Allow me to withdraw the question.
Fred Gohlke said:
> 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 sid
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.
Hi Fred,
Let's sum up. You propose an electoral process to correct the evils
of party politics. You hope that people somewhere will give it a try.
However, if they do, you cannot foresee any sequence of events by
which the promised benefits could be realized. Is that correct?
> I'm not sure wh
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.
Hi Fred,
> ... the third step: some community, somewhere, will try [the new
> process], just as Aspen, Colorado and Burlington, Vermont are
> reported to have tried IRV. If [it] is practical and attractive
> from the people's perspective, other communities will adopt it.
Could you elaborate her
Good Morning Fred,
those points were just some food for thought.
Thanks for your reflection on some of them.
Let's start innovating democracy.
Best regards
Peter Zbornik
2012/8/10 Fred Gohlke
> Good Evening, Peter
>
> I think I've covered the primary points in your post. Have I overlooked
> a
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
Fred Gohlke said:
> Are you saying that anyone considering such a concept would have
> difficulty implementing it? ...
One aspect is impossible to implement. You cannot control the time at
which "candidates are announced", as you intend.
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-ele
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
Dear Fred,
Thanks for the overview.
It certainly helps to get a grip on the discussion.
I am sending some unstructured ideas into the discussion.
Being a member of the Czech Green party myself, I think that political
parties are not inherently "evil".
The problem is how to make the primary electi
Hi Michael,
Thank you for structuring up the discussion.
I think de-constructing the political party is a good idea.
Your primary electoral system could work out after practicalities having
been sorted out.
However your proposal almost exclusively focused on the primary electoral
system and not th
> 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.
It is here in these independent processes that you wou
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
Peter Zbornik said:
> Maybe a summary could be in place, in case you have agreed upon
> something, or someone has come up with some great idea.
What I learned, I summarized in this proposal.
http://metagovernment.org/wiki/User:Michael_Allan/Public_parties
Please click on the discussion tab for an
Dear all,
86 emails in this discussion is quite a lot to read to catch up on the
discussion on this topic.
Maybe a summary could be in place, in case you have agreed upon something,
or someone has come up with some great idea.
Thx.
Best regards
Peter Zborník
2012/8/2 Michael Allan
> > ... Are
> ... Are P-Q-R-S-T separate groups (parties?), each with members
> making nominations? ...
They are primary processes, i.e. for selecting candidates prior to the
official election. So the unreformed ones are party primaries, yes.
> ... When you say "at least two are reformed processes, are you
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
On 25.7.2012, at 19.35, Fred Gohlke wrote:
> 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?" refer
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
On 23.7.2012, at 0.22, Fred Gohlke wrote:
> 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.
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
On 19.7.2012, at 19.43, Fred Gohlke wrote:
> 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 m
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
On 07/09/2012 03:29 AM, Michael Allan wrote:
Kristofer Munsterhjelm said:
We don't really have primaries here, at least not in the sense of
patches to make Plurality work, because we don't use Plurality but
party list PR. There are still internal elections (or appointments,
depending on party)
On 07/16/2012 12:23 AM, Fred Gohlke wrote:
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
c
On 17.7.2012, at 23.05, Fred Gohlke wrote:
> 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 politi
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
On 16.7.2012, at 1.17, Fred Gohlke wrote:
> 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
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
On Jul 13, 2012, at 11:30 AM, Fred Gohlke wrote:
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.
Yes, and lookin
Good evening Fred
Gohlke: . (If) a radical third party had formed, I think it's effect
would have moved the result closer to an extreme.
Gohlke: May we change this to: "If you change the voting method
the major parties will be weaker and non-major party
On 13.7.2012, at 18.35, Fred Gohlke wrote:
> 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 wil
On 07/13/2012 05:30 PM, Fred Gohlke wrote:
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.
Strictly speaking, clones ar
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
> Subject: Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
> Message-ID: <4fff38d5.9040...@verizon.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>
> re: "I don't believe that non-partisans are a majority of the
> register vot
Hi Fred,
I posted my proposal separately. Let me know what you think.
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2012-July/030751.html
It should be compatible with Practical Democracy/triads and all other
methods, too. If it works, it should enable electoral innovatio
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 afternoon Fred:
You are championing a very important subject and I certainly enjoy your
posts.
Gohlke: 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).
I think you m
On 11.7.2012, at 19.18, Fred Gohlke wrote:
> 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
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
On Jul 10, 2012, at 3:49 PM, Fred Gohlke wrote:
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
publi
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
On 07/08/2012 07:04 PM, Fred Gohlke wrote:
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.
Assume you have 100 voters with all different political views (1-100).
(1 being very liberal, 100 being very conservative and 50 middle of the
road).
L Party members are 1 to 37 in political views.
C Party members are 63 to 100 in political views.
The M's (no partisan/independents) have 38 t
On 9.7.2012, at 22.45, Fred Gohlke wrote:
> 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
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
2012-07-09T11:31:08Z, “Kristofer Munsterhjelm” :
> On 07/09/2012 09:45 AM, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote:
>> 2012-07-08T17:04:50Z, “Fred Gohlke”:
>>> Whether or not 'rule by the best' can work depends in large part on how
>>> well the electoral method integrates the reality that the co
On 07/09/2012 09:45 AM, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote:
2012-07-08T17:04:50Z, “Fred Gohlke”:
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.
All of this time, I thought that you meant political dynastie
2012-07-08T17:04:50Z, “Fred Gohlke” :
> 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.
All of this time, I thought that you meant political dynasties like the
Bu
Time to think.
Primaries are a problem.
Primaries were invented to solve an intolerable problem for Plurality
elections - too easy to have multiple candidates for a party, those
candidates having to share the available votes, and thus all losing.
I would not do away with primaries - instea
Fred and Kristofer,
Fred Gohlke said:
> 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 contr
Hi Fred,
> 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.
That would be wise, at least. For my part, I point to the absolute
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
On 7.7.2012, at 23.18, Fred Gohlke wrote:
> 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 peopl
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
On 07/06/2012 02:22 AM, Michael Allan wrote:
Kristofer Munsterhjelm said:
- 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
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
On 6.7.2012, at 0.40, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
> - 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 ar
Kristofer Munsterhjelm said:
> - 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 ben
On 06/27/2012 07:10 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
I am enjoying this discussion and I thank Fred for starting it. However,
I have only a little to add:
1. Under plurality, parties are a necessary evil; primaries weed the
field and prevent vote-splitting. Of course, plurality itself is an
entirely unn
Juho and Fred,
> > (a) a *primary* electoral system
> > (b) one that sponsors candidates for *public* office
> > (c) where voting is restricted to *private* members
> >
> > Specifically (c) is no longer possible. ... In such a world, what
> > *other* form of political domination could take hold?
On 5.7.2012, at 23.24, Fred Gohlke wrote:
> 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
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
On 3.7.2012, at 18.22, Fred Gohlke wrote:
> 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
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
On 3.7.2012, at 1.08, Michael Allan wrote:
> Fred Gohlke said to Juho:
>> ... 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 prese
Fred and Juho,
Fred Gohlke said:
> 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
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
On 2.7.2012, at 16.08, Fred Gohlke wrote:
> 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.
It is pos
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".
Fred:
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Fred Gohlke wrote:
You said:
> 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 d
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
Fred Gohlke said:
> 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
> ce
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
On 28.6.2012, at 19.11, Fred Gohlke wrote:
> 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.
You can buy some votes with a large (advertising, campaigning) budget. T
Fred:
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Fred Gohlke wrote:
> Good Morning, Mike Ossipoff
>
> It appears I've inadvertently confused you.
No, you just inadvertently didn't specify which Michael you were replying
to. No big deal. Don't worry about it. Since you didn't yet know that the
posting f
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
Fred Gohlke said:
> 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? ...
Yes, as a thought exper
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
