Re: [EM] Sociological issues of elections
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1901000 * A study by Patrick R. Laughlin, Erin C. Hatch, Jonathan S. Silver, and Lee Boh of the University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign, published in the APA Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, finds that group problem solving is more effective than problem solving by even the best individual expert. See http://www.cooperationcommons.com/cooperationcommons/blog/samuelrose/163-study-groups-outperform-the-best-individuals-at-problem-solving * 'Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups' found that formal cooperative groups need to stay together long enough to be successful. On the other hand, they should be changed often enough so students realize they can make any group successful -- that their success is not due to being in a "magic" group. Reported in American Journal of Physics, 60: 637-644. See http://groups.physics.umn.edu/physed/Research/CGPS/FAQcps.html re: "Maybe it would be better to say that direct democracy, while not perfect, is a good thing to try to emulate. Then we can deal with the problems of direct democracy when we get there - to the extent those dynamics also show up in whatever we're using to emulate it." The observation that "those dynamics [i.e., personal discomfort in political meetings, pressure for social conformity, inter alia] also show up in whatever we're using to emulate it" is a powerful insight. The dynamics affecting people's lives are what guide their individual decisions. Behavioral scientists use these dynamics to inspire manipulated responses. Reformers seeking to improve democracy must go in the other direction. They must provide an environment that strengthens the people's capability for deliberation and individual decision making. Attempts to change electoral methods, as in Burlington, Vermont, fail because they ignore the dynamics of human interaction. Democracy is about people and the dynamics that allow and encourage people to reach rational decisions provide the spring from which successful democratic reform will flow. re: "From a control perspective, voting happens too infrequently. It would be like trying to keep a temperature by adjusting the power to the heater once every four (or two) years." By far, the best solution to this problem was outlined by Marcus Pivato of the Department of Mathematics at Trent University in Ontario, Canada, in his paper Pyramidal Democracy. His article describing the process is published in the `Journal of Public Deliberation'. Pivato moves beyond our common structures of political parties and periodic elections and outlines a permanent institution where the people can replace their representatives in the legislature 'on the fly', as the needs of the nation change. The power of the system is vested in small groups of motivated citizens organized into a pyramidal hierarchy who participate in deliberative policy formation. Each group elects a delegate, who expresses the deliberative consensus of that group at the next tier of the pyramid. The process is a powerful meritocratic device, which channels legislative responsibility towards the most committed and competent citizens. It makes dynamic, responsive and democratic government possible. See http://services.bepress.com/jpd/vol5/iss1/art8 Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Sociological issues of elections
me, again lessening the chance that corruption can set in.) Does it actually work this way in practice? I have no experience with multiparty democracy, and cannot make an informed comment on the practice. However, systems based on the organized pursuit of power seem (to me) susceptible to corruption. re: "Perhaps a bicameral approach could work. Use a general election for one of the houses and the hybrid method for the other. Or for that matter, use your triad method (with declared "parties" as we've discussed) for one and the hybrid for the other." This may be a superior suggestion, but it's not my place to make that decision because the method I outlined has never been subjected to the kind of analytical scrutiny necessary to validate it. Suffice it to say the method must allow the dynamic formation of parties so we can be sure fresh perspectives on the conduct of society are considered. At the same time, the method must guarantee that the parties cannot commandeer the process. That's best done by ensuring that non-partisans have a voice. re: "I'm imagining the election method for the hybrid to be proportional, also, so that if 10 of the 500 think that advocates for position X should be on the legislature, then 3 (same proportion) will, assuming they vote according to that opinion." I'm not clear on this point. By proportional, do you mean the number of random choices will be proportional to party size? That is, if party 'A' is 23% of the electorate, 23% of the total candidates selected will be chosen, at random, from party 'A'? If so, may I suggest that non-partisans be treated in the same way? If 57% of the electorate is non-partisan, 57% of the candidates are chosen, at random, from the non-partisans? (I will avoid consideration of the treatment of advocates of a particular position until I have a clearer understanding of your idea.) re: "A system can be pushed more towards "not alienating those further away" by increasing the threshold for action (e.g. supermajority rule), and that's what I noticed." At the risk of diverting attention from the critical issues we are discussing, I'd like to suggest that, instead of using a supermajority rule, we consider the sunsetting of legislation, that is, varying a law's life depending on the percentage of legislators supporting the law, with all laws subject to repeal at any time by a simple majority. Perhaps, something like: Approval Rate Term of Legislation - --- Less than 52% law expires in one year 52% to 60% law expires in two years 60% to 75% law expires in five years 75% to 90% law expires in ten years over 90% no automatic expiration These terms are, of course, only for illustration. The actual terms should be determined by study. Given the harm done by bad legislation, this might be a topic worthy of thought and discussion. Fred Gohlke [1] Beyond Adversary Democracy, Jane J. Mansbridge, The University of Chicago Press, 1980. Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Sociological issues of elections
re: "Arguments against direct democracy usually go that the public is too short-sighted or that it doesn't have enough specialized knowledge." My personal opposition to direct democracy is the susceptibility of the public to the influence of behavioral psychology, a tool used in partisan politics to persuade the people to favor one point of view or another. It is much too easy to concoct fictions, particularly to frighten the people. To reduce the force of the manipulations that engulf us, the people need an an electoral process that allows and encourages them to deliberate. That would occur during the election stage of the hybrid process. re: "Then the argument against the "average person" is really a claim by those whose opinions are more to the left on that line that the public can't govern on its own." I'm not sure where my views may appear on that line because I rarely think in those terms. A friend recently suggested my approach leaned toward 'virtue ethics', in contrast to an approach which emphasizes duties or rules (deontology) or which emphasizes the consequences of actions (consequentialism). I've no idea whether that would be leftish or rightish. To be absolutely frank, my lack of an academic background hinders me in this regard. I'd never heard the term 'virtue ethics' before and had to look it up. From what I read, it seems an excellent evaluation of my belief about electoral systems. re: "But all things equal, we'd prefer something to the right, because we know that concentrated unaccountable rule can become corrupt ..." Whether right or left, wouldn't the hybrid approach eliminate 'concentrated unaccountability' because of the inflow of fresh faces after each election cycle? Although I may be alone in this, it seems to me party-based systems are the most susceptible to becoming oligarchical. They wind up both concentrated and unaccountable. re: "One possible way would be that parties would reorganize as advisory organizations surrounding the legislators. If a party had drawn up a plan like the above, the members would try to convince the members of the legislature to go with it, and the members might or might not decide to do so." Considering alternatives to the status quo and integrating them to the extent they are appropriate is vital for a vibrant, evolving society. Using random selection makes it difficult to include the best proponents of non-standard points of view. That is a major drawback, to the hybrid approach. Having parties function as advisory organizations might work, but it might be more effective if their best advocates participated in the election phase. re: "... any given representative will most likely only serve one term, therefore he won't feel accountable. Thus he would, either consciously or subconsciously, favor his own particular interests. So the system might lead to what one might call 'random pork'." To do so, the rogue needs the support of a majority of the legislature to enact the 'pork' law. Since the 'pork' is for the benefit of the rogue, such support would be difficult to enlist. Time works against such an enterprise. Corruption takes time. Blatant announcement of roguish intent will alienate more people than it attracts. In the present system, incumbents tend to be re-elected (at least, in the United States). They have multiple terms to corrupt and be corrupted. That is unlikely in the hybrid system. In addition, in partisan systems, legislators are subject to pressure from the party 'whip'. If there is no party, there is no whip. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Sociological issues of elections
Michael Allan said it best: "The individual votes are brought together to make a result, but the individual voters are not brought together as such to make a decision; therefore no valid decision can be extracted from the result." > Vidar Wahlberg wrote: > Giving the electors balanced information and maintaining a > transparent government is desirable, but this also depends on > media and influental people "playing by the book". While better > information obviously will improve electors ability to make > rational decisions, it will still be quite possible to > influence the voters based on less relevant traits (charisma, > fearmongering, etc). Then again, what is relevant and what is > not is neither a clear distinction. > I mainly wanted to raise the subject that there's a lot of > information going around before an election that's only meant > to convince the elector to vote for a certain candidate/party, > regardless of whether that would be the electors preference > given enough insight into the candidate/party's capability. I > would like to see a system where electors are encouraged to > gain insight and reflected views, and vote thereafter. As you point out, the information flowing before an election is intended to sway the voters - and it's pervasive. We can't escape it. The only people who will work their way through the mass of misinformation and disinformation are those who are vitally affected by the decisions. They have to have a personal interest in seeking out the information. One of the values in the hybrid system Kristofer described is that the 500 people who are competing for 150 seats in the legislature all have a reason to get a clear understanding of their competitors views and their character before they vote; they are candidates, too. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Sociological issues of elections
Thank you, very much, Mike. I didn't realize they had changed it. I'm keeping the new address and appreciate your help. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Sociological issues of elections
nsupported opinion, I don't think the majority of people would object to the concept - but they could be incited to do so. Vidar, you mentioned that you were reading up on alternatives to the present system. I wrote a paper several years ago on the system Kristofer mentioned. It is on a site devoted to public participation in government. If you'd like to see it, it's at: http://participedia.net/methods/practical-democracy Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Sociological issues of elections
Good Afternoon, Vidar Wahlberg I'm happy to see that Kristofer Munsterhjelm responded to your post. You probably are already familiar with him, but I've always found him the most thoughtful contributor on this site. He rarely agrees with me, but he describes his point of view with so much clarity it is impossible not to learn from him. As Kristofer says, it is difficult to address the sociological issues because they are fuzzy. They're fuzzy because they are a manifestation of the entire community, and no one person, or organization, can provide a prescription for the ills of the entire community. Only the people, themselves, can do that. So far, we've failed to give them the means. We can not wait for a champion to do it for us because none will come forth. True democracy offers no rewards for vested interests, so there is no incentive. Instead, if we are to conceive a way for the people to govern themselves, those of us who envision a better future for society will have to go through the slow process of identifying the flaws in the present system, agreeing on the principles of a truly democratic process, and building a practical electoral process on that platform. re: "Until I've read more up on the subject I can't add the most valuable input" That may be your most valuable asset. You've demonstrated insight into the breadth of the problems we face, enough interest to wonder about them, and a recognition that they are fundamental issues that can't be resolved by the way we count votes. Just your reasoning power, alone, is enough to add valuable input. May I recommend a couple of papers that might interest you? One is the Report of the Commission on Candidate Selection by Peter Riddell. The Commission is made up of 5 of England's political parties and examines the issue of candidate selection in Great Britain. It makes some very important points, and is compelling because it is an examination conducted by the parties themselves. It used to be available on-line, but has disappeared, so I've asked my grandson to host it for me. You can download it from: http://danielgohlke.com/practical_democracy/POLSCI05.PDF I'd also like to recommend two papers by Jane Mansbridge. Dr. Mansbridge is the Adams Professor of Political Leadership and Democratic Values at Harvard University, and is the current president of the American Political Science Association. The first paper is, The Fallacy of Tightening the Reins. This was her keynote address at the Austrian Political Science Association 2004 meeting in Vienna. You'll find it at: http://www.oezp.at/pdfs/2005-3-02.pdf This paper contains such jewels as: "I have reviewed the many flaws in the electoral connection - among others, that it is a blunt instrument, encourages distorted information, undermines legislators' concern for the long term, selects against many who would bring primarily a concern for the public good into office, and supplants intrinsic with extrinsic motivation." and this quote from John Dewey: "The old saying that the cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy is not apt if it means that the evils may be remedied by introducing more machinery of the same kind as that which already exists, or by refining and perfecting that machinery" (Dewey [1926] 1994, 144). The other is Dr. Mansbridge's working paper entitled, "A 'Selection Model' of Political Representation", which is available at: http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP08-010 Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Sociological issues of elections
Good Morning, Vidar Wahlberg I, for one, am very glad to see your post. What you wrote is, indeed, "a bit outside what is usually discussed here", but that's what makes your comment so welcome. Like you, I follow this list but rarely post here because, although the list is entitled, "Election Methods", the only methods ever discussed are party-based systems. The "sociological issues" are ignored. To me, the challenge of representative democracy is not to divide the public into competitive blocs of power-seekers, but to find the best advocates of the common interest and raise them to leadership positions as the people's representatives. To meet that challenge, given the range of public issues and the way each individual's interest in political matters varies over time, an effective electoral process must examine the entire electorate during each election cycle, seeking the people's best advocates. It must let every voter influence the outcome of each election to the best of their desire and ability, and it must ensure that those selected as representatives are disposed to serve the public interest. The question you pose, "... how would you design a form of government that is elected by the people, but is (responsive) to sociological issues ..." is vital and worthy of open-minded consideration. I, for one, would like to examine it in detail, whether here or in private correspondence. My email address is in the heading to this post. Incidentally, I have a paper written by a countryman of yours, Sverre Bugge Midthjell of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, that bears on these issues. It is entitled, "Deliberating or Quarreling? - An Enquiry into Theory and Research Methods for the Relationship between Political Parties and Deliberation". It is written in English and is in .PDF format. I'll be happy to forward it to you, if you wish. Best wishes, Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] secret ballots and proxy voting
Richard Fobes wrote: "In politics the "power nodes" are the political parties. They are much easier to control than the voters. Even the members of Congress are a bit too numerous to control, so "special interests" (the biggest campaign contributors) make their deals in backroom meetings with committee members. Then (under threat of withdrawal of money from election campaigns) the "majority whip" ensures that all Congressmen from that party vote the way the party arranged to vote." Why does this site not address the travesty Fobes describes? We are engulfed in the corruption and destructiveness inherent in party politics. Surely the bright people on this site can come up with a better alternative. Instead, they seem committed to perpetuating it. Why is that? Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Election-Methods Digest, Vol 103, Issue 1
Thank you, very much, Kristofer. You answered the question I asked. Your description of the rationale for Majority Judgment was clear and thorough. The subtleties of the concept had escaped me, and, not understanding them made the concept incomprehensible. I appreciate you taking the time to enlighten me. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Election-Methods Digest, Vol 103, Issue 1
Whoops, my mistake. I've been on this site long enough to not make that error. I'm getting old, and, apparently, careless. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Election-Methods Digest, Vol 103, Issue 1
Good Morning, Andy Your response appears to be missing from the list. I'll quote the paragraph I'm commenting on: re: "The voters' grades do matter. If one voter changed his grade from D to B, then one more C vote falls down into the bottom half of the votes, so his tie-breaking value is 67199/155781 instead of 67198/155781, or 43.1368% instead of 43.1362%" The process you describe seems to be a rather complicated way of finding the top or bottom half of the votes. The fact that 'B' is higher than 'D' and pushes a 'C' vote into the bottom half of the votes is nothing more than a Yes/No decision. It helps you decide whether a candidate got more than one-half the votes, but is devoid of additional value. A simple Yes/No ballot yields precisely that result with no mathematical constructs. If a voter grades a candidate as 'B' rather than 'A', the voter has detected some flaw in the candidate and is expressing it in the grade. To treat that voter's vote as simply above or below the median is to debase it. Why should the voter take the trouble to assign a grade if it's only use is to place the vote in the higher or lower half of the votes cast? I'm sorry we disagree on this point, but if the grading system is to have significance in the electoral process, the higher ranks must be more valuable than the lower ranks. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Election-Methods Digest, Vol 103, Issue 1
Good Morning, Jameson re: "Each voter grades each candidate from A to F. Voters may give as many or as few of each grade as they want. Then each candidate's grades are put in order and the similar grades are evenly spread out. For instance, grades of B (3.0) are evenly spread over a continuum between B+ (3.5) and B- (2.5)." It is not clear how or why grades should be adjusted. If a voter gives a candidate a grade of B, what is the justification for changing it to B+ or B-? More to the point, what is the benefit? If a candidate gets: Grade Voters A 26,781 B173,904 C155,781 D121,121 E 81,286 F 19,663 can not the candidate's grade be calculated without adjusting the value of any of the voters' wishes? Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Advocacy
Yes, Richard "There is always a huge gap between a party's actions and their words." Some day that fact will inspire a search for a more rational way of selecting our leaders. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] The EM Peer Review Journal development web site is up!
I visited the site yesterday and, even though I'm one of those who will have to slowly absorb the organization, am impressed with your work. Thanks. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Amateur peer-reviewed "journal" for voting methods, criteria, and compliances?
Good Morning, Jameson I think you have an excellent idea. I'd like to help, in whatever modest way I can. I will write you privately, later today or tomorrow. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[EM] PRACTICAL DEMOCRACY, Proportional Elections
This describes a practical method of electing proportional legislatures while empowering every member of the electorate to the full extent of each individual's desire and ability. It uses the 2010 Dutch Parliamentary elections[1] for realistic size relationships between parties contending for public office. The voting eligible population, the distribution of voters among the political parties, and the number of elective seats available are taken from this report which is used for verisimilitude only. The proportional distribution of the seats in the legislatures is calculated using the reported turnout for each party as a percentage of the voting eligible population. In the cited report, 9,442,977 people (75.4% of the voting eligible population of 12,523,842) voted in 2010. Of these, 9,312,710 voted for one of ten political parties. Since the source material shows that seats were only allocated to members of parties, we see that 130,267 voters and 3,080,865 non-voters were unrepresented. Since no electoral method that systematically excludes a large portion of the electorate from representation can be called democratic, we combine the latter two groups to form an 11th category (i.e., "None") of 3,211,132 people who are also entitled to representation. Proportional Distribution of Legislative Seats (based on Political Parties in the Netherlands - 2010) House European Total Party of Rep Senate Parliament Elective Members seatsseats seats Offices Party*(2010) (150) (75) (25) (250) - -- -- - None3,211,132 38 19 6 64 VVD 1,929,575 23 11 4 39 PvdA1,848,805 22 11 4 37 PVV 1,454,493 179 3 29 CDA 1,281,886 158 3 26 SP924,696 115 2 18 D66 654,16784 1 13 GL628,09684 1 13 CU305,09442 1 6 SGP 163,58121 0 3 PvdD 122,31721 0 2 -- --- -- -- --- Total 12,523,842 150 75 25 250 * Party abbreviations are taken from the cited report. The party names have no significance for this description but are available on request. The electoral method is described in detail in the Practical Democracy entry on Participedia[2] and in posts on the Election-Methods site on 02/04/08, 09/11/08 and 03/06/09. The members of each category of voters (party) are divided into triads that select one participant to represent the other two. Those so selected are again divided into triads and the process continues, pyramid-wise, until a target number of candidates, determined by those who implement the process, are selected. The method of assigning selected individuals to public offices, which must adhere to electoral district boundaries and other electoral strictures, is implementation-dependent. This electoral method features several noteworthy features: * It includes every member of the electorate in the electoral process. * Each member of the electorate can participate in the process to the full extent of their desire and ability. * It is a bottom-up process. It lets the people decide what issues concern them and who are the best people to address those issues. (This is in contrast to the prevailing top-down methodology that lets party leaders set the agenda and choose the candidates the people will be allowed to elect.) * It eliminates political campaigning and the corrosive effect political campaigns have on society. It stops the corruption that flows from soliciting campaign funds. * It completes in less time than traditional, campaign-based electoral methods. Furthermore, as each level completes, approximately 2/3rds of the remaining participants have fulfilled their civic obligation and are free to resume their normal lives. * It guarantees that all candidates are carefully examined to determine their suitability for public office by people who have an incentive to uncover their flaws. It creates a direct link between a candidate's character and chance of election. * It includes a simple, direct way for the people to guide or instruct their candidates and, after the election is complete, to recall elected officials. The bottom-up nature of the Practical Democracy concept lets the people impress their moral sense on their government. Fred Gohlke [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_Netherlands [2] http://participedia.net/methods/practical-dem
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Afternoon, Michael re: "Let's sum up. You propose an electoral process to correct the evils of party politics." No. I'm proposing (or, actually, searching for) a democratic electoral process. Party politics is a side issue. It is an important issue, but a side issue, nonetheless. The focal point is enabling government by the people. My purpose is to conceive a practical approach to bottom-up government rather than the top-down version we have now. All I can do is describe a method and hope other thoughtful people will provide a rational explanation of why it will fail - or help hone it into a more complete solution. re: "You hope that people somewhere will give it a try." Yes, I do. re: "However, if they do, you cannot foresee any sequence of events by which the promised benefits could be realized. Is that correct?" No, that's not accurate. There are no promised benefits except those that flow from selecting the best individuals in the community to make the decisions that advance the common interest. It would be presumptuous of outsiders like me to define them or to promise their achievement. In terms of the sequence of events, as I said yesterday, if a community uses a 'different' approach and it succeeds, other communities with similar problems will adopt it. The process would be most analogous to osmosis. re: "I'm looking for a way (any sequence of events) by which the proposed process could *possibly* deliver on its promised benefits. I have no doubt such a way exists, but I ask you to place it on the table (1, 2, 3) so we can all examine it." I don't believe politics works like that. In human interactions, there are an infinite number of possibilities with an infinite difference in energy potential behind them that can be triggered by an infinite number of potential circumstances. It's true that behavioral scientists can generate selective responses in narrow fields, but since such efforts are always for someone's benefit, they are done at the expense of the community rather than for its benefit. Seeking to improve society, as we are doing here, is much more complex and much less predictable. Yesterday, I mentioned a community in the throes of political change. I have no idea what benefits those people need, nor do I believe it is my place to define them. The people there must identify the circumstances that concern them, seek the members of the community best able to address those concerns and raise them to leadership positions. The individuals the people select to lead them will address and resolve the problems facing the community as well as they can be resolved. I suppose we could say the outline of Practical Democracy on Participedia was step 1, the initiative of the pastor in seeking more information on the process was step 2, and whatever the community does with the concept is step 3, but that's not helpful because step 2 cannot be predicted with precision. I'd be more inclined to suggest Mark Buchanan's, Nexus - Small Worlds and the Groundbreaking Theory of Networks, comes closer to describing the process: I'd never heard of the pastor I mentioned in my last post, and yet, he learned about Practical Democracy, saw in it a potential benefit for his community and sought more information. That's about as much as one can expect from a 'different' idea. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Morning, Michael re: "Could you elaborate here? I want to look at problems of feasibility. By what sequence of events (again 1, 2, 3) might the community transit from the status quo to that better future, as you envision it?" I'm not sure what kind of elaboration you seek. All communities are different in the sense that the spark that initiates changes in one can be completely different from the spark that starts a flame in another. Perhaps it would help to mention a specific instance: A small community outside the United States with terrible living conditions, a community that was victimized with kidnapping and mass killings during a recent civil war, wants to find a new way to select their local officials. I've been asked, on behalf of the pastor of the community church, to discuss Practical Democracy ... http://participedia.net/methods/practical-democracy ... because it offers a rational way to identify the people best suited to work out local problems. The pastor is a person who wants the best for his people but has no personal political ambition. He is concerned that the community (indeed, the entire area) has a very long history of male dominance. Although women have political rights formally, it is difficult for them to influence community action because there are enough reactionaries to thwart their best efforts. Practical Democracy, if adopted, lets women form a feminist party that functions in parallel with any other groups in the village. This ensures that the most resourceful women are not excluded by thoughtlessness at the initial level(s) of the electoral process and are integrated with the decision makers at the upper levels. This is one of the reasons the pastor may encourage the community to adopt the Practical Democracy concept. If they do so and it succeeds, other communities in the area with similar problems are likely to adopt it, as well. Is that any help? Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Evening, Peter I think I've covered the primary points in your post. Have I overlooked anything? Can we use any of the material that has been expressed on this thread to conceive a democratic electoral process? Political systems are always an embodiment of human nature. Until we learn to harness our own nature, we can improve neither our politics nor our society. In the U. S., there is no Constitutional bar to devising a more democratic process; the only impediment is ourselves. Since we can not divorce our political institutions from our own nature, we must make virtue a desirable attribute in those who seek political advancement. That may be difficult ... but it is not impossible. The question is, "How can we get started?" Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Morning, Michael re: "... please give me your own thoughts: By what sequence of historical events (1, 2, 3) might we transit from the status quo to a better future, as you envision it?" It takes several steps to change a political culture. It has taken over 200 years to reach our present state. Corrections will take time. The first step is to form a reasonable theory and challenge it. We're all limited by the shackles of our own minds so we must seek external challenges to be sure our examination is thorough. This is the most difficult step. Rational challenges are hard to find in the field of politics. Perhaps 'different' ideas are shunned in all fields. The heart of the difficulty lies in the academic community. These are the people we look to for intellectual leadership, but they are no more open-minded than the general population; perhaps less so. At present, academia is committed to the fallacious notion that the best way to serve the public interest is to allow oligarchic groups to aggregate power through adversarial tactics. The failure of that approach - in terms of humanity - roars throughout the world; from the Middle East, Europe, and Asia to the United States, where the powers behind the throne are warring to impose their seriously flawed version of 'democracy' on the world. [Our President warned us, over 100 years ago, that there was an 'unholy alliance' between corrupt business and corrupt politics in the United States. We couldn't break that alliance because party politics kept us divided and allowed the uninhibited growth of the parasitic behemoths that devour their hosts - us - like cancer.] The second step in improving the political culture is inspiring the academic community to consider, challenge and analyze alternatives to the existing system. From that effort flows concrete for the foundation of a practical, democratic political system. The second step will come, however unlikely that may seem right now, because political evolution is inexorable. The failures of the pseudo-democracies that dominate our present era are too pronounced to be ignored forever. My greatest fear is that a demagogue will spring up and inspire a revolution before we have prepared a practical, democratic political system. Barring that unpleasant eventuality, when a practical alternative to the existing systems emerges, we will take the third step: some community, somewhere, will try it, just as Aspen, Colorado and Burlington, Vermont are reported to have tried IRV. If the alternative is practical and attractive from the people's perspective, other communities will adopt it. That's what I think will happen, Mike. Right now, we're still at the first step: seeking rational challenges. We have a long way to go. re: "To 'check' (i.e., 'the pursuit of self-interest') implies a force or constraint." That's true. The alternative to some degree of constraint is anarchy and I do not support anarchy. Up to a point, constraints are valuable. I need go no further than the nearest traffic light to understand why. What, exactly, are proper constraints and what are improper is a difficult topic I'd rather avoid at this point in our discussion, but I've no doubt that a society with no constraint on greed (for example) is flawed. re: "... my overall impression is that you intend to remove the political parties from power by imposing some kind of reform." The term 'removing them' implies an act of force and that is not my intent. My purpose is not to remove them but to change their role. Parties are a vital part of society - provided they are always a voice and never a power. The danger is not in parties, it is in allowing parties to control government. Society evolves through the inception and spread of new ideas. My goal is to let parties give their most persuasive advocates an opportunity to convince non-partisans of the value of their perspective. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Afternoon, Peter re: "In your list, you forgot to mention ... 'media coverage'." Until I read your post, I hadn't considered it necessary or wise to alter the role of the media in the electoral process. After you raised the issue, I began to ponder the significance of this part of the election process. You identified one of the things wrong with democracy as: "3) Privately-owned media, which has the ability to tilt the election results in any direction based the owners want" This seems to sum up the objections to privately-owned media. The root of the objection is that the media can manipulate the public and influence the results of elections, but it does not make clear what controls or alterations are needed. There is no doubt the public can be manipulated. Yet, each of us knows of instances where a media blitz did not affect us. It is not that we're smarter than everyone else (even if we think so), it's just that our store of knowledge and experience lets us see through this or that manipulation attempt more quickly or more clearly than others. Therein lies the key to solving the dilemma of public manipulation. Plato, if not others before him, felt democracy could not work because 'ordinary people' are 'too easily swayed by the emotional and deceptive rhetoric of ambitious politicians'. He failed to note that some folks are more easily swayed than others, and that some individuals are not swayed at all. Our history is replete with geniuses who sprung up from 'ordinary people', yet Plato's faulty view of democracy has survived through the ages and forms the cornerstone of political thought today. The weakness in this concept is twofold. The first is the notion that the only proper view of democracy is as a condition in which all the people make all the decisions. The second is the failure to recognize that 'the people' is made up of many individuals: some good, some bad; some skilled, some unskilled; some with integrity, some deceitful; some brilliant, some dull; some sociable, some unfriendly; some interested in politics, some not. The task of a democratic electoral process is to sift through these many types of individuals and elevate those best suited to serve as advocates of the common good. This is not a task that can be delegated. There is no machine that can estimate a person's goodness or talent or integrity - only other humans can do that. We cannot write a set of rules that will tell us, "This person is better suited to lead us than that person." Such judgments can only be made by one's peers, and then only when they have an incentive to do so and enough time to examine the individual(s) carefully. You and I agree the people, taken as a whole, can be influenced by the media. Therefore, until it is shown that such influence can be prevented, we would be ill-advised to consider political systems based on the undifferentiated mass of people. Instead, we will be better served to conceive an electoral method that lets each of us participate in the political process to the full extent of our desire and ability and lets us actively seek the individuals with the qualities we want in our elected officials. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Morning, Peter re: "In your list, you forgot to mention 'campaign spending by third parties' ..." Goal (2) was intended to cover this problem, but is poorly worded. We should examine the corrosive effect of political campaigning more carefully and then improve the statement of the goal. Campaigning is a one-way process. It is a flow of assertions from politicians to the people. It benefits the politicians but provides no benefit to the people because they cannot examine the campaigners. Even when they know the assertions are false or misleading, they have no way to examine the source to determine the truth. Political campaigning makes conventional democratic systems susceptible to financial influence. 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 result is a cesspool of corruption, funded by special interests that buy the laws we endure. In addition to the inherently corruptive nature of begging for money to finance political campaigns, the high cost creates an artificial barrier that prevents competitive ideas from challenging the dominant parties. Perhaps the least acknowledged aspect of political campaigning is its devastating effect on the character of the candidates. When campaigning, politicians use ideas and arguments, not to search for truth, but to manipulate the people in the quest for power. They pursue that power through whatever means they think most effective, without regard for right and wrong. For them, campaigning is a training course in the art of deception. To make matters worse, candidates are incessantly lionized by their supporters. 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 elevates amoral or immoral candidates and destroys society. If we wish to improve our culture, we must acknowledge the adverse effects of campaign-based politics and conceive a better way to select our political leaders. Goal (2) should be modified to reflect this reality. I started a comment on your reference to 'media coverage' but it turns out to be a fairly complex matter so I'll do some more work on it and post it when I've finished. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Morning, Peter re: "Being a member of the Czech Green party myself, I think that political parties are not inherently 'evil'." You're right - but it's not a simple proposition. Partisanship is a vital part of society. It is the prime engine of progress. New or 'different' ideas constantly bubble up from the people. If they have value, they attract adherents and gradually influence the evolution of society. Not only is there nothing evil in that, it is essential for the health of the community. The problems arise when the parties seek the power to impose their views on those who don't share them. The dynamics were described by Robert Michels in 'Political Parties'. Although written 100 years ago, Michels' work is still worth reading. Here's a link to it. http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/michels/polipart.pdf These two citations from Michels' work give a little insight into why political parties become undemocratic: "Organization implies the tendency to oligarchy. In every organization, whether it be a political party, a professional union, or any other association of the kind, the aristocratic tendency manifests itself very clearly. The mechanism of the organization, while conferring a solidity of structure, induces serious changes in the organized mass, completely inverting the respective position of the leaders and the led. As a result of organization, every party or professional union becomes divided into a minority of directors and a majority of directed." and "It is indisputable that the oligarchical and bureaucratic tendency of party organization is a matter of technical and practical necessity. It is the inevitable product of the very principle of organization ... Its only result is, in fact, to strengthen the rule of the leaders, for it serves to conceal from the mass a danger which really threatens democracy." The extremes attainable by political parties was demonstrated by Communism and National Socialism. Both had features that attracted broad public support throughout a national expanse and both degenerated into destructive forces because their partisans gained control of their governments. The danger in Communism and National Socialism was not that they attracted partisan support, it was that the parties gained control of the government. In general, parties are healthy when they help us give voice to our views. They are destructive when they achieve power. All ideologies, whether of the right or the left, differ from Communism and National Socialism only in the extent to which their partisans are able to impose their views on the public. Partisanship is a vital part of society - provided it is always a voice and never a power. The danger is not in partisanship, it is in allowing partisans to control government. The challenge for us is to find a practical way to encourage the formation of all groups that bring us fresh ideas to the fore while making sure that none of them can control the government. That's why we're trying to conceive a democratic electoral method. (I'll continue to delve into your post as quickly as I can.) Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good afternoon, Peter You're right!!! This subject is difficult and you cut a broad swath through it. I won't try to cover everything in one response. Instead, I'll pick bits and pieces we can examine. We may modify our perspectives a bit or we may find our ideas incompatible. In either case, we'll be clearing our own heads. I'll begin, as you did, with Robert Dahl. I am not familiar with his work, but the following is based on the link you provided and refers to the section on Democracy and Polyarchy. The item referred to true democracy as a 'theoretical utopia'. If that were true, our efforts here would be wasted, since utopias are unattainable. In my view, democracy is not a utopia because it isn't a static condition, it's a dynamic state that improves and regresses. Here, we seek to improve its present state, and that is attainable. The cited section describes five criteria for creating an ideal democracy: * Effective participation - Citizens must have adequate and equal opportunities to form their preference and place questions on the public agenda and express reasons for one outcome over the other. * Voting equality at the decisive stage - Each citizen must be assured his or her judgments will be counted as equal in weights to the judgments of others. * Enlightened understanding - Citizens must enjoy ample and equal opportunities for discovering and affirming what choice would best serve their interests. * Control of the agenda - Demos or people must have the opportunity to decide what political matters actually are and what should be brought up for deliberation. * Inclusiveness - Equality must extend to all citizens within the state. Everyone has legitimate stake within the political process. Is it possible to merge these five points with the 11 goals? It seems to me the first is similar to goal (3). Can we merge these two into a single statement? Perhaps something like: 3) The electoral method must give citizens adequate and equal opportunities to place questions on the public agenda and express reasons for one outcome over another. The second criterion fails to define 'decisive stage'. If the term means decision points, they can vary from one citizen to the next, depending on their interest in the issue being decided. To the extent that the term means that each citizen must have an equal ability to affect a decision, it attempts to set by decree a condition controlled by nature or circumstance. Goal (4) comes closest to meeting the demands of this criterion. Can it be better stated? The third criterion is fine, except for the introductory term, "enlightened understanding"; enlightenment cannot be ordained. An important aspect of discovering and affirming information is access to the matter being examined and the ability to examine it. Goal (8), though quite differently stated, comes closest to meeting the third criterion. Can the differences between them be resolved? The fourth criterion is well stated and vital to achieving a democratic political system. Unless there are objections, I plan to replace goal (3) with this statement: 3) The electoral method must give the people a way to decide what political matters should be brought up for deliberation. The fifth criterion is fine as far as it goes, but must recognize that equality of access does not guarantee equality of utilization. Goal (4), requiring equal access and participation to the full extent of each individual's desire and ability, is a better way of stating this criterion. Are there issues here? Can they be resolved? I'll try to move forward a bit in the morning. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Morning, Michael re: "It is here in these independent processes that you would confront 'strong opposition'. You would have no control over any except your own, contingent even there upon actually being able to implement it." Are you saying that anyone considering such a concept would have difficulty implementing it? I've no doubt that's true. In fact, it will be true of any concept that is 'different' than the status quo. Although implementation will undoubtedly be a matter of major concern, when considering concepts, the early steps are best devoted to finding the soundness of the precept. In this instance, I believe we agree the method we are discussing is passive in the sense that it does not actively seek the best of our people as our political leaders. Instead, it relies on members of the community assertive enough to make and/or accept nominations for public office. I consider this a vital flaw because attempts to achieve democratic outcomes fail when nothing in the process seeks the active participation of the individual members of the community. Whether or not this process can be implemented is less important than identifying this flaw because we can use the knowledge to ensure that it is addressed in whatever the final conception may be. For this reason, I'd like to add a goal to the list already offered ... 10) The electoral method must seek the active participation of the individual members of the community. re: "Although a moderating/immoderating electoral process might be conceived, it could never be enforced. It would require a power that does not exist in our society." You are touching on an important aspect of political systems; the notion of externally enforcing an electoral process. If a process must be forced on the people, it is, by definition, undemocratic. If we are to have a stable, democratic process, it must be designed so that our natural tendencies strengthen rather than weaken the process. We know that the pursuit of self-interest is a natural human trait that, unchecked, can have a deleterious effect on the community. We also know that lack of integrity is a common failing among politicians. We can use this knowledge to conceive an electoral method that harnesses integrity to the pursuit of public office. This suggests another goal for our list: 11) The electoral method must make integrity a vital character trait in candidates for public office. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Afternoon, Peter Our discussion started with an assertion that nothing in our political process seeks the active participation of the individual members of the community. The electoral method assumes that the assertive individuals who seek positions as our political leaders have the knowledge, ability and desire to serve the common interest - an assumption that is frequently wrong. There is also an assumption that those who do not step forward are not competent to serve as leaders or influence the choice of leaders - an assumption belied by the broad distribution of talented individuals in the population. The rationale for this perspective was contained in the June 22, 2012 post that started this thread. I urge you to take the time to read that post because it sets the tone for our discussion. The post closes by posing the critical question: "How can we create an electoral process that allows and encourages the entire electorate to exercise their ability to guide the community's affairs to the full extent of their desire and ability?" A poster said joining a party constituted active participation in the political process. This raised the argument that those who join parties are profoundly passive because they cede their right to guide their community to the leaders of self-interested groups that serve narrow special interests. It was suggested that voting was a powerful way to influence the direction of society. This raised the objection that voting gives the illusion of power but is a sign of weakness because the only options available to the voters are those offered by party leaders. There was discussion of the way political parties write the rules by which the government functions, sell legislation to vested interests, and choose candidates committed to enact the laws written for them by the people who finance their election campaigns. (It would be hard to imagine a more dangerous political arrangement.) It was pointed out that political parties are quasi-official institutions designed to acquire the reins of government. They do not create democracies, they build oligarchies (political systems governed by a few people). Surprisingly, in spite of the large number of people on this site that favor party-based systems, no-one stood up to defend party politics. We explored why partisanship is a vital part of society provided it is always a voice for the people and never a power in its own right, and concluded the danger is not in partisanship but in allowing partisans to control government. We briefly touched on the way a sortition-based system would weaken the role of parties but failed to examine the possibility and wisdom of sortition as an electoral method. We talked about the adverse nature of political campaigning, how the need for funding makes political parties conduits for corruption and how the elevation of corrupt politicians to positions of political leadership destroys society because morality is a top-down phenomenon. We talked about the wisdom of eliminating party sponsorship of candidates for public office and letting the people choose the best advocates of the public interest from among themselves, and started looking at ways to accomplish that. During the course of the discussion, I suggested several possible goals for an electoral process. They should be enhanced or refuted: 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). 7) The electoral method must include a means for the electorate to recall an elected official. 8) The electoral method must ensure that candidates for public office are examined, face-to-face, by people with a vital interest in ascertaining their character, and the examiners must have enough time to investigate their subject thoroughly. 9) The electoral method must accommodate the fact that parties, interest groups, factions and enclaves are a vital part of society. Then, in the most recent part of the discussion, we were looking at the possibility of an electoral method where parties and non-partisans nominate people for public office, where all parties (and non-partisans) select the most effective advocates of the group's position internally, the resulting n
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Afternoon, Michael Thanks for explaining. In response to your question as to whether it is reasonable to expect that, at some point, there might be five concurrent processes involving five groups (or parties) with the turnout percentage that you described. Yes, I think it is. Is the approach Juho and I were looking at not passive in the sense that it does not seek candidates but accepts those nominated? In a method like this, do you think competition, first within the groups (parties), and then between the groups would tend to have a moderating effect on the final choices of candidates? Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Afternoon, Michael In response to your July 29th post on a different thread: re: "I guess we can safely assume that reforms (whatever they are) will not begin with the official electoral process. It is too difficult to change and too easy to circumvent. What matters is the selection of candidates, namely the primary electoral process. Right?" Yes, we are discussing a possible method of selecting candidates. We arrived at this particular idea by assuming that parties still operate in more or less the same way they do today, but that everyone has the right to nominate candidates for public office - party members within parties and unrepresented people (in the 'party' sense) as a separate group. re: "Consider a point in the future at which there are five main primary processes in operation at varying levels of turnout, with at least two being reformed processes (your choice which)." Process Turnout --- --- P 20 % Q 15(at least two are R5reformed processes) S2 T1 Is this expectation more-or-less reasonable? Anyone? Please help me with this one. Are P-Q-R-S-T separate groups (parties?), each with members making nominations? When you say "at least two are reformed processes, are you speaking of groups with open nominations? Are the percentages the percent of the groups' membership or of the entire electorate? re: "When you speak (Fred) of controlling the time at which 'candidates are announced', do you mean only for the process that you and Juho are mooting, say one of P-T? Or all processes P-T? Your purpose would seem to require control of all the major primaries." The concept we were examining imagined a single nominating process in which partisans and non-partisans nominate candidates for public office. After being nominated, the nominees for each party (and the non-partisan nominees as a group) decide which of the nominees are the best advocates of the party's point of view. Then, the remaining partisan/non-partisan nominees examine each other to decide which of their number will be the candidates for public office. Then the people vote for their choice of the candidates. The question of how many candidates there would be for each office was not discussed, and, barring further discussion, would be left to those who implement the process. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Afternoon, Juho re: "Ok, two phases then. One to elect the party candidates (by voters, by party members, or by nominees?) and then the final election." Although we've approached this idea from a party perspective, there's no reason we can't have nominees who don't identify with any of the existing parties. They will form a separate group. In terms of phases, we may have: 1) Nominations. 2) A filtering period of some length so the nominees can decide which of their number are the best able to proclaim the group's position and the best able to engage the other groups during the candidate selection phase. In short, those the nominees think the best advocates for their groups. 3) An open competition between the advocates of the various groups spanning several weeks during which the nominees for the groups advance their perspective and respond to challenges from the public, the media, and the other groups, while contending with each other for selection as candidates for specific public offices. 4) The public election. re: "The proportions may be manageable if there are e.g. 1,000,000 voters, 10 parties, 1000 nominees per party, that elect 10 candidates per party. I wonder if you want some proportionality (e.g. betwee two wings of a party) or not. That would influence also the first phase." The number of parties and the number of nominees will depend on the public sentiment at the time of the election and the rules (if any) set by those who implement the process. Proportionality will occur naturally, depending on each party's ability to attract supporters, nominees, and, ultimately, candidates. The decision to form 'wings' rather than separate parties depends on the dynamics perceived by those who share the separate view. If they feel they can be more effective trying to influence the party, they'll form a wing; if they think they'll be more effective trying to influence the public, they'll form a party. re: "If the second phase is a traditional election, traditional financing practices may apply." That is one of several reasons for having the election on the day after the candidates are announced - it will limit the deception and obfuscations of campaigning. The concept we are discussing assumes a public election in which the people vote for their choices among the candidates. The competition between the nominees will give the people the most accurate information possible about each of the candidates because it is developed by their adversaries. On the day following the selection of candidates, the information is fresh in the public's mind. The people gain nothing if the election is delayed to allow the candidates to campaign. The parties may campaign during the competition phase, primarily for platform issues because the candidates are not yet known, but possibly in an effort to influence the choice of candidates, too. If so, their efforts will be less fruitful than at present because the party's adversaries can refute the campaign rhetoric during the open competition, when the public is most apt to be attentive. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Hi, Juho I still don't have it right! An open competition is the only way the so-called minor parties can describe and justify their beliefs in a public forum on an equal footing with the other parties. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Morning, Juho I failed to describe a critical aspect of an extended open competition between party nominees: It is the only practical way to ensure a complete examination of the various perspectives of the competing parties - before the election. Proponents of the various points of view will be subjected to hostile scrutiny and, to avoid ridicule, will have to offer rational justification for their positions. Mind-numbing catch-phrases will not suffice. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Morning, Juho re: "In the quoted text I assumed that your question "What would you think of letting interest groups (or parties) select their most effective advocates to compete with other candidates for public office?" referred to candidates that are not set by the electors (starting from the most local level) but by the parties. In that case I felt that there maybe was a need to allow the regular voters to decide instead of letting the party nominated candidates make the decisions. But maybe that was not your intended scenario." Thanks, Juho. I didn't realize you were speaking of nominees set by the parties. Now, after thinking about it in the way you intended, I still favor the idea of having the nominees compete with each other to decide which ones will be actual candidates for public office. I'm not speaking of vacuous televised debates where, in a couple of hours, fawning interrogators toss softball questions with inadequate follow-up, and where nominees try to outdo each other by making phony promises in an appeal for public favor. I'm talking about a real competition conducted in open sessions spanning several weeks, where the various party nominees can be challenged, not only by each other, but by the public and the media; where nominees are pressed when they give misleading or obfuscating responses, and where the election occurs on the day after the nominees make their final choice of candidates. In a competition like this, each nominee must try to persuade the other nominees to select him or her as the most able candidate. If they want to be chosen, 'Party nominated candidates' will have to commit themselves to put the public interest above their party's interest in instances where those interests clash, while the competing party nominees will miss no opportunity to show how their partisan bias is a disservice to the public. This is not the best solution to the political problems we face, but it would be an improvement. At the very least, it would reduce the deceit and obfuscation that characterize political campaigns. In terms of goals for a democratic electoral method, it does not address goals 4, 6 or 7. It meets goals 2, 3, 5, 8 and 9, and although it does not meet goal 1, it improves on present practice. 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). 7) The electoral method must include a means for the electorate to recall an elected official. 8) The electoral method must ensure that candidates for public office are examined, face-to-face, by people with a vital interest in ascertaining their character, and the examiners must have enough time to investigate their subject thoroughly. 9) The electoral method must accommodate the fact that parties, interest groups, factions and enclaves are a vital part of society. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Afternoon, Juho re: "Maybe party leadership would be forced to change party opinions if there was such a direct channel (that could e.g. cancel support to politicians that do not react to the wishes of the voters)." That's true. That's the way it works now. Parties cannot anticipate or forestall public problems, they can only react when those problems become such a burden on their members they can no longer be ignored. By the time parties change their focus (if they do), the problems have usually become insurmountable, like the crushing debt now plaguing much of Europe (and, soon, the United States). The fact that parties are, and can only be, reactive is one of the reasons they are ruinous. Another reason, of course, is that they are conduits for corruption. re: "... but using candidates that have been nominated by a party ... Those people might not be negotiation ortiented but winning and strategy oriented. The negotiation process might be for them just negotiation tactics without any intention to change opinions or learn from others." You describe the reason party candidates do not serve the public: They don't care about solving public problems, they only care about winning. Let me point out that, when they must compete with other candidates who have a deeper concern for the people, candidates who are only winning- and strategy-oriented will have difficulty advancing. re: "Maybe triads work best when the participants are not political persons." They do not have to be politicians whose stock-in-trade is deceit and obfuscation, but they do have to interact well with their peers in order to advance. In that sense, they might be called political persons. re: "If we start from low/local level and parties set the candidates, I might try giving the decision power on who will go to the next levels to the regular voters, and not to the candidates that may already be professional politicians." That is certainly a possibility, although I think it unwise for several reasons: * as described in an earlier post, those at the lower levels can influence those at the higher levels. Each candidate achieves selection by a known list of electors, so communication between the electors and the candidate is straightforward. That capability is more important than voting; it lets the electors influence, not only the choice of candidates, but the public issues on which the candidates will be legislating. * the 'regular voters' do not have the time, or a practical way, to verify a candidates' bona fides. * at every level, the candidates have the time, the opportunity, and the vital interest to examine their competitors carefully. After all, they, too, are seeking to advance their candidacy. They have reason to protect their integrity, and will seek out any information that shows their competitors to be less fit than themselves. The 'regular voters' do not have that kind of incentive to be thorough. * the 'regular voters' can be too easily swayed by the media. Media frenzies tend to be emotional. Deliberation on issues and examination of candidates, because they require time and effort, tend to be intellectual. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Morning, Kristofer The dangers in two-party rule are clear enough. What is unclear to me is the obsession with devising a party-based system in the first place. The abject failure of partisan politics screams at us from all corners of the world. Can we not learn that parties must be subject to the oversight of those free of commitment to the single-minded, indeed simple-minded, approach of partisans? Why are we unable to seriously consider finding an alternative to the obvious flaws of party politics? In your first post on this thread, you mentioned how a sortition-based system would weaken the role of parties. Dr. Lyn Carson of the University of Sydney, Australia reports success using sortition to settle community and regional difficulties. Should we not examine such a concept in greater detail? The bell-shaped curve of leadership qualities is not reserved for politicians. It's quite easy to see that outstanding leaders are sprinkled throughout society. Why do we not devise a method of seeking them out so they can represent us in our government? re: "There's nothing inherent in the concept of parties that limits the voters to choosing between only two options. The system does that." The concept of parties may not inherently limit voters to only two options, but it does limit voters to options the parties define. The people can only vote (effectively) for a party's perspective. What happens after they cast that vote is (or, at least, should be) a matter of grave concern. You mentioned in passing (and I think in jest) that oligopoly isn't operating in Norway, but a cynic might say the coalitions that have arisen lately constitute "multiparty two-'party' rule". You may have meant it as a joke, but I believe it to be a rule of partisan politics that multiple parties always form ruling coalitions. This raises a vital point: Even in a party-free environment, legislators will align themselves with other legislators to enact laws they support. The difference is that the alignments are not 'en bloc', they are fluid. Such groupings combine and disperse dynamically, depending on the legislation under consideration. They are inspired by the judgment of the people's individual representatives, not by the pre-judgment of parties seeking to increase their power. I agree that the system limits the voters. Can't we come up with a better system? Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Morning, Juho Juho: "... being able to influence through the chain of electors offers a useful communication / influence channel between the bottom level voters and their representatives." Fred: "It also gives the people meaningful participation in the political process, way beyond voting for candidates controlled by political parties." Juho: "Yes, voters could be interested in participating this way. But I note that quite similar chains of influence could be used in more party controlled systems too." That's incorrect. As a matter of fact, it's a contradiction. As Michael Allan pointed out, parties do not allow party members to change their leaders' dictates. That's why he's seeking a 'public' party, where the leaders cannot control the members. When raising funds, parties commit to enact laws sought by the 'donors' who underwrite the party's operation. Party leadership cannot let the members invalidate those commitments. Hence, control is mandatory and meaningful participation by the party members is impossible. re: "I'm not sure if I got the full picture, i.e. how the system would work." I'm not sure if I can give you a picture you'll understand, but let's try this: Imagine three candidates with these sets of convictions (and effective persuasiveness) on ten issues: (M m M C c C m M L L) (C M m c l C M l l C) (M L c l C c L c L l) --- --- --- Where: C = strongly conservative c = moderately conservative L = strongly liberal l = moderately liberal M = strongly moderate m = moderately moderate and where, for estimating the candidate's bias, a value of 1 is assigned to the lower case letters and a value of 2 is assigned to the capital letters. The first candidate:MmMCcCmMLL a conservative rating of 5 on 3 issues a liberal rating of 4 on 2 issues a moderate rating of 8 on 5 issues -- 17 Intensity rating The second candidate: CMmclCMllC a conservative rating of 7 on 4 issues a liberal rating of 3 on 3 issues a moderate rating of 5 on 3 issues -- 15 Intensity rating The third candidate:MLclCcLcLl a conservative rating of 5 on 4 issues a liberal rating of 8 on 5 issues a moderate rating of 2 on 1 issues -- 15 Intensity rating As a group, the attitude bias is slightly conservative Conservative 5 + 7 + 5 = 17 Liberal4 + 3 + 8 = 15 Moderate 8 + 5 + 2 = 15 and the first candidate is slightly more intense (persuasive) than the other two, who are approximately equal: 17 to 15 and 15 If these three individuals were to compete with each other to select one of the three as a representative of the group, and given an extended period of time to familiarize themselves with each other and their points of view, each of them will modify (however slightly) their views on some issues, depending on the force of the arguments presented by their peers (that's called 'learning'). For example (and with absolutely no justification except as an illustration), in the course of examining the issues, it is possible the soundness of some or all of the third candidate's position on the second issue (where the first candidate is moderately moderate, the second candidate is strongly moderate and the third candidate is strongly liberal), will cause the first candidate's attitude to change from modestly moderate to modestly liberal - in spite of the slight conservative bias of the group. In other words, the candidates (whether party candidates, or not) will proclaim their ideas and encourage discussion of their concepts. Some of their ideas will be accepted, in whole or in part, as they are shown to be in the common interest of the community. Note that we cannot predict, from the information given, which candidate will be chosen by the group. Although we rated the first person as slightly more persuasive than the other two, we don't know what defects the others may find in that individual during an extended period of face-to-face interaction. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Afternoon, Dave You seem to favor some form of a party-based political system. There is another perspective worthy of consideration: the idea that the political problems we endure are a result of the (lack of) quality in our elected officials. When one thinks about the state of our nation, it is obvious the failures we endure result from the laws passed and the policies set by the politicians we elect. The poor quality of our elected officials flows from the dynamics of party politics. Partisan systems seek to empower one subset of the people at the expense of the rest. The leaders are willing to sacrifice integrity to attain their ends. Electoral methods that undervalue integrity allow the corruption that permeates our nation. To improve our government, we must conceive an electoral method that prizes integrity. That is not possible with a party-based system. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Afternoon, Juho re: "... being able to influence through the chain of electors offers a useful communication / influence channel between the bottom level voters and their representatives." It also gives the people meaningful participation in the political process, way beyond voting for candidates controlled by political parties. re: "We should have some practical experiments with different rules and in different societies to see how people feel about this kind of indirect representation." My guess is that the best way to test the process will come when a small community adopts it. One of my sons suggested the Little League - a league for children's baseball in communities throughout the U. S. - would be an excellent proving ground. Little League organizations are a hotbed of political intrigue. Parents fight hard for their children, trying to influence the choice of team managers, which children will play and for how long in each game, which children will get to play in the All-Star games, and so forth. In addition, there's no shortage of potential for chicanery in the disposal of funds. Frankly, I think it would be a great test; the relationships are up-close, personal and intense. re: "One quite technical approach would be to arrange a separate proportional election ... on which questions to present." This makes an excellent point: In my June 23rd post, I pointed out, "Voting for choices defined by political parties creates an illusion of power but is a sign of great weakness." The hallmark of democracy is the ability to decide what issues are important to our community - whether as you describe here or in some other manner. re: "One possible simpler model would be to allow different interest groups each set one or two questions." What would you think of letting interest groups (or parties) select their most effective advocates to compete with other candidates for public office? The party candidates can proclaim their ideas and encourage discussion of their concepts. Some of their ideas will be accepted, in whole or in part, as they are shown to be in the common interest of the community. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Afternoon, Michael I'm working my way through your proposal. It is not entirely clear how a group can have the form of a party without the substance. To the extent that people organize, they cannot escape Robert Michels' dictum: "It is indisputable that the oligarchical and bureaucratic tendency of party organization is a matter of technical and practical necessity. It is the inevitable product of the very principle of organization". This may be a semantic problem; perhaps some word other than 'party' would better fit the case (public body?). In any event, acquiring "the labour, money and other resources needed to make it happen" is non-trivial. The "argument of inevitable success" may be a bit optimistic. Like all political ideas, this one bears the burden of persuading a large portion of the population to adopt the method. Perhaps some form of telephone application could go viral. That might gain adherents quickly but might also turn into a passing fad. There are two worrying aspects about the proposal. One is the lack of a way for the people to carefully examine candidates to determine their ability and integrity. The other is that the concept may be susceptible to media-induced frenzies. One thought that struck me while studying the proposal was the similarity to Michael Moore's We Want You (www.wewantyou.us). If a combination of that effort and your ideas is possible, it might be beneficial. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Afternoon, Don re: "[assuming a Condorcet voting system]. It is true that more extreme parties would increase in numbers and first round votes. Why because they can always have a second choice, the L or C candidates, or the M the moderate/non-partisan as their third choice which would win most of the elections. The non-major parties would increase in numbers (stronger in numbers yes, but even less likely to be elected) and at the expense of the two major parties but still the moderate (non-partisan) would have a greater chance of winning. Oh, Oh! You've broached a subject beyond my competence. It's true I've followed this site for quite a few years, but I've never made any attempt to follow the intricacies of the various party-based electoral methods discussed, because (in my opinion) they all give us more of the poison that's killing us. re: "Generally when you register you must decide to be partisan or non-partisan (although in some states you don't have to choose). Most people (standard definition) would use this definition of non-partisan." Thank you. That's a good explanation of the standard definition. From my perspective, the standard definition only acknowledges the existence of the portion of the electorate that votes, which, over the six most recent elections, has averaged 43.3% of the voting age population. Presumably, by this definition, the other 56.7% have no right to influence our government. I'd like to conceive an electoral method that gives every member of the voting age population the ability to influence the electoral process to the full extent of their desire and ability. re: "(Wikipedia) "Democracy is a political system based upon the concept of 'rule by the people who have the right to hold some form of political power'." That's an interesting definition, but it fails to identify which people "have the right to hold some form of political power". Personally, I prefer Lincoln's definition, "Government of the people, by the people, for the people", although I admit to assuming he meant 'all the people', not just the subsets represented by parties. re: "... I agree with you that it would be a much better democracy if more people voted." I will, for now, avoid commenting on the term 'vote' because that's a topic worthy of in-depth examination. However, would you agree that more people would participate in the political process if their participation were meaningful? Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Afternoon, Kristofer re: "Strictly speaking, clones are candidates that are so alike each other that every voter ranks them next to each other (but not necessarily in the same order)." and "More generally speaking, a clone could be considered a candidate that's very close to an already existing candidate and whose presence changes who wins." Thank you. That's a clear explanation. Even allowing for my general ignorance of the topic, cloning seems to be more significant for multi-party systems than for the two-party system that dominates U. S. politics. Nah. I guess that opinion is wrong. In the U. S., a third party probably can't avoid cloning some portion of a major party candidate. If so, eliminating clones probably increases the distance from a two-party system to a multi-party system. Anyway, wouldn't we be better served by conceiving a way to advocate the common interest instead of worrying about whether or not a clone will harm the parochial interests of partisans? Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Afternoon, Kathy Re: "... the proportion of partisans/nonpartisans depends entirely on the state. In some states like MA, the vast majority of voters are registered as non-partisans. In others, the majority of registered voters register for a party. I think in part it must depend on the type of primary, open or closed, each state has. In some states, such as OH, there is no partisanship recorded at all, one way or the other, in the voter registration rolls, so it's difficult to tell. In Florida many registered Dems tend to vote for Republicans in statewide and federal elections, registration vestiges from the old South Lincoln days. Thank you, very much. One thing's clear: I have been using the term 'non-partisan' improperly. The best word I can think of to express my meaning may be 'unrepresented' by which I means those who have no representation, regardless of which major party wins an election. re: "Some political scientists have undoubtedly done research to try to determine the fundamental partisanship levels, but so much of opinion and exit poll survey research work is questionably scientific due to the blatant adjustment of samples to match unaudited, unverified prior election results that are today counted in secret with ample opportunities for vote manipulation in the vast majority of states. Plus it is known that voters often inflate the rate at which they voted for the successful prior candidate." That's fascinating stuff. It's not a field I follow, so I've only heard a smattering of the circumstances you describe. I suppose the best idea is to work one's way backward from the Census Bureau figures and the reported results from elections. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Afternoon, Juho re: "In typical national elections the number of representatives is much smaller than the number of voters you will have the problem that candidates are distant to the voters, one way or another." Only if you assume present practices are cast in concrete. Once you open your mind to the idea that we can each choose, from among those we know, a person we can trust to make choices for us, and that person gets ample time to examine his competitors for office, we will no longer be required to vote for people whose ability and integrity we have no way to validate. re: "... or maybe they are allowed to elect only representatives that later elect some higher level representatives, and again, they will never meet the candidates that will be the top level representatives." You're correct. They will not have met them, but each of them are part of a direct line of individuals that culminates in the people who are make the later selections. Depending on the way the process is implemented, they can influence those who make the later choices by expressing their position and providing whatever evidence they may have, good or bad, to those who are making the later choices. If the capability is implemented, they will also have the ability to institute a recall. Each of them is a link in the electoral chain and have reason to trust those who make the final selections because they were part of the process of selecting them. re: "If we want each candidate to be forced to answer to some key questions that their fellow candidates might ask them (good idea), one solution would be to simply force them to do so." It may not be simple. I'm not sure you can 'force' someone to answer a question - honestly. Words are cheap. What someone says is much less revealing than their demeanor when they say it. That's why face-to-face interaction is so important. We would also need to decide who will formulate the question(s) or what the question(s) will be. I haven't thoroughly considered this idea, but perhaps others can help examine it. re: "I mean that other candidates (maybe from second level up) (and maybe also media) would be entitled to ask some questions from them, and all candidates would have to present written answers to these questions publicly. (We may have to limit the number of questions, but that's another story.) Voters would still be the bottom level voters. I kept that approach in the described approach to keep the link between the bottom level voters and the top level representatives direct (and to provide an alternative to the chained hierarchical evaluation model (where the elected elect the next level etc.)). My target was to empower the bottom level voters as much as possible." I'm sorry, Juho. I seem to have missed one of your posts. You say, "I kept that approach in the described approach", but I haven't seen the approach you described. re: "... I think no two countries are alike." No, but people are pretty much the same all over the world. We all love and hope and dream and fear pretty much the same way. Genius and repugnance are distributed throughout the human race. Our various cultures develop at different rates, but our Attilas and our Napoleons pop-up here and there throughout our existence. If we can conceive a democratic electoral process, any community can use it when their local circumstances allow. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Morning, Juho re: "You seem to assume that "party values" are always bad." I've explained this. Partisanship is an essential part of society. However, we must prevent parties from inflicting their views on the electorate. Their role must always be to persuade, never to impose. Therein lies the difficulty of conceiving a democratic electoral method; we must devise a method that welcomes parties but prevents their control of government. re: "... although parties may often have a negative impact on candidate selection, there are also aspects that may speak in favour of some control in the creation of the candidate list." To the extent you mean the party leaders have a right to control the choice of candidates, I disagree. re: "Even if we would find some ingenious new system, I hope that all would not use it but there would still be alternative approaches for comparison and to seek further improvements." The development of democracy is an evolutionary process. It happens in fits and starts and none of them are final. re: "I think we can't get fully rid of our represenattives making decisions for us in a representative democracy. We must trust some people to make the decisions." Of course! That's why we elect them. The problem we are addressing is that we are only allowed to vote for people who are committed to make decisions for the benefit of their party rather than the benefit of the people. That's wrong. re: "(Here's btw one possible approach that allows anyone to run. There will be a primary elecion at every municipality or other small area (common to all voters of that area). Anyone can nominate himself as a candiate. The winners will be candidates at the next election of a wider area. And the winners of those electons will be candiates of the final national election. Voters are the same at all levels, just grouped into smaller or larger groups. There will be few weeks time between the different level elections to reserve time for the voters to learn the candidates and their opinions.) The voters can only learn what the candidates tell them, they have no means of independent verification. They cannot examine each of the candidates carefully to determine their integrity and suitability for public office. However, if the candidates, advancing as you describe, must seek election by persuading the other candidates to elect them, we can be sure each of them will do two things: 1) They'll make sure no-one can challenge their integrity. and 2) they'll examine the other candidates, their competitors, carefully, looking for ways to "shoot-'em-down". They will not be easily deceived. re: "I find many different kind of systems useful and potential good solutions for some societies." How about sticking with the leading societies, the ones that have, so far, set the pace for democracy (however imperfectly)? Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Morning, Dave re: "Clones are a problem for Plurality, and primaries were invented to dispose of clones within a party" I'm not sure what clones are, but imagine they are multiple candidates who seek the same office. re: "Could say that if they have no voice they have no need of anyone to speak to." Who has the right to make that judgment? We can't say that until those without a voice have a practical way to express themselves on political issues. re: "If there is an idea worth speaking about and no party is interested, its backers could form a party." Forming a party is the height of futility, as I'm sure you're aware. As long as the major parties write the rules for our electoral process, we will continue to have a closed system. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Afternoon, Don I'm glad you're enjoying the discussion and decided to pitch in. re: "I think you missed the point of the post." You're right. I did miss the point of your post. I went back and read it again and now have a clearer understanding. In addition, I agree with your conclusion. If we change the electoral method as you describe, one of the results will be to weaken the strongest parties and may (I have to think more about this one) make the result more moderate. [If you wonder why I have to think more about the result, please consider this: If, in the days of the "Southern Democrats", a radical third party had formed, I think it's effect would have moved the result closer to an extreme. I've no wish to examine this possibility in greater detail because I consider it a digression. I mention it merely to suggest that the results of political change can be indeterminate.] re: "If you note that the M (the non-partisans candidate) wins in every one of my examples (with a different voting method)." In your original post, you equated M to non-partisan/independent and thereafter spoke of the M (or Moderate) candidate in a way that suggests there is a party of moderates or independents. I tend to think that those who join a party (even of moderates or independents) are no longer non-partisan. Please don't consider this a quibble, it's an important point. In terms of party politics, I tend to think of non-partisans as people who do not belong to (support?) a party. This raises an issue we may need to resolve. As you'll see below, I, too, classify Independents as non-partisans in a way which you may not approve. How important is this question? re: "If you change the voting method parties will be weaker and non-partisan candidates will be stronger." May we change this to: "If you change the voting method the major parties will be weaker and non-major party candidates will be stronger."? If so, I agree. re: "I don't believe that non-partisans are a majority of the register votes, and even a smaller percent of the voters. I agree that non-partisans are not a majority of the registered voters. As to the percentage of non-partisans among the voters, I disagree. I'm not an actuary or even a good researcher, but here's how I arrived at my estimate. I started, not with the number of voters, but with the number of potential voters: From the U. S. Census: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0397.pdf Voting Age Population, 2010:234,564,000 Percentage of voting age population casting votes for U. S. Representatives in the last 6 elections (in 1,000s) VotingVotes Age Cast for U. S. Year Population Representatives 2000209,78798,800 2002214,75574,707 2004219,553 113,192 2006224,58380,976 2008229,945 122,586 2010234,56486,785 - --- 1,333,187 577,046 577,046 / 1,333,187 = .432832003312 = 43.3% Using an average of 43.3% (which is higher than the actual report of 37% for 2010) of the voting age population as the number of voters and 56.7% as the number of non-voters, 132,997,788 people did not vote. We don't know whether they failed to vote because they thought their vote wouldn't matter or for some other reason, but we do know they did not support any party's candidates and may properly be called non-partisan. The percentage of partisans (32% Democrats and 24% Republicans) voting in the 2010 election was taken from Pew Research: http://pewresearch.org/ These values leave 44% Independents, which is a bit higher than the Gallup estimate of 38% you cited. I treated the Independents as non-partisans because they supported neither of the major (viable) parties. In addition to this, Pew estimates that 75% of the party counts are registered party members and the other 25% are 'leaners". Leaners are people who are not party members but vote with the party. They are forced to lean toward one of the parties because they have no better options. Using Pew's values, about 24.4 million voters were registered Democrats and 18.3 were registered Republicans. Since these two parties fielded the only (viable) candidates, about 42.7 million people chose the only candidates a nation of 234.5 million people could vote for. That is my rationale for believing non-partisans greatly outnumber the partisans. An electoral system that excludes over 80% of its people from the process of selecting their elected representatives cannot be called a democracy. With regard to the question of classifying Independents and non-partisans, my usage here inflates the number of non-partisans in a way that may not be proper. My problem is that I can't figure out how to classify the 'leaners". I don't
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Morning, Juho re: "There may be also negative arguments against party control, but aren't those given reasons rational reasons that aim at creating the best possible and representative list of candidates that drive the party values forward?" Ya got me! I'd like to respond, but don't understand what you said. In attempting to conceive a democratic electoral process, we seek an electoral method that vests the power in the people. That's why we call it democratic. Candidates "that drive the party values forward" empower the party, not the people. re: "I think I didn't refer to non-partisans. I meant that some regular voters may become activists and form a new party if thy are not happy with the existing parties." That's quibbling. If they do not support the existing parties, they are non-partisan, and non-partisans, as a group, "do not seek the ascendance of one group of citizens over another". Why should they be denied a right to representation in the government just because they do not support a party that seeks to advance its own interest at the expense of those who don't share its views? re: "I'm happy to leave this point open since I see multiple viable approaches that could be used by the various societies of the world." Really? And which of them will benefit the people when they do not give the people a way to identify and avoid duplicitous politicians? re: "Face-to-face approach offers some benefits but it has also its problems, like long distance between the huge number of individual voters ..." Which says we must conceive an electoral method that lets the people narrow the field, so fewer candidates must travel. Given the availability of modern modes of travel, arranging face-to-face meetings is trivial. re: "Different needs and different history may lead to different systems." That's stating the obvious, since it already has. More pertinent is the fact that the vast majority of different systems are not truly democratic. They do not let the people seek their best advocates from among themselves. They interpose parties between the people and their government. re: (with regard to why there should be a limitation on candidate nominations), "The reason is that I have only time to evaluate max 100 candidates." As you point out, there are practical ways to reduce the number of candidates while assuring each member of the electorate the right to participate in the process. Can you propose a better alternative, one that empowers each and every one of us without forcing us to support unknown, self-interested politicians incapable of suppressing greed and avoiding war? Should not the goal of a conception of a democratic political process be to allow every member of the electorate to participate to the full extent of their desire and ability? re: (with regard to the statement that, "To exclude these people by setting arbitrary limitations is self-defeating."), you asked, "Why were they arbitrary?" They are arbitrary because those who impose the limitations arrogate to themselves the right to deny some members of the electorate the right to compete for election to public office, thus gutting the essence of democracy. re: "Why not possible rational and balanced limitations that might be used to keep the number of candidates manageable?" "Rational and balanced limitations" in whose eyes? Certainly not the eyes of those who are excluded. In what way does any person or group of people gain the right to decide who shall be allowed to participate in the political process and who shall not? Keeping the number of candidates manageable is straightforward. The first step is to let those who don't want to compete drop out and the second is to let their peers decide which candidates are worthy of public office. re: "All potential candidates should be given a fair chance to become candidates. That doesn't mean that we should allow all interested people to becme candidates (because the list might become too long)." That is self-contradictory. re: "(Again I note that your earlier hierarchical proposals could allow all people to be candidates. But that's only one possible solution to the problem.) I, too, think there must be other solutions. Since you're sure the hierarchical proposal is "only one possible solution to the problem", it would be very helpful if you'd suggest others. We're looking for a conception. We can't form one until ideas are outlined in sufficient detail so they can be evaluated. re: "Usually you can get the best end results if the core of the proposal is made and kept in good shape by one person or a small team of similar minded people." I appreciate the effort you have devoted to this discussion and your comments on "the list". While I'm not shy about stating my views on the matter of a democr
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Afternoon, Mr. Hoffard Your post does not seem to address the issue of non-partisans, yet they are, by far, the majority of the electorate (whether or not they actually vote). Is the implication that they should only be allowed to vote for a candidate sponsored by a party a correct interpretation of your view? re: "If you assume there are no Parties and we have the same people running for office you get the same results." I don't understand why, if there are no parties, it is proper to assume 'we have the same people running for office'. Although I don't advocate elimination of parties, it they are removed from the scene the dynamics of the process change dramatically and the likelihood of having the same candidates is slim. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Afternoon, Michael re: "The public may include partisans, of course, but they would vote together with everyone else when it comes to public decisions. That's the crucial thing." I agree that it's a crucial issue, but, as far as this discussion has advanced, we've yet to suggest a method by which it can be done. One of the problems is that people motivated to political action are partisan, but they are a relatively small part of the electorate. The non-partisans, virtually by definition, tend to not be politically active. That does not mean they have no political interest or concern. They do, but there is no viable 'good government' party they can support. So, while they should be the greatest voice in the conduct of our government, they are forced to stand mute because parties dominate the political scene. That is the crux of the matter. I feel, like you, that our electoral method must embrace the entire electorate. Those who don't wish to participate must be allowed to drop out, but everyone else must have a way to provide meaningful input into the choice of the people's representatives in their legislature. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Afternoon, alabio I, too, bridled at 'aristocracy' when I first read it. But, as I read the rest of Kristofer's message, his meaning was clear. I see he has already answered you, so I'll leave it there. Can you help us achieve a meritocracy? What are some of the elements we must consider in trying to make our government more democratic? Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Afternoon, Dave re: "I would not do away with primaries - instead I would do away with Plurality and leave primaries to any party that still saw value in them." I believe the discussion was more about opening primaries to the public than to eliminating them. re: "I see value in parties - Green, libertarians, socialism, etc., let voters with particular desires work together." Absolutely, but there must also be a way for those who don't subscribe to any party to participate in the electoral process. They have no voice at present, and that's the rub. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Afternoon, Kristofer re: "If we consider representative democracy as a proxy for direct democracy, to make the latter managable, then we could be even stronger: we'd want representatives that would act as we would if we had sufficient information and time." That's a good way of putting it. Could it be improved by saying we want representatives that would act better than we act - by making rational rather than emotional decisions? re: "There's a problem, though: it's hard to separate the categories (opinion and ability) from each other. If a representative says that we can't do X, is that because it's really a bad idea or because he's part of an oligarchy that benefits from not doing X? Similarly, if a representative says we should do X, does he mean that is a good idea, or is he trying to manage perceptions? Since it's hard to tell by the representatives' acts alone, that leaves the system. In an ideal case, the system discourages an oligarchy in the first place (rather than trying to patch things up when the oligarchy exists), while placing the good in positions as representatives." As you say, it's hard to separate opinion and ability from each other - and it's impossible to do so from a distances. That's why the system must give us a way to gauge the judgment and integrity of candidates before they're elected. Once they take office, their decisions affect our lives. If we cannot conceive a system that lets us evaluate them as well as we're able before we elect them we are doomed to an endless repetition of our past. Gauging the judgment and integrity of an individual can never be perfect, but we can get better insight into a person's character through face-to-face interaction than we can in any other way. If the interaction takes place in a competitive environment, it will bring out the vital distinctions needed to identify the better qualified candidates. re: "If representative democracy is/should be a managable way of direct democracy, then we can also note that it doesn't, by itself, deal with the problem of opinions changing too rapidly, or of populism. Other parts of the system should handle that ..." Therein lies the role of partisanship. Society is dynamic and people's perceptions and anxieties change. As particular concerns arise, their proponents will attract supporters. While the rabble-rousing effect of the media cannot be avoided, that influence can be ameliorated if partisans are given the facilities and encouraged to seek out their best advocates to outline their concerns and develop alternatives. When their views are shown to be in the interest of the community, their alternatives will be adopted, in whole or in part. re: "In an electoral context, that might take the shape of not frequently re-electing the whole assembly but rather parts of it, or having different term limits depending on support, or requiring supermajorities or double majorities.) Re-electing a portion of the assembly at each election provides a level of stability to government. Term limits, while important, become less so if the people have a mechanism to carefully examine candidates during each election cycle. When I think of the size of majorities, I think of the life of our laws. At present, there is no provision for removing bad laws except by legislative action. We will be better served when the life of our laws depends on the size of the majority by which they are passed. Then, laws which barely pass will have to be re-enacted when they expire. This forces a re-examination of the law, after it has had an opportunity to accomplish the purpose for which it was passed. If it is found to be effective, it may attract a greater majority and a longer life. re: "So the problem is not partisanship, but rather exclusively partisan decisions." The problem is that the parties are allowed to control the people's access to their government. When the parties enact the rules by which elections are conducted, they control the way the people can interact with their government. Gerrymandering and school board elections (in my state) are screaming examples, and are but the tip of the iceberg. When the parties write the rules of engagement, democracy can not survive. re: "It it were partisanship itself, the solution might have been easier, but what you're saying means that we should try to find a just-right spot instead: partisan influences not too strong (which is the case now) nor too weak." Not exactly. What I'm saying is that the people, all the people, including non-partisans, must be allowed to participate in the political process. This is difficult because non-partisans, as a group, are not active in politics, "yet many of their most important concerns remain very political." (quote taken from The Report of the Commi
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Afternoon, Juho re: "A party represents some set of political ideals and targets. There may be limitations on how many candidates each party can nominate. This party might be interested in nominating candidates that represent those values as well as possible. They may plan to have candidates from every age group, from every geographical area, from many professions, and both male and female candidates. In order to achieve this, they (party leaders or an election committee) want to decide which individuals will be nominated as their candidates." "Also in this democracy voters are allowed to decide who will represent them. The idea is that the number of parties is not limited. If people want some other type of candidates, that the above mentioned party sets, they are free to form a new party that will represent voters better." You described why parties want to control the selection of candidates for public office, but you have not explained why allowing them to control the selection process is in the public interest. You say non-partisans are free to form a new party, but that ignores the fact the non-partisans are not organized along party lines. They do not seek the ascendance of one group of citizens over another, they seek good government. In conceiving a democratic electoral process, ought we not make sure that all people, including those who do not adhere to party lines, can participate in the selection of candidates for public office? re: With regard to the question of whether or not "we should set a goal requiring that candidates for public office must be examined, face-to-face, by people with a vital interest in ascertaining their character, and the examiners must have enough time to investigate their subject thoroughly", you said you'd "add that as one possible path - probably not as a requirement that all working political systems must meet." I'm not sure why you want to leave this open. We have broad experience with the duplicity of politicians selected by political parties. Should we not learn from our experience and protect ourselves from this evil when we conceive a democratic electoral method? re: "There may be limitations in candidate nomiation since democracy might not work well if we had 1 candidates to choose from." Why should there be a limitation. Democracies can consist of millions of people, some of whom are the best advocates of the common interest at any given time. To exclude these people by setting arbitrary limitations is self-defeating. We don't want to exclude these people - we want to find them and elevate them to public office. If we are to find them, we must conceive a search mechanism. So far, I've been unable to come up with a better mechanism than peer evaluation but I'll welcome the outline of a better method. re: "If you plan to finetune your list, I think you should decide if the list is a list of criteria that all decent methods should meet, or if the list describes one useful approach, or if the list describes 'the ideal method'." Alas, Juho, that you should disassociate yourself from our noble effort. Your posts would be more meaningful if you could bring yourself to refer to "our" list - thereby including all those who choose to participate. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Morning, Kristofer re: "Whether this [the assertion that elections impart upon a system an element of aristocracy] is a good or bad thing depends upon whether you think aristocracy can work. In this sense, 'aristocracy' means rule by the best, i.e. by a minority that is selected because they're in some way better than the rest at achieving the common good." Whether or not 'rule by the best' can work depends in large part on how well the electoral method integrates the reality that the common good is dynamic. Those who are 'the best' at one time and under one set of circumstances may not be 'the best' at another time and under different circumstances. re: "The pathological form of aristocracy is oligarchy, where there's still a minority, but it's not chosen because it's better. If aristocracy degenerates too far or too quickly into oligarchy, that would negate the gains you'd expect to see from picking someone who's 'better' rather than just by chance alone." Precisely. That is the underpinning of the notion that elections must be frequent and must allow the participation of the entire electorate. Frequent to forestall the development of an oligarchy; full participation to ensure that all views of the current time and circumstances are voiced and considered. re: "... the collection of rules that make up the electoral system has a significant influence on both the nature of politics in that country as well as on the quality of the representatives." Which is the reason we seek the best conception for a democratic electoral method. re: "Thus, it's not too hard for me to think there might be sets of rules that would make parties minor parts of politics. Those would not work by simply outlawing parties, totalitarian style. Instead, the rules would arrange the dynamics so that there's little benefit to organizing in parties." The rules (or goals) must accommodate the fact that parties, interest groups, factions and enclaves are a vital part of society. They are the seeds from which new or different ideas germinate and lead civilization forward. Outlawing parties would be an outrage against humanity. The threat we must fear is not the existence of parties, it is letting parties control government. We will be best served by devising rules (or setting goals) that welcome partisans while ensuring they maintain a persuasive rather than a controlling role in the election process. re: "For instance, a system based entirely on random selection would probably not have very powerful parties, as the parties would have no way of getting 'their' candidates into the assembly. Of course, such a system would not have the aristocratic aspect either." The closing sentence is what makes sortition a poor option (in my view). It strives to achieve mediocrity rather than meritocracy. re: "Hybrid systems could still make parties less relevant: I've mentioned a 'sortition followed by election within the group' idea before, where a significant sample is picked from the population and they elect representatives from their number. Again, parties could not be sure any of 'their' candidates would be selected at random in the first round. While that method tries to keep some of the selection for best, it disrupts the continuity that parties need and the effect of 'marketing' ahead of time." I regret that I missed this discussion. The idea strikes me as one of considerable merit. At first blush, the major drawback seems to be that it denies us the benefit of partisan thought and action mentioned above. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Morning, Michael re: (as you said to Kristofer Munsterhjelm) "I think we need to look at the primaries. A system of open primaries would be beyond the reach of the parties ..." I think you're right, the selection of candidates for public office must be opened to the entire electorate. Such an approach has eluded us so far because of the lack of organization among the non-partisans. This lets the parties maintain their control of the electoral process with the classic 'Divide and Conquer' strategy. We must note that the value of non-partisans flows directly from their lack of organization. In contrast to partisans who seek to advance their special interests at the expense of the public, non-partisans have no agenda. They just want 'good' government and, given the means, will do their best to achieve it. Opening the electoral process to the entire electorate is challenging. We must conceive an electoral method that allows non-partisans to have meaningful participation in the electoral process. When this is accomplished, the perspective of partisans will be submitted to the scrutiny and approval of those who may or may not share their views. Parties will revert to their proper role of persuading rather than controlling the people. In the United States, non-partisans constitute a larger portion of the electorate than registered Democrats and Republicans combined, yet, because they do not submit to the major parties, they are not allowed meaningful participation in the selection of elected officials. Their only options are to vote for one of the major party's candidates or not vote at all. Although rarely noted, the situation is grave. Based on figures from the Census Bureau and the Pew Research Center, the leaders of approximately 42.6 million partisans (18.3 million registered Republicans and 24.4 million registered Democrats) will determine the political options available to 234.5 million people, of which about 191.9 million are not registered with a party and have no voice in the selection of their representatives. That's a mockery of democracy. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Afternoon, Juho re: "To me this (not allowing parties to control the nomination of candidates for public office) is not an absolute requirement but one approach worth a try." Can you describe a circumstance in which letting the leaders of a subset of the electorate control of the nomination of candidates for public office will be in the public interest? In a representative democracy, is it not the right of the people to select those who will represent them? re: "Not a defence of current systems, just a warning that new systems can not be trusted either." Of course not: "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance". re: In connection with goal (3), 'The electoral method must give the people a way to address and resolve contemporary issues,' you asked, "Is the intention to say that people should be able to react (and influence) when they see some changes in the society or when the politicians start some new initiatives?" The peoples' concerns change over time, depending on a multitude of circumstances. To achieve satisfaction, these changing interests must be given voice, contemplated and reflected in the results of each election. Advocates of particular interests must be able to proclaim their ideas and encourage discussion of their concepts. Some will be accepted, in whole or in part, as they are shown to be in the common interest of the community. The electoral method must allow and encourage special interests to attract supporters to their cause and elevate their most effective advocates during each electoral cycle to ensure that all public concerns are thoroughly aired and investigated. re: With regard to the assertion: ... 'if the people can determine that people of fame and power can be trusted with public office, we need not fear them', you said, "People are able to evaluate their nearby and nearly similar fellow citizens reasonably well, but I'm less optimistic with how they evaluate different, psychologically powerful and well known figures." That is a valid concern. We must always be alert for Prince Charming-type individuals that can't be trusted with your lunch pail. If we are to validate candidates for public office, they must be examined, face-to-face, by people with a vital interest in ascertaining their character, and the examiners must have enough time to investigate their subject thoroughly. Should we add that as another goal? re: With regard to goal (4) which says, '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', you said, "Yes except that we may have some limitations to keep the number of candidates reasonable. We may also try to keep the quality of the candidates good by setting some conditions that are not too difficult for good candidates to pass." In a democracy, it is very difficult (and may be improper) for one person to set conditions and limitations for others. However, as you say, the quality of candidates is a critical issue. Instead of trying to prejudge the matter, wouldn't we be better served to let the candidate's peers decide their suitability? In the process of deciding which of our peers are our best advocates, we would be automatically narrowing the field. If, then, our choices had to compete for selection with the choices of others, it would not be long before we had a very manageable field of candidates. re: With regard to goal (5) which says, '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', you said, "This is quite difficult but of course we should do our best to support this target. In local elections people know the canidates better. In "non-local" elections media and other public sources have an important role." The ability to examine candidates is a matter of accessibility and time. To form a valid opinion about a candidate's integrity and suitability for public office, one must be able to meet the person face-to-face, discuss contemporary issues in detail, and have enough time to discern the multitude of verbal and non-verbal cues each of us emit during discourse. re: With regard to goal (6) which says, 'The electoral method must be repeated frequently (preferably annually)', you raised several points: a. "There are some benefits also in not having elections every day. If voters could change their represetatives any day, the representatives might follow the opinion surveys too much." The only reference to frequency was the recommendation that elections be held annually. Terms of office are already set in most constituencies, so the elections will be to replace office-holders who
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process (Primary Thoughts)
Good Morning, Michael I think I understand your point. Before I comment on it, I'd like to mention that the example of an assertive, strong-willed non-partisan was probably of minor importance. The point was that, in any single primary election, if such an individual participated in conjunction with a party, it could only be with one party in any one election, and association with the group would affect both the person and the group. However, that may be, it is a digression from the line of thought you were suggesting. It seems to me the point you're making (and, for goodness sake, correct me if I've bollixed it) is that, if we are to eliminate partisan control of government, we must first understand the source of party power. Parties are able to exercise control because only party members are allowed to vote on the selection of candidates for public office. To correct this state of affairs, we must use our imaginations to go beyond what we can see and imagine that it's possible to lift that restriction. If we can imagine that, if voting by non-partisans were allowed, the party would lose control. The implication is that, to eliminate the power of parties, we must find a way to remove that exclusivity. I would like to comment on this, but want to be sure my understanding is correct before I do so. Please let me know. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
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 d
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process (Primary Thoughts)
Good Afternoon, Michael re: "Meanwhile the party is a fact, and it seems to rest (at least in definition) on a contrary assumption, that of *non*-universality. I wish therefore to begin by imagining away that assumption. What happens to the party when its primary decisions may no longer be restricted to members, but must be opened to universal and equal participation?" I'm sorry, Michael, but I cannot make such an assumption. I can imagine universal equality but I cannot imagine a party where the "primary decisions may no longer be restricted to members". Such an assumption defeats the party's reason for being. I am unable to imagine an entity that does not include its essential characteristics. Is it necessary to imagine 'party' as existing before universal equality? Would it not be better to imagine 'party', and the exclusivity that is inherent in the concept of 'party', as a natural outgrowth of universal equality? re: "When you say 'start with a different core', I'm unsure whether you mean a core of deciders, or of decisions." I mean that the members of each of the parties have a different set of core opinions. When these core members interact with non-party members, the effect of their influence on the non-party members will vary, depending on a multitude of circumstances. The non-party members will influence the opinions of the core members in the same way. Moreover, since one non-party individual can only join one of the existing parties, the individual's influence on and reaction to the influence of the party is indeterminate. As an imaginary example, an assertive, strong-willed non-partisan may influence and be influenced by a liberal party to a completely different extent than the same person would influence and be influenced by a conservative party. re: "The parties may be different from each other (in their histories, if nothing else), but henceforth they may not make decisions about the sponsorship of candidates without opening each step of the process to anyone who wishes to participate. When voicing the first nomination for party P, the lowliest member of a competing party Q has an equal opportunity to that of P's leader. "An ultra-left party would normally be expected to start with a left leaning nominee, but exactly this expectation no longer applies. All leanings from the center are now equally likely, where the center is defined collectively by those who choose to participate, and the effort they expend." This is the assumption I cannot accept. It defies the party's reason for being. I can imagine a system where parties nominate candidates that advocate the party's position, and then subjects those candidates to the judgment of non-partisans, but I cannot imagine a party operating outside the dictates of its membership. re: "It sounds strange, but the party introduces an element of morality that is missing from the state electoral system. The state system tells us who *shall* be elected to office, but it fails to tell us who *ought* to be. This failing is something I know you already appreciate, but I want to emphasize that it's a moral failing. A power is exercised without a right. It is what we would expect from a tyrant, not from an institution of democracy." Morality is a human trait. It cannot exist in non-human entities, whether political parties or business corporations. Any morality displayed by such entities is the morality of their leaders. When a party tells us who 'ought' to be elected to office, it is not making a moral statement, it is making a self-serving statement. The person the party tells us we 'ought' to elect is the person the party believes will best advance the party's interest not the public's interest. When parties name the candidates for public office, they are, indeed, exercising a power without a right. re: "This is a moral contribution (in form), which is exactly what we need." I agree we need to let the people impress their moral sense on their government. That is not possible when parties choose the candidates for public office. Is there a way we can pursue this line of inquiry without making assumptions that strip political parties of their essential nature? Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
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
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process (Primary Thoughts)
Hi, Michael re: "... given the assumption of equality, the party leader is formally on a level with any party member. Each has a single vote at each step of the primary, including nomination." Absolutely! This leads to the obvious question of "How?", but asking it may be premature. re: "Each has the same primary electorate. It is therefore likely that each will make the same decision and sponsor the same candidate." Why is that likely? It seems no more likely than that everybody will order chocolate ice cream. I've never cared much for pistachio but it persists, in spite of my disregard for it. re: "If true, what effect would it have on the parties?" I don't think I can answer the question (at this point). It would seem that each party would start with a different core and initially propose different candidates. Thereafter, the decisions of the party members would be influenced by the non-partisans. The influence would almost certainly be toward the center because each party can be expected to already harbor the most extreme advocates of the party's position. However, the degree of influence would change rapidly with time and circumstance, so the result cannot be certain. re: "The next step in its (democracy's) evolution could easily see their (political parties) elimination." Oh, my! Oh, my! I must question the use of 'easily'. There has been nothing 'easy' about your work over the past umpteen years - or my own - (he said with a smile). Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Morning, Juho re: "To me the question of sponsorship is therefore simply a question of how much the elections should be 'one man one vote' and how much 'one dollar one vote'." Since we are "Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process", our focus here is on "one person, one vote". re: "I see the question of independent selection of candidates to be a related but separete problem, since it would exist also without sponsorship." Since we are "Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process", designing an electoral method that lets the people, themselves, select their candidates for public office is one of the most fundamental problems we must address. The design must accept, indeed welcome, the healthy reality that the people will form interest groups, factions, parties and enclaves to advance their particular point of view, but must prevent any of those entities gaining control of the government. re: "At least in theory we could have a political system that runs on goverment budget money only." That can't happen because the donation of private money to support political action has been deemed an expression of free speech. In any electoral method that requires vast sums to achieve public office, it will be impossible to stop the flow of private money to support partisan interests. Given the adverse effects of campaign-based systems described in my June 28th post, it would be best if the electoral method were free of these pernicious influences. re: "The simplest approach is simply to make a law that eliminates all unwanted sponsoring." I disagree. Not only is such a law impossible to enforce, it is an example of condoning an evil and trying to prevent its effect. It is much better to to conceive a system that does not require the expenditure of enormous sums, in the first place. re: "... trying to build a system that implements an ideal system at one go, without such radical changes that the counter- poison approach represents, may be more risky." At this point, we're not trying to build it, we're trying to conceive it. Including poison in the concept ensures failure. re: "I refer e.g. to the soviet system that tried to rule the country and even the world by lifting the best persons to the top (without allowing opposition that could have acted as a counter-poison)." 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. re: "Also current parties follow this idea that best people will rule within the party." As with the soviet system you mentioned, the 'best people' are only best from the party's perspective. They are not, and, by definition can not be, best from the point of view of the community. Hence, the community will always suffer. re: "It would be nice to have softer systems without the controversial and fighting parties, and a system that would not be very oligarchic ..." How can such systems evolve if we lack the intellect and the energy to conceive them? To not make the effort is inexcusable. re: "One may try to improve the current (maybe multi) party based systems so that the harmful effects of sponsoring, self-interest and party favourite candidates will gradually reduce." That can't happen for a very fundamental reason, a reason that was explained in detail 100 years ago by Robert Michels, when he wrote "Political Parties". You can find the link in a post I made yesterday. I hope you'll read it. It's fascinating. re: "This could take place both within the parties, within some towns, and at country level. Making the experiments within one fragment of the current system may be safer than making a full revolution that would allow the new proposed system only." While it can't happen in parties, it probably will in some towns. Small communities are the most likely to put advancement of the town's interest ahead of partisan interest. In this connection, you might enjoy reading Adversary Democracy, Jane J. Mansbridge, The University of Chicago Press, 1980. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Mike Ossipoff: re: "...including ones whose proposals and procedures are democratic." (posted in response to: "My comment was not referring to democracies, it was referring to parties") Parties are not democratic, either in relation to the entire electorate or in relation to their own membership. In terms of the entire electorate, they are but a subset of the people, organized to impose their will on the majority. In terms of their membership, they are oligarchic. They exhibit The Iron Rule of Oligarchy as described by Robert Michels. You can find his fascinating study of the issue, Political Parties, at: http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/michels/polipart.pdf This brief excerpt may excite your interest: "It is indisputable that the oligarchical and bureaucratic tendency of party organization is a matter of technical and practical necessity. It is the inevitable product of the very principle of organization ... Its only result is, in fact, to strengthen the rule of the leaders, for it serves to conceal from the mass a danger which really threatens democracy." Political Parties, pp 27-28 re: "It isn't the job of the electoral method to choose who will run, or to seek out candidates. We ourselves, the public, the voters, should be the ones to decide who our best advocates are." You are correct when you say, "We ourselves, the public, the voters, should be the ones to decide who our best advocates are." You are wrong when you say it is not the job of the electoral method to ensure that happens. The electoral method must ensure that each and every one of us is able to participate in the electoral process, including the selection of candidates, to the full extent of our desire and ability. When the electoral method lets the parties pick the candidates the people will be allowed to choose from, it is not only undemocratic, it's dangerous. re: "...but which you feel are somehow like Stalin and Hitler." and "you need to understand and admit that what you really are opposed to is is government itself." and "Yeah, that's what the Democrats say too :-) And the Republicans too." and the various and sundry similar slurs strewn throughout your post. These slurs are tiresome, and the deliberate misconstructions of my comments are tedious. Until you demonstrate that you have the intellectual ability necessary to contribute and the common courtesy necessary to participate in 'Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process', I shan't waste my time responding to your posts. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Morning, Michael re: "What would be the *actual* effect of eliminating (c) (where voting is restricted to *private* members)" It would have an effect on the kind of candidates chosen by the party leaders, and that would affect the characteristics of the candidates. The party leaders would choose candidates who could be relied upon to fulfill their obligation to the party for its support of their candidacy, but who would appeal to the broadest possible spectrum of voters. In other words, it would cause the party leaders to feign centrism while picking candidates that ensure the party leaders will maintain their power. The candidates, since they cannot hope to achieve election without the financial and logistical support of the party, will accede to the party's demands. They will be the individuals most accomplished in the arts of obfuscation and deception. Non-partisan candidates may be added to the slate, but they cannot mount a practical campaign. The effect of the parties' many years of manipulating public opinion by using the principles of behavioral science forms an impenetrable barrier to candidates who do not have party support. While the idea of opening primary voting to the public would almost certainly reduce the power of political extremists, it does not give the people a way to determine the character and integrity of the candidates. The process does not include careful examination of the candidates - except by the self-interested party leaders. The people have no choice but to use the (mis)information disseminated by the parties and the candidates to try to choose a trustworthy individual from the slate of candidates. Is that a reasonable assessment? Are there other possibilities? Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Morning, Mike Ossipoff It appears I've inadvertently confused you. The message I posted at 09:30 on June 28th was in response to a post by Michael Allan. At the time, I hadn't read your post. I used the personal form of address to Michael because I've known him for some years and know him to be a thoughtful student of electoral methods. If you are interested in his work, you can study it at http://zelea.com/. You may think me a bit tardy in responding to your post. If so, I must apologize, but I think - and write - quite slowly. I try to avoid quick responses because the political malaise engulfing us is much too serious for emotional outbursts or thoughtless comments. I'll respond to your post now, as well as I can. You began by categorizing my assertion that ... "All ideologies, whether of the right or the left, differ from Communism and National Socialism only in the extent to which their partisans are able to impose their biases on the public." ... as nonsense and justified your opinion by saying ... "Referring to the old Eastern-Bloc, and to Nazism, Fred is referring to two specific systems which weren't democracies, even in pretense." My comment was not referring to democracies, it was referring to parties - and it is accurate. Whether Liberal or Conservative, Democrat or Republican, Whig or Tory, Communist or Nazi, all seek power - for the purpose of imposing their views on those who don't share them. The entire point of joining a party is to empower the party supported - to impose one's will. The excesses of the -isms are a natural extension of that purpose. It is dangerous not to recognize this fundamental reality. re: "To say that all ideologies differ from them only to the extent that they succeed in having influence or (even publicly supported) power is ridiculous. Your ideology can be a democratic one, you know. Are ideologies that include democracy really like Hitler or Stalin? And please don't use our current system here as an example to embarrass democracy. Not everyone agrees that it's a democracy." I find this difficult to comment on, so I'll select one sentence and respond to that: "Your ideology can be a democratic one, you know." Mine is! I do, indeed, seek to empower the people. I believe we can find a way to achieve government "by the people" through a representative democracy. My purpose is to find an electoral method that seeks out our best advocates of the common interest and raises them to public office. It is clear that this cannot be accomplished by a system that pits self-interest against self-interest as epitomized by party-based systems. However, given our natural tendency for partisanship, the question is: How can we empower the people without vesting power in oligarchical political parties? That is the question I address. re: "If you don't like parties, then most or all democracies, actual and proposed, will let you vote for an independent." Which is, under present circumstances, the height of futility. re: "But perhaps you want to take away others' freedom of association." Has anything I've written given you a valid basis for such a statement? I won't respond to your second post to me under this subject because I think it would just add to the confusion. If you wish to comment on my assertions in this post, I will respond as best I can. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Afternoon, Jameson It's great to see you. This may lead to a lively discussion, which will be wonderful, if it helps us build consensus. re: "Under plurality, parties are a necessary evil; primaries weed the field and prevent vote-splitting." (Note to self: Be sure to read the WHOLE thing, Fred.) "Of course, plurality itself is an entirely unnecessary evil, mostly because it makes parties necessary." I looked up 'plurality' but the definition seemed to relate more to a number of votes than to a political system. Obviously, I lack familiarity with the term. In the past, I've taken it to mean a political process that results in a two-party system. If that's inadequate, please correct me. In any case, our (U. S.) governmental system is defined by our Constitution, and nothing in our Constitution expresses or implies the need for political parties. They are an extra-Constitutional invention, devised to advance partisan interest. Plurality is not ordained!!! re: "Even without plurality, there would probably still be named, structured groupings." As I mentioned in an earlier post, partisanship is natural for humans. Not only is it natural, it's healthy. It provides the multitude of tiny feet on which society gradually creeps forward. The degree of group structure varies, depending on several factors. In modern political parties, that structure is quite advanced, to support the hunt for power. re: "Unstructured anarchy may be desirable, but it's not very stable." I understand there are folks who preach anarchy, but I'm not one of them. The nearest traffic light is all the evidence I need to recognize the need for government. re: "That's not to say that there's no way to make the power dynamics inside the party less pernicious, though." That may be, but finding an alternative to a system that puts parties in control of government strikes me as an imperative. re: "As I envision PAL representation, the PR system I designed, parties would simply be a label that any candidate could self-apply. To keep out "wolves in sheeps clothing", any candidate would have the power to say, among the other candidates who share their chosen party label, which ones they do not consider to be allies. I think those dynamics - free to "join", no guarantee you won't be shunned by the people who already have "joined", but the binary shun-or-not choice should help prevent cliques of gradated power - would be relatively healthy. Whoops! I'm as bad as Casey. I just struck out. I've never seen a PAL pitch before. I've read this several times and think I get a glimmer of an interesting concept, but ... Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
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 i
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Morning, Michael I'm glad to see you. I hoped this topic would attract thoughtful comment. I may have misunderstood your point, though. I think you are suggesting that party primaries be open to the public? Is that your intent? If so, would the attending non-partisans have to vote for one of the party's candidates? I'm anxious to examine your ideas, but want to be sure my understanding is correct. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Morning, Juho re: "I agree that all modern democratic systems have potential to get better." That's not exactly a profound comment. In what way does it advance our discussion? How, exactly, do we make our pseudo-democratic systems better? re: "What I meant with "separate" is that sponsoring rules and practices may be very different in different countries, and that sponsoring rules can be changed without changing the other rules." In what way does the fact that different countries have different rules help us correct the evils of party-based systems? How, exactly, can the people change the 'sponsoring rules' when the parties write the rules? The people have no access to, or input into, the formulation of the electoral rules (witness, for example, the travesty called 'gerrymandering' in my country). Those rules are enacted by legislators sponsored by, and responsible to, the parties. re: "I agree that sponsoring can be very dangerous to a political system." I'm glad you agree. Can you describe an electoral process that eliminates this danger? re: "I'm afraid the main rule is that major improvements come only after major catastrophes." You may consider that the 'main rule', but there's no reason we can't use our intellectual capacity to avoid it. re: "We must work to make the practices better." That's true, although saying so does not constitute an effort to do so. Can you suggest specific ways of improving the practices? re: "National Socialism grew within a democratic system. Better watch out that our countries will not degrade to that level." Stating the obvious does nothing to accomplish the goal. re: "But someone will have the power to govern. Maybe better to have some democratically elected politicians in power than people that do not need the support of the people." As we have already agreed, current electoral methods do not elect politicians 'democratically' because our party systems have degenerated into oligarchies. re: "I'm also not sure that it would be easy to create hierarchical systems that would lift the best people to the top to govern us." Of course it won't be easy - worthwhile things rarely are. re: "I mean that whatever the structure of the system is, people will find ways to misuse it." That may be true, but it is no excuse for accepting the obviously flawed systems we now endure. re: "Multiple parties can be used to balance the madness of the other parties." Are you suggesting we take more of the poison that's killing us? re: "If there is only one solution, it will be officially right and it may deny eny need to improve the system (it may rather get corrupt and lock people to that now non-working structure). That's precisely the circumstances in which we find ourselves, right now. Note that it doesn't stop us from trying to conceive improvements. Our only difficulty is finding people with the intellect and the energy to work on finding a better way. re: "Are you sure that you don't want parties even in the sense that there would be ideological groupings that people could support?" As I've already explained in considerable detail, partisanship is natural and healthy. Society evolves through the inception and spread of new ideas. I have no objection to parties - as long as they are not allowed to control our government. In fact, the method I outlined here several years ago relies on parties to bring new ideologies to the fore. If I can come up with a way to use parties productively, brighter people can do better - when they take the time and expend the energy necessary to do so. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Hi, Juho re: "Yes, I agree that parties typically have tendency to drive the system towards oligarchy and not towards (more voter controlled) democracy." Precisely. And that knowledge urges us to 'think outside the box' - to 'go where no man has gone before.' We need new thinking. We need a fresh approach that seeks out and elevates our best advocates of the common interest in a way that leads, inexorably, to reaching our common goals. re: "Sponsoring is a separate topic." Absolutely not Sponsorship is the heart of party power. Their ability to choose and sponsor the candidates we are allowed to vote for gives them control of the entire political process. They write the rules by which the government functions, sell legislation to vested interests, and choose candidates committed to enact the laws written for them by the people who finance their election campaigns. It would be hard to imagine a more dangerous political arrangement. re: "I agree. But in democracies the voters can (at least in principle) kick the worst of the partis out of power." Are you speaking of the way the people kicked the National Socialists out of power in Germany in the last century? It took a lot of people to do that and it cost a lot of lives (not all of them German). Must we repeat our past mistakes? re: "There is one fundamental problem here. If you want to change the direction or avoid this kind of developments you need to co-operate with other people. When you form such a co- operation group you already possibly form a new party (or a group that later becomes a party)." This touches on the crux of the matter. Partisanship is natural for humans. We seek out and align ourselves with others who share our views. Through them, we hone our ideas and gain courage from the knowledge that we are not alone in our beliefs. Partisanship gives breadth, depth and volume to our voice. In and of itself, partisanship is not only inevitable, it is healthy. Unfortunately, partisans have a penchant for denigrating those who think differently, usually without considering the salient parts of opposing points of view. Instead, they seek the power to impose their views on those who don't share them. Communism and National Socialism showed these tendencies. Both had features that attracted broad public support throughout a national expanse and both degenerated into destructive forces because their partisans gained control of their governments. The danger in Communism and National Socialism was not that they attracted partisan support; it was that the partisans gained control of government. In general, partisanship is healthy when it helps us give voice to our views. It is destructive when it achieves power. All ideologies, whether of the right or the left, differ from Communism and National Socialism only in the extent to which their partisans are able to impose their biases on the public. Partisanship is a vital part of society - provided it is always a voice and never a power. The danger is not in partisanship, it is in allowing partisans to control government. We have the tools and the ability to conceive a non-partisan electoral method. Let's start. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Afternoon, Juho re: "Ok, maybe this is a bad implementation of a party system." That's a non-sequitor. The point I made was that "Joining a party is profoundly passive." re: "I agree that often democracies do not work as well as we would like them to work. But democracy is so far the best method we have, and it includes the idea that societies are at least supposed to do what the voters want. Don't be misled by the propaganda that inundates us. Political parties are quasi-official institutions designed to acquire the reins of government. They do not create democracies, they build oligarchies (political systems governed by a few people). In party-based systems, control of government is vested in the party leaders who select the candidates for public office and arrange the resources for their election. As a condition of their sponsorship, they require that the candidates support the party, thus giving the party ultimate control of the elected officials. The party system is in no sense democratic. The prime movers, those who control the party, are not elected by the people. In fact, most people don't even know who they are. They are appointed by their party and serve at the party's pleasure. We, the people the parties are supposed to represent, have no control over who these people are, how long they serve, or the deals they make to raise the immense amounts of money they use to keep their party in power. When we allow political parties to usurp the power of governing a nation, it is foolish to imagine that the people have retained any rights. It is a tragedy that so few of us recognize (or are willing to acknowledge) that we have relinquished our right to govern ourselves to unknown people who proclaim themselves our agents. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Morning, Juho re: "I think the method in princple encourages people to participate, e.g. via membership in a party." On the contrary, Juho. Joining a party is profoundly passive. Instead of expressing their own view, party members cede their right to guide their community to an organization that is unable to serve the public interest because it is committed to pursue narrow special interests. Witness the national debt crisis in Greece - and in the United States. re: "Also voting can be seen as a very powerful yet easy way to influence on the direction that the society will take." Voting for choices defined by political parties creates an illusion of power but is a sign of great weakness. It is like your mother giving you a choice of Wheaties and Corn Flakes. The easiness you cite should give you a clue. Achieving democracy is not easy. It must be accomplished in the face of enormous power, whether the upper classes that dominated your country for so long or the economic interests that dominate mine, now. re: "Or there is an assumption that voters will elect only or mainly people with "the knowledge, ability and desire to serve the common interest", which may also be frequently wrong." This is unclear; it seems to contain a double negative. It does, however, lead me to ask the precise means by which voters can determine whether or not those they vote for have "the knowledge, ability and desire to serve the common interest". Partisan electoral systems provide no mechanism for a careful examination of the candidates by their peers. Are the voters to rely on the self-serving assertions of the candidates and their party? I am aware of your commitment to partisan politics, but I wonder if you can help us move beyond that. Can you help us address the critical question: "How can we create an electoral process that allows and encourages the entire electorate to exercise their ability to guide the community's affairs to the full extent of each individual's desire and ability?" Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Since time immemorial, democratic political action has taken place in pretty much the same way; a community believes or is led to believe it needs leaders, everyone in the community is invited to attend a meeting and encouraged to seek a leadership position. At some point, members of the community are nominated for office and an election is held. This methodology is common to such disparate groups as the Junior Chamber of Commerce, the local Little League, and the Town Meetings that were once a staple of American politics - and from which our present system grew. A notable thing about this process is that it is passive. Democracy, which we believe to be government "by the people" implies the active participation of the people. Our attempts to achieve democratic outcomes by this method fail because nothing in the process seeks the active participation of the individual members of the community. Instead, the membership waits for individuals to step up and take leadership positions. There is an assumption that those who step forward have the knowledge, ability and desire to serve the common interest - an assumption that is frequently wrong. There is also an assumption that those who do not step up are not competent to influence the choice of leaders - an assumption belied by the broad distribution of talented individuals in the population. The idea of calling a meeting and encouraging all members of the community to attend and participate fails because most of us lack the peculiar certainty that allows us to speak for others. That does not mean we do not have sound, rational ideas about how humans should interact, it just means we are less vociferous than those who step forward. This phenomenon is influenced by many factors, not least of which is the size of the community. The larger the group, the less inclined most of us are to participate in the discussion and the more inclined we are to simply form unvoiced opinions. Many of us are unaware of our political talents because we are never placed in a situation that calls upon us to exercise that ability. If we had an electoral process that encouraged us to discuss current and prospective issues with our peers and have meaningful input into the community's activities, some of us would blossom. Some, who start out unsure of their ability, would, when their reason is consulted, learn they can persuade others of the value of our ideas. Persuasion is an important component of the electoral process. When persuasion occurs between two people, it takes place as a dialogue with one person attempting to persuade the other. In such events, both parties are free to participate in the process. The person to be persuaded can question the persuader as to specific points and present alternative points about the topic under discussion. Under such circumstances, it is possible that the persuader will become the persuaded. However, when persuasion involves multiple people, it has a greater tendency to occur as a monologue. The transition from dialogue to monologue accelerates as the number of people to be persuaded increases. The larger the number of people, the less free some of them are to participate in the process. They have fewer opportunities and are less inclined to question specific points or offer alternatives about the topic under discussion. In such circumstances, the more assertive individuals will dominate the discussion and the viewpoints of the less assertive members will not be expressed. The assertive individual is unlikely to be persuaded of the wisdom of an alternative idea, because the view will not be expressed or discussed. This rationale suggests the wisdom of devising an electoral method that makes every member of the electorate an active participant in the process. The critical question such a discussion must answer is, "How can we create an electoral process that allows and encourages the entire electorate to exercise their ability to guide the community's affairs to the full extent of their desire and ability?" Respectfully submitted, Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Unusual request - $20 reward
Good Afternoon, Jameson I searched my records using "bibliog" and "no source" but found nothing. If you can suggest any text that was in your message, I'll be happy to search again. It's a trivial effort, so you can apply the $20.00 to ease the pain of my disagreements with you. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Re et al Chicken and Egg
I, for one, regret that Kristofer Munsterhjelm is yielding to the futility of posting on the Election Methods site. My main purpose in scanning the site has been to read his always penetrating insights and Mike Allan's valuable attempts to generate a more open search for a democratic electoral process. Kristofer and I differ widely in our views. That may be why I've learned so much from him. Perhaps I'll be fortunate enough to find him discussing electoral processes in another location. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
Good Afternoon, Jonathan re: Not entirely. In his Republic, the rulers were the Guardians, wise folks like himself, who live in poverty and rule benevolently. Plato for Senate! That was Plato's idea of how things 'should be', not how they were. In any case, he did not see himself as one of 'the people' he referred to - a fallacy that plagues us to this day. Those who refer to 'the people' as 'sheeple' perpetuate this nonsense. Our woes will not cease until our political seers move past thinking of themselves as more gifted than the rest of humanity. We have no shortage of individuals with the intellect and integrity to represent the people. What we lack is an election method that lets the people find and elect them. Can you help accomplish that? Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
Good Morning, Michael re: "Why the lack of public participation?" Our elections lack public participation because the election methods extant do not allow, much less encourage, public participation in the selection of candidates for public office or public deliberation on public issues. Instead, elections are party-based adversarial campaigns conducted by politicians, a process that is inherently corruptive. To find the cause of the problem, we must go back at least as far as Plato, who, when he said, "As to the people they have no understanding, and only repeat what their rulers are pleased to tell them.", failed to recognize that 'the people' included many wise and gifted individuals - like himself. We will not have public participation in our electoral process until our electoral process is built on the knowledge that there are many individuals among the people - among us - whose counsel will benefit the community. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
Good Afternoon, Michael
As I was studying your October 29th 'expanded outline' so I could
comment on it, I read your later responses. This led to an extensive
review of the posts regarding "A structural fault in society owing to a
design flaw in the electoral system" going back to the first of October.
The result was unsatisfactory.
For example, on October 23rd, I wrote:
> It appears the (i.e., your) point is that, at the moment a
> ballot is cast, the person that casts the ballot ceases to be
> a voter. That is only true as to future issues which may come
> before the voters. It is untrue as to the issue on which the
> ballot was cast.
On October 29th, you responded:
> Technically it is always true I think, or at least in my
> terminology. The elector is technically a "voter" while in
> possession of the ballot (in the act of voting) and not at
> other times. The distinction is crucial to the thesis, because
> it can be difficult to behave like a voter and engage in social
> decision making without the support of a concrete ballot
> (abstract voting).
>
> You are speaking of an "elector" in my terms (one who has a
> right to vote) and not an actual voter.
That is specious. The phrases "in my terminology" and "in my terms" may
have significance for you but they do not make your definition
'technically' correct. I'm attaching definitions of the terms 'vote',
'voter' and 'ballot', below, for whatever value you may find in them.
The assertion that the value of a vote is 'exactly zero' is equally
distressing. It is based on the assumption that changing the input to a
completed process will not alter the result of the process. The
arguments in support of the assumption are abstruse.
The discouraging part of this dissension (for me) is that you opened
discussion of a vital issue, one that is seldom broached on this site.
It is a matter that vitally concerns us all, and anything that detracts
from investigation of the primary point is distressing.
You correctly assert that, in a democracy, an electoral process that
provides no means for public participation in the decision making
process is flawed. The open question is how to resolve that issue. We
would do well to apply our intellect to that thorny problem.
Fred Gohlke
American English and British English Definitions provided by
Macmillan Dictionary:
Quick definitions from Macmillan (vote)
verb
> to formally express an opinion by choosing between two or
more issues, people, etc.
> to show your choice of a person or an issue in an election
> to choose something or someone to win a prize or an honor
> to suggest what you would like to do in a particular situation
noun
> the formal expression of a choice between two or more issues,
people, etc.
> an occasion when people formally choose between two or more
issues, people, etc. in an election
> the total number of votes made in an election
Quick definitions from Macmillan (voter)
noun
> someone who votes in an election
Quick definitions from Macmillan (ballot)
noun
> the process of voting secretly to choose a candidate in an
election or express an opinion about an issue
> the total number of votes recorded in an election
> a piece of paper that you write your vote on
verb
> to ask people to vote in order to decide an issue
> to vote in order to decide an issue
Definitions provided by WordNet:
Quick definitions from WordNet (vote)
> noun: the opinion of a group as determined by voting ("They
put the question to a vote")
> noun: a choice that is made by voting ("There were only 17
votes in favor of the motion")
> noun: the total number of votes cast ("They are hoping for a
large vote")
> noun: a body of voters who have the same interests ("He failed
to get the Black vote")
> noun: a legal right guaranteed by the 15th amendment to the US
constitution; guaranteed to women by the 19th amendment
("American women got the vote in 1920")
> verb: express one's preference for a candidate or for a
measure or resolution; cast a vote ("He voted for the
motion")
> verb: bring into existence or make available by vote ("They
voted aid for the underdeveloped countries in Asia")
> verb: express a choice or opinion ("I vote that we all go
home")
> verb: express one's choice or preference by vote ("Vote the
Democratic ticket")
> verb: be guided by in voting ("Vote one's conscience")
Quick definitions from WordNet (voter)
> noun: a citizen who has a legal right to vote
Quick definitions from WordNet (ballot)
> noun: a document listing the alternatives that is used in
voting
> noun: a choice that is made by voting
> verb: vote by ballot ("The voters were balloting in this
state")
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] (1) The fact of an objectively meaningless vote
Good Morning, Michael I've pondered your assertion that "the effect of an individual vote is exactly zero" for a considerable time and do not believe it is sound. Your 5 points assume that elections are static events. They're not. > 1. Take the last election in which you voted, and look at >its political outcome (P). Who got into office? > 2. Subtract your vote from that election. > 3. Recalculate the outcome without your vote (Q). > 4. Look at the difference between P and Q. > 5. Repeat for all the elections you ever participated in. Elections do not take place in a vacuum. Individuals are inspired to vote (or not vote) by the circumstances extant at the time of polling. You cannot subtract a vote from an election without considering the change in circumstances that caused the individual to not vote and accounting for the effect of the changed circumstances on the electorate. If the new circumstances caused an entire bloc of like-minded individuals to not vote, it would alter the election result. The only question is the extent of the alteration. It may, or may not, change the result. I do not question the fact that the effect of a single vote is infinitesimal, but it is not zero. A single vote affects an election in the same way a single drop of sea-water affects the tides. I'm unclear about why you think the difference between infinitesimal and zero is significant. Perhaps your response to the "questions about other sections" will clarify the matter. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
Good Morning, Michael re: "... I've corrected the passage to read: ... the individual voters do not intercommunicate *as such* to make a decision; therefore no valid decision can be extracted from the result. It is often impractical for voters to communicate through physical proximity. But the invalidity only arises because they do not communicate by *any* means ..." This inspires three comments: 1) Are we not both saying the same thing with regard to public participation in the electoral process? Since I'm anxious to understand your perspective, and particularly how it differs from my own, can we differentiate between your point of view and: "What made the process democratic was not the method of voting but that the people discussed the issues themselves and decided which were of sufficient import to be decided by finding the will of the majority." 2) "It is often impractical for voters to communicate through physical proximity" ... That is only true for large numbers of voters. For small groups, modern mobility eliminates the problem. 3) "But the invalidity only arises because they do not communicate by *any* means ..." Do you mean by this that the ballot is invalid because it does not allow the voters to express their true desire? To say the vote is invalid is to say the issue on which ballots are cast, as stated, has not been reduced to the essence on which the voters wish to express their preference. What would be the point of communicating if not to alter the issue in some way? re: "I still maintain that the introduction of a ballot that (unlike hands) is physically separate from the elector is a technical design flaw. It is not necessarily a significant flaw at the very moment of its introduction; but even still, an elector without a ballot is formally not a voter." Where voting is by ballot, it is true that a voter who does not cast a ballot is not a voter. However, that does not seem to be the point. It appears the point is that, at the moment a ballot is cast, the person that casts the ballot ceases to be a voter. That is only true as to future issues which may come before the voters. It is untrue as to the issue on which the ballot was cast. Ballots are the method by which voters express their opinions on matters at issue at the time they cast a ballot. The fact that a ballot is no longer in a voter's physical possession after it is cast does not alter the validity of the expression of interest stipulated by the voter. Voters are not diminished by the act of voting; they are no less the voters on an issue after they cast their ballots. Subsequent events may cause voters to rue the ballot they cast, but that does not alter the validity of their ballot. re: "It follows that communication among voters *as such* is made impossible. Moreover, if there is grounds to suspect that actual voter-like communication among the electors is now hindered, then this suspicion alone is enough to invalidate the election results." This appears to be the crux of the matter. The right of the people to communicate among themselves (i.e., deliberate) on matters of public concern is the essence of democracy. The flaw in modern electoral practice is not the separation of voters from their ballots but that voters have no means by which they can deliberate on and decide for themselves the issues on which they will vote. re: Comment to Juho Laatu, 20 Oct 2011: "Recall that we already discussed the power of one's vote. Didn't we measure it at zero, not 1/N? The vote has no effect on the political outcome of the election, therefore it has no power." If only one person votes in an election, that person's vote decides the election. As more people vote, their votes dilute the significance of the single deciding vote as expressed by 1/N. As the electorate grows, the significance of an individual vote diminishes but does not reach zero (although it gets very close). As Juho pointed out, interest groups form to attract votes to one side of an issue or another. As the interest groups grow in size, the effect of their members' votes increases. However, and this is the critical point, for individuals that reject interest groups and vote their own beliefs, the significance of their vote decreases as the size of the electorate grows. Thus, the value of the individual's vote approaches zero (but never actually reaches it) because it is swamped by the votes of special-interest groups. It is proper to say the value of an individual's vote is effectively zero, but it is not mathematically so. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
Hi, Michael In describing the design flaw in the electoral process at: http://zelea.com/project/autonomy/a/fau/fau.xht#fla you say: "The formal aggregate of votes in the count engine does not correspond to an actual aggregate of voters in the social world. The individual votes were brought together to make a result, but the individual voters were not brought together as such to make a decision; therefore no valid decision can be extracted from the result." Bringing the individual voters together to make a decision is impractical in any community with more than a few people. Voting by ballot was adopted to remedy this problem. In the small communities that dominated the United States before the 19th century, democratic politics were primarily of the town meeting variety. In this environment, individuals participated in the discussion of community issues. Decisions were made by consensus, and, when consensus was not reached, by a 'show of hands'. When these methods became unwieldy or impractical, decisions were made by ballot-type voting. The question of 'voters being separated from their votes' was not significant. What made the process democratic was not the method of voting but that the people discussed the issues themselves and decided which were of sufficient import to be decided by finding the will of the majority. When the people voted, they voted on matters that were important to them. Over time, that changed. Gradually, advocates of the various perspectives played a larger role in the process, forming factions and attracting followers. As their power grew (through the size of their following) they evolved into political parties, bent on seizing power. George Washington, with remarkable foresight, warned "in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party". He called partisanship an unquenchable fire that "demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume". He predicted that political 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"[1]. The tragedy of democracy in America is that our intellectual community failed to anticipate and forestall the 'potent engines' that robbed the people of their birthright. Instead, we have been consumed by the parties Washington so accurately foretold. In our time, political parties are the sole arbiters of all political issues. The public is excluded from the process. That is the flaw in our political system. For a political process to be democratic, the people must decide what is important and must choose the best advocates of their interests to represent them in their government. How many among us have the wit to recognize the need for such a system? Fred Gohlke 1) http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
Good Morning, Michael re: "I say that electors are physically separated from their ballots ..." This is the point I don't understand. What do you mean by "physically separated from their ballots"? When there are candidates for an office and a voter expresses a preference by voting for one of them, how could the voter not be physically separated from the ballot - and why is it important? Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
Good Morning, James I, too, am not completely clear on Michael's meaning. When a choice is made by counting votes, your notion that each vote has an effect seems intuitively obvious. However, the effectiveness of each vote is less clear. One expression of the problem was written by Daniel R. Ortiz in The Paradox of Mass Democracy: "Democracy's three necessary conditions increasingly and embarrassingly conflict. For perfectly understandable reasons, the more we broaden and equalize political participation, the more difficult we make individual political choice. In other words, there is some tradeoff between the quantity and quality of individual political engagement." p. 211, Rethinking The Vote, Oxford University Press, 2004 Thus, voting in the real world becomes - as Michael says - meaningless. We must look deeper. The most fundamental element of politics is that issues arise in the body politic. Although individuals and groups can instigate issues, they cannot prevent their inception. That is to say, issues are independent of any individual or group; they are a matter of the people. Current political practice allows groups to 'interpret' public issues and offer options for their resolution. Such a process is inherently flawed because the groups that 'interpret' the issues offer options that favor their interest. The result is perpetual confrontation between groups seeking advantages. We can do better than that. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system
Good Morning, Michael I am not entirely clear on the flow of logic in your abstract, but I get the sense that you're saying voters should be able to cast their vote and have it, too ... Voters are not pieces of cake. The act of voting does not remove their needs and desires from the political system. They should be able to continue to influence the political process after they've voted. If that understanding of your paper is incorrect, I must improve my understanding before I can comment more intelligently. At the risk of digressing, I'd like to suggest that the 'Design Flaw in the Electoral System' is a step further back. The flaw is in the assumption that the right to vote, by itself, makes a system free and democratic. That assumption is the root of the failure of our political system. If I am offered options that affect my life, options that I've had no voice in defining, the ability to choose one of them is neither free nor democratic. On the contrary, it expresses my status as a subject of those who defined the options. The right to vote in such circumstances is a farce. This is not to say voting is unimportant, it is to say that formation of the options on which we vote is more important. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] A structural fault in society owing to a design flaw in the electoral system
Good Afternoon, Michael This is one of the most important posts I've seen on Electorama. Before attempting to respond, I've spent a little time reviewing the links you supplied. The volume, depth and breadth of the discussion is a bit intimidating. It will take some time to get up to speed on all of it. I did pick up on this post of yours from Saturday, September 24th, on the metagovernment site: "It's been dawning on me that we need *first* to speak of the problem. I was hoping this would be a constructive point to raise ..." You are, of course, absolutely right. When seeking solutions, it's wise to first identify the problem. I'd like to participate in the discussion but am not a member of the metagovernment group. You must think the posters thoughtful enough to justify your effort. Do you think I'd be welcome there? With regard to the topic you raised, Daniel Ortiz of the University of Virginia provided a somewhat different description of the efficacy of voting in The Paradox of Mass Democracy, p. 210-225 of Rethinking the Vote. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Length of declaration and prospects for consensus
Good Afternoon, Michael re: "We could always try again. The initial focus should be less on building up a text and more on uncovering agreement over the content." You are, of course, correct. It's generally a good idea to put the horse in front of the cart. The way to compile a complex agreement is to identify the points on which all agree - and resolve the differences on points where there is disagreement. It's a building process, one block at a time. A method of accomplishing the task is described at: http://participedia.net/wiki/A_Search_For_Knowledge_Of_Intangibles (I suppose this submission puts put me firmly within Einstein's definition of insanity, but who's here to notice?) Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Declaration ... - political-party & direct-participation side issues
Richard, re: "Nothing in this statement should be interpreted to imply that we believe that election-method reform is the only area of existing political systems that currently needs reform. In fact, most of us also support other reforms such as broader campaign-finance-reporting rules, increased use of other decision-making aids such as deliberative polling, and clearer ethics rules for officeholders. We believe that the election-method reforms we advocate here would be synergistic with such other reforms, both in terms of easing their adoption and multiplying their beneficial effects." Patronizing me would be more effective if you did so from a position of strength. I'm not sure why you thought it necessary to ridicule my position with this ludicrous tripe, but so be it. The idea that all we need is "clearer ethics rules for officeholders" is preposterous and dangerously misleading. No competent 'expert' in political science can be unaware of the repeated attempts to reform the ethics of politicians (in the United States). Such attempts have marked my 82 years as an American citizen. They failed for two fundamental reasons: 1) You cannot legislate morality, and 2) The political parties control the executive and legislative branches of the state and federal governments. They are masters of misdirection and obfuscation. They can not be reformed as long as they control the selection and financing of candidates for public office. More than 100 years ago, Theodore Roosevelt warned the American people about the 'unholy alliance' between corrupt business and corrupt politics[1]. He described the invisible government behind the ostensible government, "owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people". Yet, a century later, the 'expert' continues to ignore this warning, fails to recognize the need for institutions that harness human nature, and refuses to consider ways to destroy this 'invisible government'. Instead, as Durant wrote, he "... put on blinders in order to shut out from his vision all the world but one little spot, to which he glued his nose.", in this case, counting mechanisms. * The reforms you describe will do nothing to stop the forces that paid for and got the gutting and repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, the repeal of which led directly to the excesses that brought the entire world to the brink of economic collapse. * They do not acknowledge, much less attack, the corruption that fostered the outrageous expansion of 'intellectual property rights', so-called 'rights' that allow corporations (which have no intellect) to levy a perpetual tax on the people. * No amount of "broader campaign-finance-reporting" will prevent such tragedies as America's unwarranted invasion of a sovereign nation, an invasion which resulted in the death of more than 4,000 U. S. armed servicemen and more than 100,000 Iraqis. * Nothing in the proposed 'reforms' will stop parties from selling legislation like The Broadband Conduit Deployment Act[2], introduced by two Democratic senators, that saddles the American taxpayer with the cost of laying broadband conduit for the communications industry. That's the real world. It will take the best efforts of our best minds to improve the lot of the humans among us. We should get started. Fred Gohlke (1) http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/state-of-the-union/118.html (2) http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.2428: Broadband Conduit Deployment Act Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Declaration ... - political-party & direct-participation side issues
Good Afternoon, Richard I've just spent the last couple of hours going over the material at www.NegotiationTool.com and www.votefair.org. I enjoyed my visit. re: "As for promoting direct public participation in the political process, first we have to develop election- method 'tools' that support such participation." Precisely! When I said "I simply fear the purpose of reforming electoral methods is lost in the verbiage engulfing the reforms", I was expressing my concern that too much attention was being paid to the arcana of counting methods and too little to the development of election-method 'tools' that support public participation in the electoral process. Still, whatever my hopes and fears, you are correct in categorizing these as 'side issues' to the task to completing the Declaration. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Declaration of Election-Method Experts and Enthusiasts
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 Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] This mailing list as a forum?
Good Morning, Andy I'd like to participate in a thoughtful discussion with focus on public participation in the electoral process, but don't know where to find one. I don't browse much and rarely go to a new site without reason. If you can recommend one, I'd appreciate it. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] This mailing list as a forum?
Good Morning, Toby I think you're right. I'd like to participate in a thoughtful discussion with focus on public participation in the electoral process, but don't know where to find one. I'm familiar with and active on Participedia http://participedia.net/wiki/Practical_Democracy I was active on http://www.politic.co.uk several years ago but dropped it for lack of focus. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Declaration of Election-Method Experts and Enthusiasts
Good Morning, Dave I think you're right. I'm wandering between the purpose of the 'Declaration' and the purpose of considering Electoral Methods. Perhaps Toby Pereira has the right idea. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Declaration of Election-Method Experts and Enthusiasts
Good Afternoon, Mr. Fobes re: "I think that the listed benefits (of election-method reform) cover most of your "participation" principle ..." The declaration presumes the right of political parties to select the candidates for public office, thereby preventing meaningful participation by the public. Over two hundred years experience with party politics (should) have taught us that political parties transcend the will of the people. Parties are important for the principals: the party leaders, contributors, candidates and elected officials, but the significance diminishes rapidly as the distance from the center of power grows. Most people are on the periphery, remote from the center of power. As outsiders, they have little incentive to participate in the political process. The flaws in party politics are disastrous and we ought not blind ourselves to the political causes of the devastation we're enduring, right now. If the only purpose of the declaration is to break the hold of plurality it may be effective, but it offers no roadmap for those countries seeking an electoral method that gives their people meaningful participation in the political process. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] The meaning of a vote (or lack thereof)
Good Morning, JQ re: "... I do not think that you can ... conclude that any method which does not reach all those goals (i.e., all voters being able to participate in meaningful fashion) is thereby useless. In fact, I think that such imperfect methods are necessary stepping stones to your vision.) I agree. At the same time, it's important to keep the goal in sight. It's too easy to fall into the trap of becoming so absorbed with the minutiae of methods that the purpose of the process is obscured. One guard against this eventuality is to include in Fobes 'Declaration' the principle that electoral methods are designed to afford the electorate meaningful participation in the electoral process. Last week I suggested identification of principles as a prelude to creating the declaration, in the hope the members would include such a principle. Do you think it worth considering that there are attempts to establish democratic regimes going on at several places in the world? Would it not be proper to discuss the flaws we've experienced in the party-based model openly and in considerable depth so those struggling with embryonic systems can avoid them? Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] The meaning of a vote (or lack thereof)
Good Afternoon, Mr. Quinn On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 @ 07:25:31 you cited a portion of Michael Allan's Sun, 28 Aug 2011 @ 23:24:48 post to me, to wit: "... But if we (this is my hope) can cogently demonstrate this failing to the experts in this list, especially in terms of the voting mechanisms they understand so well, then they will be more open to drawing the larger conclusions that seem so obvious to you and me, and I daresay others in this list." and offered this comment: "I've been trying to avoid entering this sub-thread, as I think it's mostly angels-on-pinheads stuff, but if you actually have a point, I suggest you make it, rather than portentiously musing on how it depends on a supposedly-proven, but still- debated claim." Current events on this list should make the point adequately: Richard Fobes proposed a 'Declaration of Election-Method Experts and Enthusiasts'. Everyone on the list can participate in honing the declaration, to the full extent of their desire and ability. That's the democratic approach. If, instead, groups of elites proposed versions of the declaration and told list members to choose between them, that would be profoundly undemocratic. That's the party-based approach. I believe (and I think Michael shares this view) an electoral method that embodies the concept of the former, giving every member of the electorate an opportunity to participate in the electoral process to the full extent of their desire and ability, is possible, practical and necessary. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] The meaning of a vote (or lack thereof)
Thanks for the link to Rousseau, Mike. I haven't read it, but need to. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] The meaning of a vote (or lack thereof)
Good Afternoon, Michael re: "... every voter has that right (to influence the choice of candidates and the issues on which they vote), but is forever cheated of it precisely because the election method grants no electoral power whatsoever to the voter, but instead renders his or her vote entirely meaningless in any practical sense. As you say, it is not "worth a tinker's dam." But if we (this is my hope) can cogently demonstrate this failing to the experts in this list, especially in terms of the voting mechanisms they understand so well, then they will be more open to drawing the larger conclusions that seem so obvious to you and me, and I daresay others in this list." And my hope, as well. Your reference to the experts made me think of Will Durant's observations in the preface to the second edition of The Story of Philosophy[1]: "... philosophy itself, which had once summoned all sciences to its aid in making a coherent image of the world and an alluring picture of the good, found its task of coordination too stupendous for its courage, ran away from all these battlefronts of truth, and hid itself in recondite and narrow lanes, timidly secure from the issues and responsibilities of life." and "... The specialist put on blinders in order to shut out from his vision all the world but one little spot, to which he glued his nose. Perspective was lost. "Facts" replaced understanding; and knowledge, split into a thousand isolated fragments, no longer generated wisdom. Every science, and every branch of philosophy, developed a technical terminology intelligible only to its exclusive devotees; ..." Let us hope we can find a tiny chink in this formidable armor so we can consider the purpose of Electoral Methods as well as the mechanics. Fred Gohlke 1. pp v, vi, The Story of Philosophy, Will Durant Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Voting reform statement; a clearer and more inspiring version
Good Afternoon, Mr. Suter You made excellent points with brevity and clarity. Thank you, Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] the "meaning" of a vote (or lack thereof)
Good Afternoon, Michael re: "Warren Smith and Fred Gohlke had similar expectations." I had no expectation that anyone's vote would be worth a tinker's dam. If anything I wrote gave a different impression, I erred and I apologize for it. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Voting reform statement; a clearer and more inspiring version
Good Afternoon, Richard re: "Your implication (at the bottom of your message) that our goal should be to create something that is 'supported by all members' ..." I apologize for giving you that impression; it was not my intent. What I was suggesting was that it might be a good idea to step back and find out which principles all members approve - and which they don't - so those on which there is disagreement can be examined. Examination may lead to agreement, or to discovery of a different principle, or to discarding the idea, or to separate lines of analysis, all of which are helpful in achieving the goal of the discussion. Specific feedback on your list is not possible for me because it would require accepting the assumption that party politics is the only means of achieving democratic government. It's not. A deliberative process is more effective in achieving what Lincoln described as government 'of the people, by the people, for the people.' There is some recent work that shows how deliberation resolves partisan differences and is beneficial to the participants. Two papers describing such results will be presented at the American Political Science Association meeting in Seattle, early in next month. They are: Pogrebinschi, Thamy, Participatory Democracy and the Representation of Minority Groups in Brazil (2011). APSA 2011 Annual Meeting Paper. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1901000 and Esterling, Kevin M., Fung, Archon and Lee, Taeku, Knowledge Inequality and Empowerment in Small Deliberative Groups: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment at the Oboe Townhalls (2011). APSA 2011 Annual Meeting Paper. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1902664 These papers should provide the impetus for seeking an electoral process that is less destructive than party politics. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
