Hi, Juho
re: "Yes, the new method has some properties that support this (i.e.,
replacing emotion with reason, flg). It is however not guaranteed that
feelings, parties and other differentiating factors will not find their
way in and play some role also in that method."
You are correct. We can not guarantee the future. All we can do is use
our best efforts (1) to insure there IS a future, and (2) accept the
lessons of the past as we build toward that future.
It is important to recognize that parties will not be dead. Once
elected, representatives selected by the method I've outlined will form
alliances to advance their ideas. That will happen because partisanship
is natural for humans. We seek out and align ourselves with others who
share our views. Through them, we hone our ideas and gain courage from
the knowledge that we are not alone in our beliefs. Partisanship gives
breadth, depth and volume to our voice. In and of itself, partisanship
is not only inevitable, it is healthy.
As a very good friend wrote me recently about what would happen if
members of parliament in his country were selected by such a method ...
"When people in parliament form cliques, they (would be) building
majority opinions on specific issues. They (would not be) bound by
manifesto or indebtedness to backers. I would expect different cliques
(to) form, in response to each issue raised. ... Before election,
cliques are formed to get power, not to solve problems."
When considering the problems of society, honest people will differ. It
is essential that they should. We advance our common interest by
examining conceivable options. The important thing is to ensure that
the consideration is done by 'honest people'. The best way to find
'honest people' is to subject candidates to rigorous examination by
other candidates who seek the same positions.
An important factor bearing on the matter of inhibiting adverse factors
is the dynamism of the method. As you said back in March, "One
interesting property of the proposed system is that current top level
representatives, even if very popular, have a high risk of not being
re-elected." That flows, not only from the filtering effect of the
method, but from the fact that the concerns of the electorate can change
considerably between elections. This method always reacts to current
circumstances.
Of course, as you pointed out, that implies a relatively high turnover
of elected officials at each election. So, while that makes the system
very dynamic and makes it difficult for rot to find a sticking place, it
also makes it difficult for those who take time out of their lives to
serve in public office, for they have no career guarantees. Such people
must be afforded salary continuation and something similar to the G. I.
Bill of Rights ... advanced education, career training, small business
loans, and so forth ... to ease their transition back to private life.
re: "... or if some single person simply dominates the process and makes
the method reflect his/her personal visions (while expecting and
reacting to comments from others)."
That states my case pretty well. I'm not entirely happy with it, for I
really don't want to 'dominate'. I'm much more interested in helping.
No one person has the wit and wisdom to understand and accommodate the
immense variety of human society. Building a solid political foundation
must, necessarily, be the work of all of us.
Even so, I've learned a great deal from the interaction on this site and
hope to learn more. I will, I happily admit, express my views with all
the force at my command, but I treasure those who can identify, point
out and explain weaknesses in my reasoning. I use those events to
expand my views.
Fred
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
