Good Evening, Juho
Before considering the selection method your suggested, I would like to
comment on one passage in your message. You mentioned my, "... interest
to allow the ordinary people to make the decisions ..."
That is not exactly where my interest lays. The point of the method I
outlined is that we do not know down which streets, in which villages,
at which desks, before which stoves are those of us most competent to
serve in our government. We know individuals of exceptional talent and
character are uniformly distributed throughout the population, but we
have no means of identifying them. In terms of political leaders,
finding the best of them is further hindered by the fact that each
individual's interest in politics waxes and wanes throughout their lives.
Because our physical needs often dictate the course of our lives, most
of those who would make the best leaders are unaware of their political
talents and are never able to exercise them. We do not know which
individuals will thrive and blossom when their reason is consulted, when
they are invited to discuss current and prospective concerns, when they
learn they can persuade their peers of the value of their ideas. We
will all benefit if we can devise an electoral method that encourages
all people to exercise their wit and wisdom, their persuasiveness, their
pride, their knowledge and understanding, and their desire to make a
mark for themselves.
They are out there. Can we find them? My interest is in doing so.
re: "One can nominate candidates for some office/task freely."
In the course of outlining this suggestion, you mention several aspects.
I will summarize my understanding of them ...
* Nominations are open to the entire electorate.
* Anyone can nominate anyone else, including oneself, for office,
provided the nominated person accepts the nomination. If restrictions
on the nominations are established, they might include:
- an educational minimum
- if expertise is required in the area for which the person is
nominated, a degree symbolizing competence in that area.
- if trust is required in the area for which the person is nominated,
support of at least 100 persons in addition to the nominator, expressed
by email or in some other form.
* Nominations (the name of the nominator and nominated) are recorded by
an election coordinator.
* The election coordinator publicizes the list of candidates.
* The public votes for the candidate of their choice ...
- by voting for a single person, or
- by making a list of the candidates the voter approves, in which case
the candidates are listed in order of preference. If the first
candidate on the list does not get sufficient first place votes for
election, that candidate is dropped from the list and the second
candidate moves into the first position on that ballot. In this case,
since anyone may nominate anyone else, voters may write the name of
their candidate on the ballot.
- the candidate receiving the greatest number of votes wins.
* Alternately, the preceding process is used to select those who will be
candidates for election. Then, after these candidates are presented to
the voters, an election determines the winner.
* The purpose of the method is to ...
- make candidacy available beyond the incumbent power structure.
- replace candidates who want a particular job with candidates the
people want in that job.
- allow the election of good and competent candidates.
- favor candidates who are preferred by one voter and attract the
support of many voters.
- eliminate the need for a candidate to fight his way against challengers.
- be fair to minorities.
* The challenge of the method is to insure that the person elected is
the best for the job.
You also mentioned the possibility of direct democracy and delegable
proxy. As to these ...
* I find the description of direct democracy vague. The references I
see to it assert it is an absolute good without taking the trouble to
explain how that absolute good will work in practice. The closest
analogy I've been able to draw is a desire for anarchism. Personally, I
don't find that appealing.
* Delegable proxy, to the extent I understand it, is the height of
folly. The explanation I saw of the method was that a voter could give
someone else his proxy, to vote as they see fit. As I said once before
on this topic, such a method would have proxies available on eBay before
the ink was dry on the enabling legislation.
That summarizes my understanding of your suggestion. It raises some
questions:
Will the lists become unwieldy if the process extends beyond the local
community? For example, the number of candidates nominated for governor
of my state could be immense.
Does nominating someone for public office suggest a beneficial interest
in that person's election? If so, should we be concerned?
When the list of candidates for a given office is published by the
election coordinator, will the candidates campaign for the office for
which they have been nominated? For example, when you mentioned that
candidates would be "presented to the voters" does that mean they will
campaign?
At the moment, my grasp of your suggestion does not allow a firm
opinion. Can we flesh out parts of it with greater detail?
Fred
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
