Good Morning, Juho
re: "But also a system where the govenrment offers web pages for
all candidates to freely express their opinions, and where
campaign costs are limited to gas for the car of the
candidate, could be interpreted as a system that guarantees
full freedom of speech to all candidates."
Are you suggesting that, under such a system, the internet would be the
only source of information available to the public? Would you outlaw
political advertising? Do you believe the media would cease to exist or
that the candidates (and parties) would stop using it to sway public
opinion? That seems unlikely.
Suppose, instead, we start with a broader base of candidates from all
groups, partisan and non-partisan. Suppose the candidates chose the
winners from among themselves. Each would have to find out which of
their peers can be trusted to serve their interest before choosing any
of them. Since each of their peers advocate some mix of different
interests, each would have to yield a portion of their goals to achieve
the rest.
Such an approach would have a bias toward serving the common interest
rather than any special interest or party, would eliminate campaigning
and the cost of campaigning, and would ensure that the candidates were
carefully examined by people who seek the same public office as themselves.
re: in response to my comment that "The 'best persons' you speak
of were only best from the point of view of the party. Of
course they didn't allow opposition. As I've said before,
parties always "seek the power to impose their views on those
who don't share them." They don't always succeed, but when
they do it's catastrophic. The threat of domination is
always present in a party-based system.", you said:
"As well as in a party-free system."
First of all, I'm not seeking a 'party-free system'. I'm trying to
conceive a system in which parties do not control government.
In the second place, the suggestion that domination will occur in a
system where parties do not control government is misleading. The
threat of domination I spoke of is the domination of a single party, as
we witnessed with National Socialism and Communism. In a system where
control of the government is vested in the people, the 'domination' (if
it can be called that) is by the people, not any partisan subset of the
people.
And finally, why must electoral power be vested in parties? Why should
non-partisans be disenfranchised?
Fred
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
