On 9/4/2011 1:26 PM, Fred Gohlke wrote:
...
I'd like to know that each step recommended on the Electoral Methods
site is a move toward greater democracy, but I'm not sure others
agree.
There seems to be greater interest in solidifying the role of
political
parties in the electoral infrastructure than in improving public
participation in the political process.
...
The Declaration loosens, rather than tightens, the grip that
political
parties now have on politics. Completely releasing that grip comes
later. (One step at a time...)
I agree that aspiring to lofty goals is, for lack of a better way
to say
it, a good goal. It's what I've always tried to do.
As for promoting direct public participation in the political
process,
first we have to develop election-method "tools" that support such
participation. I've done a prototype of an early kind of such a
tool at
www.NegotiationTool.com, although first the approach needs to be
learned
in smaller groups before it can be scaled up to reach the long-term
goal
of direct, citizen-based participation in government. Surely that's a
lofty goal.
... I simply fear the purpose of reforming electoral methods
is lost in the verbiage engulfing the reforms. ...
I don't know what that sentence means.
... However much I'd like to
see movement toward more democratic electoral systems, I recognize
that
progress must be slow and incremental. ...
I disagree. We don't have to move slowly. And the Declaration will
dramatically speed up "movement toward more democratic electoral
systems".
Speeding things up is what will enable us to sooner reach our shared
lofty goal of eventual direct-participation democracy -- without the
currently necessary "evil" of political parties.
We agree that we need to take one step at a time, yet I see no reason
that we have to take those steps sssooo ssslllooowwwlllyyy. This
is the
year 2011 and we're still using plurality voting in U.S. elections?
Richard Fobes
On 9/4/2011 1:26 PM, Fred Gohlke wrote:
Good Afternoon, Richard
I absolutely agree - we must crawl before we can walk. However,
since we
are not babies, perhaps our position is more analogous to
wriggling out
of a cesspool. To do that, it's best to have an idea of where we
want to
go so we don't flounder around in it longer than necessary.
In thinking about how to respond to your note, I kept coming back
to a
thought that seemed important, so I looked it up:
"Keep thine eye upon the prize; be sure that thy eyes be
continually upon the profit thou art like to get. The
reason why men are so apt to faint in their race for
heaven, it lieth chiefly in either of these two things:
1. They do not seriously consider the worth of the prize;
or else if they do, they are afraid it is too good for
them; ...
2. And do not let the thoughts of the rareness of the
place make thee say in thy heart, This is too good
for me; ..."
John Bunyan, 1698
I was surprised to learn this thought's religious overtones (I would
have guessed John Bunyan was Paul Bunyan's dad), so I must beg the
indulgence of those whose minds close at the first hint of
religiosity.
The quality of an idea should be independent of its source. I must
have
thought this one worthy, for I kept it in the back of my mind long
after
I lost my awe of religion.
I think it's important for people proposing Electoral Methods to
know
(and agree upon) the prize they seek - and not lose sight of it. I
fear
I've failed to make that point. I have no problem with the
'Declaration'. I simply fear the purpose of reforming electoral
methods
is lost in the verbiage engulfing the reforms. However much I'd
like to
see movement toward more democratic electoral systems, I recognize
that
progress must be slow and incremental. Even Bunyan didn't expect to
reach his prize during his lifetime.
The purpose of the August 24th suggestion of listing fundamental
principles was intended, not to define the 'Declaration', but to
ensure
that participants in the discussion had the same goal.
I'd like to know that each step recommended on the Electoral Methods
site is a move toward greater democracy, but I'm not sure others
agree.
There seems to be greater interest in solidifying the role of
political
parties in the electoral infrastructure than in improving public
participation in the political process.
Wouldn't it be a good idea to acknowledge that we don't need more
of the
poison that's making us so sick?
Fred Gohlke
