Good Morning, Michael
(your message of Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:29:35)
re: "My recommendation was therefore to set up an *alternative*
electoral system in parallel with the existing systems
(primary and principal). It would give electors a different
means of selection. Their participation in one system or
another would then inform us which they preferred."
The current plan is to present the petition as an additional method of
nominating candidates. Since it is a new and different approach, we
make no attempt to anticipate the rate at which it will be embraced.
Novel ideas are necessarily and properly slow of adoption. My own guess
is that it will take 200 years for the concept to achieve broad
approval. However slow adoption may be, though, it is important that
the concept become a matter of public discussion.
re: "Their participation in one system or another would then
inform us which they preferred."
There is nothing to prohibit participation in other nominating processes.
re: "Election implies evaluation."
I understand the point you are making, and, in a limited sense, think it
valid. My reservation, stated more clearly, is with the quality of the
evaluation. One can not make sound evaluations based only on the
assertions of those with a vested interest in guiding one's choice.
Absent the knowledge that a candidate has been carefully examined, in
detail, over time, by critical observers, evaluations can not be worth
much. We need look no further than the lack of quality among
politicians to grasp the significance of this rather obvious point.
re: "The winners of the level one triads become the candidates
for level two. So your own practical democracy is a case in
which the 'elections are themselves an evaluative medium'."
Absolutely ... and the evaluation is 'up close and personal'. That is
the purpose of the process. (While the choices made at each level can
be called 'elections', I prefer the term 'selections' to avoid confusion
with the actual 'election to public office', which occurs after the
evaluation phase is complete. Whichever term you prefer, the purpose of
triads is to evaluate candidates.)
re: "It is not correct to say that 'mailing lists and chat
networks, blogs and broadcast media' were the means by which
the U.S. political establishment was duped."
It was not (just) the U. S. political establishment which was duped, it
was the people of the United States and many of the people of the world.
Mailing lists, chat rooms, and blogs were of little assistance in
exposing the truth. I believe you are attempting to develop a more
intellectual approach to the use of the internet. I hope it is successful.
re: "It is correct to say that broadcast (mass) media were used
in George Bush's campaign. They were also used in Bill
Clinton's"
And ... ????
Do not both instances scream the need for a better way to select
candidates for public office?
re: "You mentioned the name of Habermas in a previous post. Have
you read his 'Structural Transformation of the Public
Sphere'?"
I have not. I've only read references to it.
re: "If his (Habermas') thesis is correct, then the birth of
modern democracy was tied to new communication media that
became available in the late 1700s and early 1800s."
I have no opinion regarding that thesis nor any opinion as to its
correctness. My interest in Habermas flows primarily from an attitude
attributed to him that I happen to share:
"Habermas simply does not theorize the functions of the media
within the contemporary public sphere, deriving his model
more from face-to-face communication and discussion, rather
than from media interaction or communication mediated by the
media and technology."
re: "Should we expect democracy to survive today if we insulate
it from the public? Or if insulate the public from the
media that defines it?"
I've no idea what these two questions mean.
(your message of Sat, 27 Sep 2008 11:06:49)
re: "The difference is that I expose the full depth of the
representative hierarachy to the scrutiny of popular assent.
You do not."
If you'd like me to comment, please don't allege differences without
defining them. Cite them with sufficient detail so that even a dummy
like me can understand how they differ.
re: "... but that does not alter the fact that only 32 people
(out of a total electorate of 9001) actually decided in
favour of the winners. Or am I wrong?"
In my opinion, you are wrong. 9001 people each made the best choice
they could, to the extent of their desire and ability. The result of
their efforts was two candidates. The progression is more geometric
than arithmetic.
Since no candidate can advance without the support of both other members
of the triad (unless implementors allow self-selection, which I
personally oppose), you'll find that about 4500 people participated in
the selection of each. It is worth noting that this trace-back
capability enables a continuing relationship between the electors and
the candidate, should the implementors care to define one.
re: "I take it the "practical primary" is the only one? All
other candidates are excluded?"
I'm not sure what would give you this impression. The petition outlines
a method of selecting candidates. It imposes no conditions.
Fred
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
