--- On Fri, 13/2/09, Fred Gohlke <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
I think the US still is a democracy. If people want to see the current policy changed they can do that (within the next 4 years at least). People could in principle change also e.g. the voting system, but such smaller changes already easily get lost under the major questions (e.g. economic situation, war and peace). > 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." Status quo is is often the safest approach to citizens and politicians. And they may be lazy too. Current leading politicians have reached their current positions using the current system, so they often do not like changes. So you need lots of work and some luck. I'm not saying that changes are not possible. They are possible and they happen all the time. We just need to be patient and consistent and keep the rudder straight. > 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? The problem is that with uncontrolled funding of the campaigns you take steps towards the one-dollar-one-vote ideal. Traditionally the one-man-one-vote principle is considered important for democracies (one-dollar-one-vote is typically used in economical systems). > > 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! You may need some sort of campaigning in order to be able to to distribute information about the candidates. If there is no such distribution of information those candidates that are in good and visible positions already now may benefit too much. A balanced campaign may also reduce the problem of hidden campaigning (e.g. via good connections and other hidden deals with the media). Setting limits to the cost of campaigns has similar effect as arranging a public and publicly funded campaign for all. > internet The potential power of Internet is in that it is new and its potential is still largely unexplored, and therefore it has the potential to open new paths to influencing in the society. > 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. But surely you don't recommend the opposite either, no tolerance, slapping others on the cheek if we feel pain etc. In addition to maintaining some very basic good manners the idea is that people like to take steps forward only when they feel comfortable with taking steps forward, not when the opposing party tries to force them to take steps forward. A good campaign sells the positive impact of the proposed change to the buyers. (Since human beings are clever that luckily often (but not always) correlates also with good quality of the product in question.) The point was anyway to avoid direct confrontation and instead present the proposed change as an obvious step towards a better and brighter future. This may include understanding the old state of affairs as being non-optimal, but there is no need to provoke the old school to defend those outdated solutions ( - not even if you are "right" and they are "wrong" :-). - - - - - Earlier you referred to an article about the political philosophy of Alasdair MacIntyre (http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/p-macint.htm). Here are some comments on one short extract from chapter "12. A New Politics". > Human beings, as the kind of creatures we are, need the internal goods/goods > of excellence that can only be acquired through participation in politics if > we are to flourish. Humans surely have an interest to improve things. > Therefore, everyone must be allowed to have access to the political > decision-making process. In democracies they already have. This relationship can and should be improved though. > The matters to be discussed and decided on will not be limited as they are > now; they will extend to questions about what the good life is for the > community and those who make it up. In principle also the current political processes should cover this, but the process can and should be improved. > Politics will be especially concerned with the virtues of justice and > generosity, ensuring that citizens get what they deserve and what they need. > And it is an important requirement of this new politics that, everyone must > "have a voice in communal deliberation about what these norms of justice > require" (Dependent Rational Animals 129-130). I support the idea of putting more weight on developing and agreeing what the long term targets and plans are. I think this is a spot where even the basic mechanics of political systems could be improved. That could mean e.g. new systematic ways to handle and maintain resolutions. > This kind of deliberation requires small communities; Yes, humans work well under this kind of assumptions. Being part of various smaller and larger communities is a very positive and constructive and safe and trust building phenomenon, as long as those groups are not targeted to work against some other groups and as long as the groups don't start controlling their own members in some negative way. > although not every kind of small community is healthy, a healthy politics can > only take place in a small community. Although their size cannot be precisely > specified, they will be intermediate in scale between the family and the > modern state (Dependent Rational Animals 131). Yes, often the step from e.g. the very safe family to national level politics (maybe assuming a hostile environment in-between) is a long step to cover. Juho ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
