Re: [EM] To see oursels as ithers see us
Good Morning, Michael
re: "... you speak of those who lack faith - not in a particular
judgment of the people - but more generally, in all such
judgments."
Yes. I think you could say that, but I'd like to look at the issue more
closely:
To say we believe in democracy is to say very little because, unless we
know how democracy is implemented, we can not evaluate the extent to
which the people control the government. The practice in the United
States (which most Americans think of as the epitome of democracy) is
profoundly anti-democratic. (I will post the rationale for this
assertion within a few days. I urge those who would rebuke me for it to
wait until then, so they can address the issues rather than bluster
about generalities.)
My belief in democracy is a belief that there are among us people of
intellect and integrity who are suited to represent us in our government
and that is it our right and our responsibility to find these people and
raise them to positions of leadership. So, in terms of your comment, I
speak of those who lack faith that there are among us good
representatives of the people, people who can and will make the
judgments that advance society.
re: "I also intended my answer to apply to particular institutions
of democracy, such as a newly proposed election method. We
cannot judge such a proposal on the basis of its principles
alone. We must also look on the practical side. There too,
faith is too much to ask."
For the most part, I agree with you. My sole demur is on the question
of practicality, an argument that can be used to deter virtually any
proposal without regard to its merit.
Judging a proposal on its principles alone is unwise but judging it on
the basis of reason is not. All advances are built on a foundation of
reason. They can't exist until they are conceived.
re: "Generally, do you think it's useful to look at other, similar
election methods?"
Of course, if there are any. Studying alternatives is the essence of
the spread of knowledge.
re: "Can you explain these informal arrangements (i.e., "You drive,
we're drunk.") in more detail?"
In terms of problem-solving ... which should be government's role in our
existence ... the natural tendency of rational individuals is to select
the most qualified people in the troubled group to work out the
solution. We should not let the fact that ego plays a large part in
selecting the most qualified people (often, if not usually, to the
detriment of the group) blind us to the essential nature of the way we
solve problems. Free of external constraints ("It's my car, I'll
drive."), we always seek the most competent person we can find to
resolve the problem.
Since, in terms of political choices, the external constraints are many
and varied (most people won't take a cab, even when they know the driver
is drunk, because of peer pressure and cost), devising an electoral
method that frees us of these constraint is vital, but non-trivial.
After I post the promised comments on partisan politics in the United
States, I'll suggest a method of implementing a truly democratic
electoral process ... a method that gives every member of the electorate
an equal opportunity to influence the government ... a method that
resolves the problem of external constraints ... a method that allows
the people to select the best of their number to represent them in their
government ... so we can examine it carefully. If we find its
shortcomings exceed its benefits, the process should point us to a
better solution.
Fred Gohlke
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] To see oursels as ithers see us
Fred Gohlke wrote:
> You responded:
>"Faith may be too much to ask of them."
>
> If so, their lack of regard for the judgment of the people belies their
> belief in democracy
I understand now, you speak of those who lack faith - not in a
particular judgment of the people - but more generally, in all such
judgments. I intended my answer to apply only to particular
judgements, where I think faith is too much to ask. One must judge
for oneself, case by case, because a people can make mistakes.
I also intended my answer to apply to particular institutions of
democracy, such as a newly proposed election method. We cannot judge
such a proposal on the basis of its principles alone. We must also
look on the practical side. There too, faith is too much to ask.
Democracy is a beautiful idea. I think we'll do our best to make it a
reality. I have faith - we won't give up too easily. But that's an
historical fact!
> A thoughtful critique would be welcome ...
Yes, always welcome! Let's together find one.
Generally, do you think it's useful to look at other, similar election
methods? To identify points of similarity and difference? Strengths
and weaknesses?
> ... There are informal arrangements of this type all around us ("You
> drive, we're drunk.") but I'm unaware of any attempt to formalize
> the procedure.
Can you explain these informal arrangements in more detail? As an
engineer, I see them as design prototypes.
> ... I was under the impression that clicking on the underlined part
> of the author's name at the top of a post (Michael Allan mike at
> zelea.com, in your case) automatically sent a copy of the post to
> the author...
In my case (thanks for reminding me!) I need to add a typed line at
the top of the message:
Cc: Fred Gohlke
--
Michael Allan
Toronto, 647-436-4521
http://zelea.com/
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] To see oursels as ithers see us
Good Morning, Michael
To my comment:
"From what I've seen, many who profess belief in democracy
lack faith in the judgment of the people."
You responded:
"Faith may be too much to ask of them."
If so, their lack of regard for the judgment of the people belies their
belief in democracy
If one has the humility to recognize that there are many people with
superior qualities among our peers, it is easy to see that we need a
means of finding them and elevating them to positions of leadership.
Those who are so arrogant as to believe that they can personally
influence events by voting on choices made by self-interested people,
will continue to pursue methods of doing so, even though their efforts
are so obviously futile and the results so destructively flawed.
re: "But I am sworn to a truce with you! Critique of method is not
allowed."
Alas, Alas!!! Must it rest there, then?
A thoughtful critique would be welcome ... provided, of course, that the
person offering it were willing to consider the counterpoints and
address them with reason. The effort might lead to an impasse, but, if
so, the points of disagreement would be clear.
Besides, is not asserting (with regard to my description of Practical
Democracy) that "the infrastructure you propose has problems" a form of
critique. Is it improper to ask that the assertion be supported?
I've attempted to respond to every reasonable objection that has been
raised. I'd like to consider clear, direct counter-arguments, but, for
the most part, the issues have be avoided.
re: "So I return the question in this form: What other election
methods have been proposed that are similar, either in
purpose or technique, to your own practical democracy? Of
those most similar, what are their compartative strengths
and weaknesses?"
I'm sorry, but I've never heard of any election method that is even
remotely similar to the one I outlined. There are informal arrangements
of this type all around us ("You drive, we're drunk.") but I'm unaware
of any attempt to formalize the procedure.
re: "Do you still prefer a CC for list posts?"
Yes, I do. For a variety of reasons, not least of which is the
confusing arcana that peppers most submissions, I do not attempt to read
all the posts on the site. If it is not inconvenient for you, please
insure that I receive a copy of your messages.
At the risk of showing my ignorance, I was under the impression that
clicking on the underlined part of the author's name at the top of a
post (Michael Allan mike at zelea.com, in your case) automatically sent
a copy of the post to the author. Am I wrong ... again???
Fred
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[EM] To see oursels as ithers see us
Fred Gohlke wrote: > I suspect you are right, even though ... > > "O wad some Power the giftie gie us > To see oursels as ithers see us!" Excellent! May discussion be that gift! Theory says so, if not the bard. > It seems sad that a passionate search for a more democratic electoral > method may be seen as anger by folks professing a belief in democracy. > Still, I shouldn't be surprised. From what I've seen, many who profess > belief in democracy lack faith in the judgment of the people. Faith may be too much to ask of them. They may need to hear the judgement before agreeing to it. And we the people, we may need to hear our collective voice in practice - "to see oursels as ithers see us" - before we pass final judgement. > re: "(Your proposal is interesting, all the same.)" > > I'm glad you find it so. It would be helpful if you could outline > its shortcomings. I will, of course, express my point of view > (passionately?) in the hope we can isolate specific failings and > reduce their adverse effect. But I am sworn to a truce with you! Critique of method is not allowed. (Nor is quibbling. I have renamed the thread. :) So I return the question in this form: What other election methods have been proposed that are similar, either in purpose or technique, to your own practical democracy? Of those most similar, what are their compartative strengths and weaknesses? P.S. Do you still prefer a CC for list posts? -- Michael Allan Toronto, 647-436-4521 http://zelea.com/ Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
