Good Morning, Juho re: "Good rules, voting methods etc. are there waiting to be discovered and generally approved."
And that is what we are attempting in this discussion. We are trying to learn from our mistakes. We have no shortage of lessons, whether of ideologies suppressing ideologies, nations dominating nations, tribes slaughtering tribes, or of religions exterminating religions. They teach us that antagonism begets antagonism. We are learning the dangers of political systems based on partisanship. We are seeking an alternative to such discord. We are trying to overcome the childishness of getting our own way by building massive armies, whether of voters or of soldiers. When we grasp the futility of trying to dominate our fellow man, we can put our minds to de-emphasizing our partisan differences. We can employ our reason to devise an electoral method that empowers the best of our people rather than the worst. re: "(I need to add here that in addition to fighting against the rules of jungle we need to fight against the growth of bureaucracy (and excessive control of the system) too. In the US set-up this seems to be particularly relevant due to the discussions on the required strength of Washington.)" Bureaucracy is an outgrowth of partisanship. Politicians make jobs for their supporters, like the former public official in New Jersey (and candidate for the U. S. Senate) who pled guilty "to blocking an FBI probe into bribes and placing campaign workers on the county payroll." (Newark Star-Ledger, April 17, 2008). Over the years, the practice became so obnoxious that we passed laws to inhibit it. re: "It is also true that during a war ... it is better to just work together and wait for the time after the war and then discuss what would be a good approach to the global conflicts." We did that in the 1920's and the 1940's and 50's. We had noble intentions but the institutions we created were dictated by partisanship. We live with the result. re: "... it might be good to find some ways to reduce the spending a bit (=> better chances to all candidates, less dependences in the direction of the donators)." The spending is welcomed by politicians and those who support them for the precise reason that it eliminates challengers. re: "One could also try to arrange some more serious discussions about the policies (maybe more frequent, with less preparation) rather than leaving it to a free style marketing campaign." Yes, but how? I've suggested one method and I'm sure there are others. We need to hear them and examine them. Fred ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info