On Jun 30, 2008, at 22:56 , Fred Gohlke wrote:
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.
I'm only saying that taking a system where all candidates represent
just their personal views also loses something (a clear structure)
and adds complexity (makes evaluation of the numerous candidates more
difficult to the voters). I don't want status quo in most electoral
systems of today.
It is possible to have methods that allow groupings that could be
more fine grained than today. It is also possible to have methods
that allow voters to express opinions that deviate from the given
party/subgroup structure.
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).
I also want to avoid the situation where the candidate tells to each
voter group different stories on what he/she represents. For poor
people he/she would tell that he/she will promote their interests,
and to riche people he/she would tell something else. This is where
clear statements on groupings might help the poor voters to
understand, and would make the candidates be more open on what they
intend to do.
One example. If both Republicans and Democrats would have clear
internal factions "against war" and "pro war" then the results of the
election could tell clearly what the voters want. If there is no
such clear distinction the actual policy after the election could
easily be anything. And the voters, even if they would have made
detailed analysis of the individual candidates, would not know how
much others agreed with their opinion.
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.
The political space could consist of "left wing" and "right wing".
The right wing could consist of the conservative party and another
more extreme right wing party. The conservative party could have a
"against war" wing and/or a green wing. These groupings could still
be divided in smaller fragments. Probably the system (multi-winner
elections) would be based on multi seat districts (not single seat
districts). It is easiest to think the tree based methods as
extensions of the open list based methods.
More to the point, and what those who choose their representatives
by labels rather than substance
I'd expect voters to vote based on substance and analysis of
individuals. "Labels" / identified groups could help them in this task.
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 think it is included in the laws of nature that systems often tend
to stagnate, leading persons tend to grab more power than what is
beneficial for the society etc. We just need to work continuously to
keep the system healthy and dynamic and responsive.
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.
Finding a good balance is not easy, different societies have
different needs, it is easy to jump to new systems since grass often
seems greener there. In short, lots of discussions and multiple
opinions and proposals and variants needed to find the best methods
for each society and each need.
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."
I think the "company culture" or "spirit of the society" may differ a
lot in different societies. Traditions play a strong role here. In
some societies people think they are fighting against each others. In
some other societies they may think they are working together for
similar goals. Also the morale / allowed rules are very different in
different societies (controlled mostly by the members of the society
themselves). In some places kids are stolen, in some places not.
Improving corrupt societies is a very slow process and maintaining a
good direction is not easy.
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."
It is good to state the ideal targets openly.
Juho
___________________________________________________________
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
