Good Afternoon, Michael
Oh, my goodness ... your post is not responsive to what I wrote. Well,
let me comment as well as I can, under the circumstances ...
First, with regard to our technological ability, we now have the means
to allow everyone to participate in the political process. We can use
the advances in transportation, communication and data processing
developed over the 200-plus years since the founding of my homeland to
build a more democratic political system. Arrangements that were
undreamed of in 1787 are now practical.
re: "At issue is a proposed structural transformation to society."
I agree that we are moving toward a structural transformation, but it's
early days. My post did not propose a 'structural transformation to
society', it described flaws in the existing system. Since those flaws
are integrated into our system, our first concern must be to understand
them so we can eliminate them and prevent their recurrence. We can't
transform our structures successfully unless we know why the present
structures failed.
re: "But any such transformation (T) raises these critical
questions ..." (Practical, Probable and Moral and the
ensuing 'proof'), all leading to:
"The crucial thing, however, is that, despite those evil
aspects, the transformation TO [which you define as the
status quo] is a fact. The fact of its success proves that
T0 [the status quo] was both practical and probable. In
other words, it had good answers to T0(p,q)."
That is fallacious reasoning. To prove the status quo is the result of
the forces that made it is simply stating the obvious. It requires no
'proof'.
Furthermore, the 'proof' errs in its most basic assumption. It
(apparently) assumes that, because T0 (the status quo) was successfully
attained, it is the most desirable state for society. Such reasoning
would undoubtedly have appealed to all the seemingly stable governments
that mark the history of mankind, not least of all dictatorships and
those based on the divine right of kings.
And, finally, the listed 'critical questions' do not include (at least,
not in an identifiable form) the will and welfare of the people. When
discussing electoral methods, there is nothing (in my opinion) more
fundamental than "That whenever any Form of Government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to
abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on
such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall
seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." (cadged from
the American Declaration of Independence)
re: "If your argument of T0(m=parties,evil) is valid, then it
follows that the moral question T(m) is not essential to a
successful transformation."
That's silly. It does not follow a rational train of thought. The
proper statement is: If my argument is valid, since our society reached
its current state, our political systems have integrated the evils I cite.
Any attempt to improve a system must start with an understanding of the
flaws in the current version of the system. I raised the issue of those
flaws in my post. I have outlined, as you say, "a tiny piece of ... the
evil aspects of the existing party system." If you have superior
arguments or can show those evil aspects are inconsequential, would you
care to offer a rebuttal?
Since you did not address the flaws, should I take it that you agree
with my delineation of them? If, in fact, you agree with my comments on
the destructive nature of party politics, perhaps we can move on to
proposing a structural transformation that avoids their adverse effects.
Fred Gohlke
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
