Good Afternoon, Juho
re: "I see also some benefits in being "bound by manifesto and
indebtedness" and having related 'cliques' already before the election."
Then you must be happy with the status quo and all the deceit,
obfuscation and corruption that dominate our present political process.
If you prefer hearing your candidates' coached responses to posed
questions rather than examining him yourself or being certain he is
carefully examined by people with a vital interest in finding out what
moves his soul; if you are willing to submit to the mindless,
meaningless patter that passes for political campaigning in our era, you
will be happy with the system in place. If you can aspire to nothing
better than neverending witless confrontations on meaningless, 'made-up'
issues, then support the system we have and continue to ignore its
destructiveness.
I think we're better than that.
re: "If there are plenty of candidates it is very useful to know what
each candidate stands for (and is morally bound to)."
Thinking one knows "what each candidate stands for (and is morally bound
to)." in a partisan system is the height of folly. To cite the most
obvious case, those who 'knew' that the present President Bush was a
fiscal conservative have learned, to their unending anguish, that they
'knew' nothing at all. The tragedy is that they attribute their error
to the man rather than the system that produced him ... in spite of the
fact that the same deception follows every election in every jurisdiction.
The only way you can get any idea what a candidate really stands for is
to examine him ... carefully. You won't always be right, but you'll be
right more frequently than you will be when you form your judgment by
listening to him (or her) tell you why you should vote for her (or him).
re: "(This need not mean a traditional flat party structure (and large
parties) but can also be e.g. a tree like structure that makes it
possible to identify the 'green republicans' and to support some of
those candidates or that whole block.)"
I'm unable to visualize such a tree-like structure, or how it would
work. More to the point, and what those who choose their
representatives by labels rather than substance fail to grasp, is that
whether or not a candidate espouses 'green republican' virtues is but an
infinitesimal part of the qualities we want in those we elect to
represent us in our government. What do we know of their inclinations
and their decision-making capability in the areas of taxation, public
works, bureaucracy, economic expansion, war and the multitude of other
matters that concern us?
re: "Maybe the key idea is to avoid situations where the parties start
dominating the political life, candidate nominations, their opinions
etc. more than what is ideal for the society (and thereby making the
society more stagnant and causing citizens to lose trust and interest in
governing the future of their own society).
Is that not a precise description of our present political existence?
How, exactly, can we avoid it. Who is to determine what is ideal for
the society other than the society itself? I've outlined a method that
lets the people select candidates from among themselves and, in the
process, define the ideals of their society. It avoids the problems you
describe. Would that I could make it attractive to you.
Tangentially, my brother recently introduced me to some thoughts about a
Dr. Alisdair MacIntyre at Notre Dame University. What I read astounded me.
When I outlined an electoral method a few months ago, I was seeking to
empower the people. Dr. MacIntyre has a more profound view. He
suggests that, when the people ... all the people ... participate in the
'practice' of politics, they are enriched by their participation and the
entire community benefits. (In my opinion, the method I outlined can be
equated to Dr. MacIntyre's communities, but he never heard of me or my
opinions, so you'll have to judge for yourself.) These two very brief
excerpts from the piece may give you a little of the flavor of Dr.
MacIntyre's view:
1) "When we have made the changes MacIntyre wants to see, politics will
no longer be civil war by other means: 'the politics of such communities
is not a politics of competing interests in the way in which the
politics of the modern state is'. It is instead a shared project, and
one that is shared by all adults, rather than being limited to a few
elites who have gained power through manipulation and use that power to
gain the goods of effectiveness for themselves."
2) "When the community deliberates collectively about its best way of
life it is choosing a telos, or final end. And that final end will be
one which reflects the needs of all the citizens, including the need to
have and use the virtues, which are part of our nature as dependent
rational animals."
Perhaps you'll enjoy the piece as much as I did. You'll find it at:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/p-macint.htm
Best wishes,
Fred
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
