Good Morning, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
After studying your missive, it appears you make three points: Your
preference for Free Association, your advocacy of Delegable Proxy, and
your travails with Wikipedia. As to the latter, I can offer neither
help nor guidance. I will, however, comment on the other two.
Delegable Proxy
The wisdom of delegating one's proxy in an election is directly
proportional to the knowledge one has of the person to whom the proxy is
delegated. In the absence of a clear description of the method by which
one's proxy will be bestowed upon another, it is not possible for me to
evaluate the logic of the suggestion.
Free Association
In suggesting government by Free Association, you cite the functioning
of Alcoholics Anonymous as an example. I stand second to no-one in my
admiration for that organization. To the extent we can learn from it,
we will all be winners.
As an example of Free Association, though, Alcoholics Anonymous does not
fit the bill. Those who join AA are by no means free. They are driven,
to the point of self-destruction. They join AA to avoid that terrible
consequence. Those blessed by nature with not having to spend their
lives battling such an evil, lack the incentive for such association.
You may argue, and perhaps you do, that humans are addicted to
self-gratification and should form an association to control that
manifestation. If so, your description of how it's to be done needs body.
Your assertions that the solution is "astonishingly simple" and is only
forestalled by "ignorance, cynicism, and despair" are of questionable
merit. By what yardstick can such a verdict be rendered? Whose
profound knowledge makes that judgment valid? To say the people are
ignorant, cynical and despairing must, presumably, include me, and I'm
averse to accepting that characterization.
Such a view is self-defeating. Voters are human. They react to stimuli
in a human fashion. If they are lazy and ignorant, they have always
been so and will always be so. Sermonizing will not change them.
There are a multitude of reasons why people vote as they do. Party
loyalty, name recognition, union membership, corporate influence, radio
and television promotion, "issues", and any number of other things
influence how one's vote is cast. The fact that the result of those
votes displeases us does not justify impugning the intellect or ambition
of those who voted contrary to our preference.
Those who control our political infrastructure are professionals and
their profession is getting their candidates elected. Their job is to
persuade the electorate to vote for their candidate. To imagine them
incompetent at their trade is to grossly underestimate them.
We need to look deeper. We have to question things we've taken for
granted most of our lives because those are the things that produced our
present state of affairs. If you still feel the public is ignorant, or
cynical or whatever, and the solution is simple it would be best if we
move on to another ... hopefully more productive ... point.
Fred
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
