Good Morning, Michael
I don't understand the point of your message. Are you asking me to
continue? On what topic?
I posted a critique of political parties in America. You have not
directly commented on the points in that critique. Until you do, I have
no basis for continuing.
You disparage my critique as "a barrage of moral presuppositions" but
make no attempt to explain why they are so. You do not, for example,
show how the gutting (and repeal in 1999) of the Glass-Steagall Acts by
the United States Congress ... the event that led directly to the
incredible financial debacle that's engulfing the world ... is not
precisely the result of the corruption of the American political system.
Last September, I commented on 12 assertions you made in a post
addressed to me. You could have continued the discussion by countering
my comments or accepting them as reasonable. You did neither. Instead,
you responded by calling a 'truce', as follows ...
"Truce Fred,
Whatever my critique of Practical Democracy, it may
well stem from a misunderstanding. No need digging
for the root of it."
I'm not sure why you thought a truce necessary. I expressed my views
clearly and concisely in our common language. If they were invalid,
they should have been refuted. If they were valid, they could have been
acknowledged so we could proceed. The 'truce' accomplished neither of
these. Instead, it effectively truncated any possibility of examining
the points in greater detail. I didn't respond because no response
seemed necessary or appropriate.
Based on your references to Practical Democracy and the critique of
political parties, you are apparently familiar with the trend of my
thoughts about the need for, and method of, building a more democratic
electoral process; one that allows every member of the electorate to
participate in the selection of those who represent us in our
government. Apparently, you do not agree with the concept I espouse.
That is a valid position, and seems, to me, an endpoint.
I am anxious to examine our political system and discuss a method of
building a more democratic one, but it makes no sense to proceed if we
disagree on the fundamentals. What can I say that will lead to a
thoughtful, enlightening dialogue, in English, and not simply give you a
basis for denigrating my observations?
Fred Gohlke
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
