Good Morning, Kristofer
re: "I'm finding steadily less to comment on; we seem to be
reaching a convergence of sorts ..."
I agree. It would be helpful (I think) if others would add their
insights. Our discussion relates to the way humans interact and there
is a broad range of opinion on that topic. We don't need mindless
rants, of course, but carefully reasoned views would be welcome.
re: "I use the term 'selected', since elected doesn't really fit.
There's no public election, there's simply a whole lot of
mini-elections that come together."
Again, I agree. I've been using 'elected' out of deference to the site,
but I vastly prefer the concept that we 'select' our leaders rather than
elect them.
Some weeks ago, Mr. Nesbit made the point that "... voting is the exact
opposite of individual rights ...". That struck me as an astute
observation. There is an immense difference between, on the one hand,
casting a vote for or against a person or idea proposed by others and,
on the other, actually influencing the choice of that person or idea
ourselves. Choosing between options offered by an establishment is
anti-democratic.
If we are to achieve democracy, each of us must be allowed to
participate in the electoral process to the full extent of our desire
and ability. We must be able to make selections that are meaningful to
us, not just endorse the choices of others. We must be able to cast our
votes in a way that influences the outcome.
re: "Given what you've said, how might the selected officials be
corrupted?"
I've given this matter a lot of thought. It seems to me the risk of
corruption will be greater after representatives are selected than
during the selection process. I'll address these situations separately,
but preface my remarks by noting that corruption covers a broad range of
activity. It is not limited to financial transactions, but can involve
many other forms of pandering. To define corruption, I'm tempted to say
corruption is supporting positions that are not in the public interest,
but it is not always possible to see precisely where the public interest
lies. As you say, there are implicit and explicit forms of corruption.
I will address the topic in a general sense and use the term 'bribery'
as a token for all forms of corruption.
Having noted this difficulty, I'll start by considering the corruption
of candidates during the selection process.
In the method we are discussing, bribery attempts can only be directed
at individuals. If one were to succeed, it would not come close to the
disastrous effect of the blanket corruption we currently endure when
political parties act as conduits for corruption and compel large
numbers of our representatives to work in concert against our interest.
The method groups candidates randomly. That prevents targeting an
individual for corruption until a group has been named. After a group
is named, bribing a participant directly is counter-intuitive because,
from the briber's perspective, there is no guarantee the bribed member
will be selected, and, from, the participant's point of view, if the
member can gain selection on merit, there is no incentive to accept a bribe.
For these reasons, bribes will tend to be offered to achieve or prevent
the selection of another member of the group. Bribing a member to
prevent the selection of another member is practical, but of limited
utility, except at the highest levels (which we will examine in a
moment). That leaves bribing one member to achieve selection of another.
In a group of _A_, _B_, and _C_, if one member accepts a bribe to insure
the selection of another member, the group will have two corrupt
members, the one that takes the bribe and the one that accedes to
advancement by bribery. If _B_ is bribed to guarantee the selection of
_A_, _B_ always votes for _A_, hamstringing _C_ (selection requires 2
votes). If _C_ votes for _B_, _B_ can alienate _C_ to drive _C_'s vote
to _A_, or, if _C_ persists in voting for _B_, _B_ may court _A_'s vote
to advance. Since both are corrupt, it shouldn't make much difference
which advances. In any case, _C_, the only uncorrupted individual in
the group, can never advance.
Even so, I don't think the strategy can be pursued successfully, and
certainly not widely. Whether _A_ or _B_ advances a level (we'll use
_A_ for convenience), they are grouped with two new people _D_ and _E_.
_D_ and _E_ reached the level either by bribery or on their merits.
In either case, _A_ has a problem.
If _A_ (or _A_'s sponsor) propositions _D_ and _D_ is advancing by
bribery, either _A_ or _D_ may succeed in bribing the other, but only
one of the two miscreants can advance.
If _A_ propositions _D_ and _D_ advanced on merit, _D_ has just achieved
advancement on the strength of intellect, attitude about public concerns
and power of persuasion, and is filled with pride and confidence. Under
those conditions, _D_ is unlikely to give up the opportunity for
continued advancement by taking an illegal (and demoralizing) payment.
Hence, _D_ is a poor target for bribery.
Most of the ways we pursue our own interest are associated with our
sense of our own worth. When we meet with others, listen to their
points of view, consider their concerns, discuss solutions and conduct
ourselves in a manner that induces them to select us to represent their
interests, we experience a flush of pride in ourselves and a surge in
our sense of self-worth. We will not forsake those feelings lightly.
For that reason, the potential for using bribery as a means of
corrupting the selection process diminishes as the levels advance. The
self-respect of those who reach the highest levels will be a significant
deterrent to corruption. Bribe-taking is a characteristic of the losers
in our society.
The risk of corruption increases after the selection process is complete
and those we select to represent us assume positions in our government.
At this point they become targets. We will look at two aspects of
this problem, the influence of other members of the government and the
threat of external influence peddling.
Since we have a natural tendency toward partisanship, when we take our
seats in, say, a legislative body, we will soon align ourselves with
other members of the body that we find agreeable. These relationships
will lead to cooperative action with others to fulfill public
obligations. Individuals in a constituency may not always agree with
the alliances a representative forms, but, unless they can be shown to
be improper (perhaps by nuances too subtle for me to delineate), they
can not be called corrupt. Stated another way, there is no doubt our
elected representatives will influence each other, but we have no basis
for calling such influence corruption. In fact, I consider it healthy.
The serious problem is the attack on elected officials by vested
interests. In a representative democracy, representatives are not
required to have any special knowledge or training. They are selected
because they are believed to have the intellect and disposition to
assimilate the information necessary to make sound decisions in the best
interests of the people.
Since laws passed by a legislative body apply to the community, we
anticipate that all interested parties will present their arguments for
and against pending legislation. Our legislatures hold hearings to
facilitate this presentation of information. Since the hearing rooms
will not hold all the people with an interest in the matter, interested
parties designate agents, called lobbyists, to present the information
for them.
The theory is that our representatives will weigh the information
presented by lobbyists objectively, enact laws that benefit the
community and reject laws that are harmful. However, at present, it
doesn't work like that. Although hearings are held, they are merely for
show. The actual decisions are made by our lawmakers outside the
hearing room, under the influence of lobbyists.
It is the free access lobbyists have to our lawmakers that defeats a
very sound concept. The lobbyists wine and dine lawmakers, provide them
with exotic vacations, hire members of their family, promise them future
employment and, by more subterfuges than I can relate, corrupt the
people elected to represent the public interest. The result is the
cesspool we currently endure.
If we are to eliminate this kind of corruption, we must deny lobbyists
free access to our legislators.
Fred
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
