Good Afternoon, Kristofer
re: "... you say that you think they can [be of sufficiently
high quality ... and ... breadth]. I'm not so sure ..."
We live in an era so dominated by deceit and corruption it's easy to
miss the fact that those characteristics are not typical of the people
as a whole. They are the putrid effluence of our political system. We
(in the United States) endure a political process where hundreds of
millions of dollars are used to buy elections. Those who supply the
funds, and those whose favor they buy, have given us the financial
cataclysm that engulfs us. Such horrors, and they seem neverending, are
the direct result of a political system that puts a premium on lack of
integrity.
It is a mistake to imagine the people we elect ... or those to whom they
grant ascendancy over our society ... are good examples of the human
spirit. They're not. We should not judge our society by its dregs.
The vast majority of humans are decent, honorable, law-abiding people.
They have to be, for society could not exist otherwise.
When we give our society the means and opportunity to select the best
among ourselves as our representatives, we will not fail to do so. This
may be most clearly understood by considering the human dynamics of
method we've been discussing:
Because the process is repetitive, we can anticipate that the people who
advance will be people who want to advance. That may seem obvious, but
we should not miss its significance. It means, as the levels advance,
the self-interest of the participants is integrated into their
advancement. Yet, as much as each person seeks advancement, their only
role is to select one of the other two people they're grouped with.
When three individuals are given serious contemporary issues to consider
and three or four weeks of close personal contact with two other people
who may be called upon to resolve those issues, how will they evaluate
each other and, at the same time, project themselves? What must they do
to encourage the other two people to decide they are the best choice?
There is only thing they can do: They must demonstrate, by their words,
by their opinions, and by their conduct that they are exemplary people.
Concomitantly, as they focus on and project their own commendable
qualities, they will be acutely aware of the presence or absence of
those qualities in others. I believe the human dynamics of such an
arrangement are compelling. I am reminded of Dr. Alasdair MacIntyre's
assertion that "... everyone must be allowed to have access to the
political decision-making process" to experience the internal goods that
enrich society and benefit the community.
To cite something I wrote some time ago:
"My own view is that society and the individuals that compose
it are a single dynamic entity. When the individuals in the
society are able to elevate those with the moral qualities
they desire to positions of leadership, the process will
improve the moral qualities of the entire society. People
will continue to pursue their own interest but will do so
within a framework of acceptable actions which (1) have been
jointly defined and (2) adjust to external circumstances that
affect the society."
The difference in our perspectives may lay in, on the one hand, a focus
on the quality of the people we elect to represent us, and on the other,
the survival of the ideas that counterbalance the oppression of
two-party systems. The difficulty of accomplishing the former, combined
with the events of the past century and a half, may make the latter seem
the more imperative.
Fred
Footnote: In the process we're discussing, I think the government
should provide hotel and recreational facilities for the upper level
groups to assure their ease of association. flg
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
