the deleterious effects
of campaigning, we can not hope to improve our political methods.
re: "You may have frightened the party politicians and people
that think that their own party is a good party."
Although it's unlikely a pipsqueak like me has frightened anyone, I
would not be ashamed of frightening party politicians.
Those who think "their own party is a good party" are a different case.
Some portion of them have never had occasion to question the wisdom of
their partisanship. Although I have no wish to 'frighten' them, I would
like to encourage them to consider the possibility that a non-partisan
electoral process might produce a better government. To do that, it is
important to highlight the adverse effects of party politics.
re: "Yes, the current limitations should be pointed out. It would
be best if one can put the message in such a format that the
new proposal will give the people even more benefit than the
old system does, not such format that the old system and
people in it are rotten and should be replaced with
something totally different, leaving no stones of the old
system left."
You're not wrong!
Practical Democracy will, in my opinion, "give the people even more
benefit than the old system does". However, the old system is
entrenched and, for the most part, accepted without question. Raising
objections to it is a non-trivial enterprise. The down side is that my
observations sound like condemnation of everyone presently in politics.
That's unfortunate.
I believe there are many good people in politics, people who genuinely
want to improve their government. They are frustrated, not because of
any shortcoming on their part, but because the nature of partisan
politics does not allow them to 'make a difference'.
You may chastise me for my condemnation of our political institutions,
but I hope, before we're done, you'll help devise an electoral method
that allows those good people to reach the goals they are presently
prevented from achieving.
re: [exposing the flaws] "Sometimes that can not be avoided. But
that is usually not good marketing. In theoretical
discussions one should not avoid direct talk, and a marketing
oriented approach is not recommended."
You will not be surprised to learn that I have no marketing talent (and,
forgive me for saying so, don't want any).
re: "One must also be careful and avoid situations where the
targets will feel hurt and as a result freeze in their
existing mental positions and refuse all proposals to
change."
I understand your point, and, to some extent, agree with it. That is
one of the reasons I try to be careful with the wording of my
assertions. When it's all said and done, though, my only hope is that a
few open-minded people will consider the nature of partisan politics,
objectively and rationally, and lend their wit and wisdom to improving
our political system.
Fred Gohlke
--
da...@clarityconnect.com people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
