Good Morning, Juho
re "... maybe the sponsoring problem could be one easy (in
theory) problem to solve. Just cut out party sponsoring
and/or set some limits to the cost of personal campaigns."
You mention two related issues, sponsorship and campaigning. It may not
be easy to correct them. We should look at each of them more carefully:
Sponsorship:
Corruption pervades our political system because the parties control the
selection of candidates for public office. Candidates are not chosen
for their integrity. Quite the contrary, they are chosen after they
demonstrate their willingness and ability to dissemble, to obfuscate and
to mislead the electorate. They are chosen when they prove they will
renounce principle and sacrifice honor for the benefit of their party.
The result is a circular process that intensifies over time:
* Candidates for public office cannot mount a viable campaign
without party sponsorship, so they obtain sponsorship by
agreeing to the party's terms.
* The party, assured of the loyalty of its candidates, attracts
donors because it can promise that its candidates will support
the objectives set by the party, i.e., the goals of the donors.
* From the donors, the party obtains the resources it needs to
attract appealing candidates and bind them to the party's will.
This cycle makes political parties conduits for corruption. Businesses,
labor unions and other vested interests give immense amounts of money
and logistical support to political parties to push their agenda and to
secure the passage of laws that benefit the donors. The political
parties meet their commitment to the donors by picking politicians who
can be relied upon to enact the laws and implement the policies the
donors' desire. The result is a system that renounces virtue and is
ruled by cynicism. The politicians so selected are the least principled
of our citizens, but are the only choices available to the people in our
elections.
The only way to eliminate party sponsorship is to conceive a candidate
selection process that empowers the people to select their best
advocates, independent of the parties.
Campaigning:
The high cost of election campaigns makes conventional democratic
systems susceptible to the influence of money. Even worse than the
inherently corruptive nature of soliciting funds to finance a campaign,
which invites demands from the financial backers, is the corrosive
effect campaigning has on the candidate's psyche.
Candidates must appear to stand for something but, to attract support,
they continually adjust their assertions to appeal to the diverse groups
whose votes are required for their election. Their personal beliefs
must be subordinated to the interests of their audience. By
campaigning, they gain expertise in avoiding direct answers to questions
and diverting attention from unwelcome topics.
Campaigning is the antithesis of open inquiry, it is one-way
communication centered on deceit, misdirection and obfuscation rather
than integrity and commitment to the public interest. That is why the
term 'politician' is pejorative. The process of campaigning produces
people adept at appearing to champion some idea while standing for
nothing but the success of their party. Political campaigning is a
training course in the art of deception.
To make matters worse, candidates are incessantly lionized by their
supporters. This, coupled with the insidious effect of repeatedly
proclaiming their own rectitude seduces them into believing their own
press clippings. These things have a debilitating effect on the
candidate's character, and, since morality is a top-down phenomenon,
choosing political leaders by this method destroys society.
The only way to eliminate political campaigning is to conceive an
electoral method that has candidates persuading their adversaries (not
the public) that they are the best choice for election.
re: "Maybe the separate nature of party sponsoring allows us to
fix it as a stand alone problem."
The concept of political parties, by definition, includes party leaders
and the selection and sponsorship of candidates for public office.
These things are inseparable in party politics.
re: "Any changes in the way power is distributed in any system
are difficult since those people that are in power now, have
been the winners in the current electoral system. If they
make any changes in the system, they might just oust
themselves."
As my kids used to say, "You got that right!!!" And, that, of course,
is why conceiving and adopting a new electoral method is extremely
difficult. My guess is that it will happen a little bit at a time.
Some communities are already experimenting with new electoral
approaches. If we can conceive a practical democratic method that
raises the best advocates of the common interest to public office, towns
here and there will adopt it and the idea will spread.
re: "I briefly sketched an election method independent very
simple approach above."
Do you mean the idea that we should "Just cut out party sponsoring
and/or set some limits to the cost of personal campaigns."? If so, how
can we accomplish these goals?
I think the best way to do so is to let the people, themselves, select
the candidates (that eliminates party sponsorship) and have the
candidates compete with each other to choose the best advocates of the
public interest (that eliminates campaigning). Are there better ways?
re: "Since politics is a difficult game to control, it may
be that we have to cure the problems generated by one
governmnet by using a poison that at least cancels the
effects of the previous government"
You may be surprised to know that I don't disagree. If may be a good
idea, as many people think, to press for stop-gap measures to eliminate
the worst effects of our present systems. I don't oppose that. What I
oppose is thinking it will accomplish the fundamental changes needed to
replace our oligarchies with democracy.
re: "In a democracy we need also voters that understand these
good intentions well enough to accept and vote for such
changes"
Here, you touch on an important issue. Some people don't want to
participate in political discussions and some people lack the qualities
needed for productive political participation. Any practical democratic
electoral method must function within this reality; it must let everyone
participate, to the full extent of their own individual desire and ability.
Fred
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
