Good Morning, Juho

re: (In response to my comment that: "If the systems "supposed to
     support sincere discussions and wise decision making" are
     implemented without provision to insure the people elected
     to public office are people of intellect and integrity, we
     should not be surprised when corruption ensues.")

     You replied: "Unfortunately often they don't even notice,
     being too busy promoting their basically good ideas (and
     maybe sometimes also their ego and thirst of power  :-)"

As mentioned last night, after studying responses to my comments on political parties, I plan to suggest an electoral method that lets the electorate "... insure the people elected to public office are people of intellect and integrity".


re: "I agree that 'we' (all the citizens capable of doing so) are
     responsible for monitoring. When it comes to planning the
     trick one needs is some leaders or theorists that first
     build the model and that people then find agreeable and
     promote and finally monitor the progress. This is usually a
     slow process."

I've noticed.


re: "(Material growth is quite trivial when compared to changing
     the attitudes and targets of citizens and politicians and at
     the same time maintaining trust.)"

The first step in "changing the attitudes and targets of citizens and politicians" is to understand that morality is a top-down phenomenon. When a political system elevates unprincipled people to positions of leadership, those people infect the nation with their lack of propriety. Undoing that circumstance is an arduous task.


re: "I meant that it is typically easier to build on what one has
     than to tear down the existing system and replace it with
     some new system that is meant to be ideal."

That is unquestionably true. However, the attempt to 'build on' must examine and correct the failures that caused the breakdown of the existing system. When, as in the United States, the system (democracy) broke down because institutions interposed themselves between the people and their government, we must recognize the problem ... and address it.


re: "The point is to think and see how the society could be a
     better place to live (and then agree and gradually
     implement)."

I'm trying, Juho.  I'm trying.


re: "Let's fix the system."

Yes, but how? As mentioned above, I plan to outline one possibility. Perhaps that will seed the careful analysis and discussion necessary for the delineation of a more democratic electoral method."


re: "It could even be cheaper to finance the campaigns with the
     money of the tax payers rather than with the interest group
     money."

Using taxpayer money to support political campaigns is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. It allows the parties to use the money they get from their sponsors for even greater corruption since they don't have to bear the cost of campaigning.

Is it not obvious that campaigning, itself, is the problem?

Campaigning, telling the public why they should vote for some candidate, is, without doubt, the most inane (indeed, insane) method of selecting public officials possible. It is, as should be painfully obvious to all of us, nothing but the propagation of lies, deceit and obfuscation. Are we so dumb we can't see that spin meisters and political coaches (who insure that candidates present an attractive face to the public) are abominable proof of the utter stupidity of a political system built around the art of deceiving the public?

Eliminate campaigning and you eliminate the cost of campaigning.

Eliminate the cost of campaigning and you eliminate the most fundamental cause of corruption in the political system.

Now, that's a worthy goal!


re: "On the other hand I don't expect political systems to work
     as if there were some good people leading us.  One has to
     assume a set of mixed interests among the politicians."

If you don't expect to have good people leading us, it is not so surprising you find my comments objectionable.


re: "One has to assume a set of mixed interests among the
     politicians."

Absolutely! But I see no reason to condone those interests bent on exploiting the humans among us. There is no reason why differing interests should exclude principled actions.


re: "One interesting modern thing is Internet.  That sure offers
     new tools that can be harnessed right to work for the
     benefit of the society. That could mean also new "major
     ideas" or at least new well working tools for the democratic
     system."

First of all, it is society itself ... at least the nature of the humans that make up society ... that must be harnessed. External mechanisms will not harness the nature of humans. That must come from within ourselves.

Once we acknowledge that, we are left with the question of how the internet can be used. At the moment it is an enormous sinkhole of information. Looking up "for the benefit of society" produces about 583,000 hits, seeking "democracy" produces 11,200,000, none of them presented in a manner that supports organized investigation and analysis. (Of course, my lack of expertise is an inhibiting factor for me.)

We have, on this site, a smattering of people interested in electoral methods, but how many of them can or will influence society ... and how will they accomplish it?

Even for those who visit the site, how many of them understand the arcane arguments presented in favor of this or that proposition ... I don't understand many of them. and I'm comfortable with the written word. The internet provides us a way to meet people of different backgrounds and exchange our views with them, but we have a long way to go before we can integrate it into our political system. Meanwhile, we would do well to examine ourselves so any implementation we devise improves rather than worsens our lot.


re: "Tolerance. One could also sometimes turn the other cheek.
     Less fear means usually less violence. Maybe one could say
     that for the strongest there is often no need to fight."

These statements show no acceptance of human interaction. They might be nice, but people don't act that way. Our political system must function as we are, not as we could be.


Fred Gohlke
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Reply via email to