berative
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 make
aps, 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
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
lear 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
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
- 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
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 Re
eory 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
ibes?
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
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 t
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
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 va
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 sp
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
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
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
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-democracy
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
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.
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.
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
lear
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 ou
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
e
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 g
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 con
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
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 con
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 know
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 a
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 se
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
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
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
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 elect
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 a
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 su
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
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 natio
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 voti
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 bureaucrati
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 choi
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 c
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 mu
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. Onc
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
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
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 conclusio
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, b
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 inter
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
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 cons
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 i
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
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 pla
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
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 elector
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
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 conjunct
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
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 m
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 speec
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
premat
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".
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 ow
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 leade
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
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 th
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 th
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 fo
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
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.
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
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 org
l 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
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
ratic 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
ifted 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
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
thing 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 d
the "questions about
other sections" will clarify the matter.
Fred Gohlke
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
nd 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 va
blic 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 th
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
ice 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 advanta
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
elcome 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
articipedia.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
les 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
ting 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.
Fr
lidifying 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
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 apprecia
cal_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
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
in the political process.
Fred Gohlke
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
h
embryonic systems can avoid them?
Fred Gohlke
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
e 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
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
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
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
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-Method
hould 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
1 - 100 of 283 matches
Mail list logo
