Hi, Juho
You raised a multitude of points.
re: "I agree that getting rid of the financial ties and
getting rid of the party internal control on who can
be elected would reduce oligarchy within the parties
and power of money.
That's a promising start. It gives us two basic goals for our new
conception:
1) Parties must not be allowed to control the nomination of
candidates for public office.
2) The electoral method must not require that candidates
spend vast sums of money to achieve public office.
re: "But I'm afraid that humans are clever enough to find some
new ways to find power and control the processes in ways
that are not very beneficiial to the society. The threat
will be present even if we would get rid of some of the
key mechanisms that cause us problems today."
If you are suggesting this as a reason for accepting the corrupt system
we have, we would be foolish to defeat ourselves before we start. It is
better that we forge ahead, however slowly, looking for a method that
lets those who follow us avoid the traps that snagged us and
forestalling any new obstacles we can anticipate.
Thomas Jefferson is credited with saying "The price of liberty is
eternal vigilance". Whether or not he actually said it, those who
follow us should heed the sentiment. At the same time, we must
recognize that it's not enough to just be vigilant, we must also have an
electoral method that lets us counter threats when they arise. This
suggests a third goal for our efforts:
3) The electoral method must give the people a way to address
and resolve contemporary issues.
re: "I used the soviet example to point out that even in a system
that, according to its idealistic supporters, was supposed
to get rid of the evils of the past, people soon found ways
to corrupt the system. Maybe the same applies to the U.S.A.
too. It is known to be a leading fortress of democracy, but
now I hear some complaints about how it works."
You've chosen a good example. I spent five years in my country's armed
forces and stand second to none in my love for my homeland. Because of
that love, I'm keenly aware of its flaws. Instead of just lamenting
them, I seek practical ways to correct them.
re: "No doubt, also new systems, especially if generated from
scratch, would find some ways to corrupt themselves.
Hopefully they are better than the previous systems, but
not always."
The American system was "generated from scratch" and was incomparably
"better than the previous systems". Even so, over time, it became
corrupted. Our founders were aware of the dangers inherent in
partisanship and did everything they could to protect the people from
it, separating the powers of government to prevent the dominance of the
then-perceived factions. The level of anxiety was so great our first
president, George Washington, in his Farewell Address, warned us parties
were likely to become "potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and
unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and
to usurp for themselves the reins of government" - and that's what happened.
An early example of the danger of party politics was the plan advocated
by the then Governor of Massachusetts, Elbridge Gerry, to manipulate the
size and shape of legislative districts to protect existing
office-holders. The plan was opposed by the people and denigrated in
the press as 'gerrymandering'. The people of Massachusetts removed
Gerry from office at the next election. In spite of public opposition
to the practice, it was adopted by politicians throughout the young
nation and given the force of law in the several states.
That wasn't the end of this sorry affair. Gerry's party, the
Democratic-Republicans, demonstrated the arrogance and cynicism of party
politicians by rewarding him with the Vice Presidential nomination in
the 1812 national election. Elbridge Gerry, who subverted the American
ideal of democracy, became the fifth Vice President of the United States
under President James Madison.
The people could do nothing to prevent this travesty. The party system
had already evolved to the point the people were excluded from the
political process. The political parties had already arrogated to
themselves the right to pick the people they would let run for public
office.
re: "We would have to keep the candiate base very wide and
election process very random so that famous and powerful
candidates don't benefit of their position (and money)
too much."
If everyone in the electorate can be a candidate, that will keep the
base as wide as possible. When the people have a way to carefully
examine the "famous and powerful candidates" to determine their
integrity and their suitability for office, the danger posed by their
fame and power will be judged by their peers. Stated another way, if
the people can determine that people of fame and power can be trusted
with public office, we need not fear them. Furthermore, validation of
candidates (and public office-holders) must be repeated frequently.
These points suggest additional goals for our electoral method:
4) The electoral method must allow every member of the electorate
to become a candidate and participate in the electoral process
to the full extent of each individual's desire and ability.
5) The electoral method must ensure that all candidates for
public office are carefully examined to determine their
integrity and suitability to serve as advocates for the
people.
6) The electoral method must be repeated frequently (preferably
annually).
re: "You can improve some essential aspects of the system. But
I'd like to see the complete plan, and preferrably also a
real experiment with the system, before I can trus that the
system work. It may take some time to find all the possible
leaks."
I could offer you a complete outline of one possible method of creating
a democratic electoral process (and will, if you so desire), but I would
much rather the outline be developed in concert with the minds of others
on the EM site. This site is, by far, the best I've found for the
careful examination of electoral methods (even if the majority of
posters seem committed to party politics). It is my sincere hope that
other posters on the site will find it worthwhile to join our discussion.
re: "My intended message was just that humans in general and
organizations too have a tendency to seek power and stick
to it and eventually dominate others.
That is a fact we must recognize, address and resolve. We must conceive
an electoral method that harnesses this tendency and uses it to advance
the common interest.
Below is a copy of the list of the goals we've discussed so far. Can
they be honed and improved? What other concerns must we address?
Fred
1) Parties must not be allowed to control the nomination of
candidates for public office.
2) The electoral method must not require that candidates spend
vast sums of money to achieve public office.
3) The electoral method must give the people a way to address
and resolve contemporary issues.
4) The electoral method must allow every member of the electorate
to become a candidate and participate in the electoral process
to the full extent of each individual's desire and ability.
5) The electoral method must ensure that all candidates for
public office are carefully examined to determine their
integrity and suitability to serve as advocates for the
people.
6) The electoral method must be repeated frequently (preferably
annually).
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
