--- On Tue, 17/2/09, Fred Gohlke <[email protected]> wrote: > Whether or not the US is a democracy is a semantic > question.
I use this term roughly so that a country is democratic if people are able to make change x if they are determined to make x happen. There should be no fear of coup, revenge, police or other serious personal problems. This is the lower limit, not a definition of a perfect democratic system. > You may believe what passes for democracy in the US (and > elsewhere) is 'government by the people'. I > don't. It is probable that our views on this topic are > sufficiently divergent that reconciling them is unlikely. I'm under the impression that many people in the USA are patriotic and do believe that their country is maybe even the best. Maybe many of them make a difference between the "country itself" and the political system and political elite that runs it. (In many countries it is also common to think that the country is "us" and the problems with the government are just practical problems, and that also the government and parties are included in the (loved and idealized) "country itself" or "us".) > http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/downloads/Candidate%20Report.pdf > > The report does a excellent job of describing why political > parties fail to represent the people It was rendered by > the heads of the major parties in the U.K. Even though the > interest of the party leaders who formed the Commission was > to advance a pro-partisan point of view, their report makes > the points I'm expressing much more clearly and > authoritatively than I can. The election methods and political systems can be improved (e.g. all kind of proportionalities). This includes both changes in the mechanics and changes in the attitudes (of citizens, representatives and civil servants). Probably one can not avoid formation of some kind of groupings or parties, and of course they may also contribute positively. Just need to avoid the numerous common pitfalls / problems. I think there are tricks to improve any of them at any particular country and situation (at least in most cases). > I will adjust > the heading when you furnish hard evidence that the current > course is incorrect. No complaints. (Or actually I complained earlier about one detail, the fact that the mechanisms that you proposed were not quite proportional due to rounding errors with small numbers.) > re: (in response to my question: "Is it not obvious > that > campaigning, itself, is the problem?") > Your comment does not answer the question. My viewpoint to campaigning was that it is quite unavoidable. And efficient distribution of information is an essential requirement of democracy. (See also my old wording below.) Campaigns just are sort of last minute information offering. One key area of problems in campaigns is financing (the one-dollar-one-vote related problems). > It also, by > referring to a 'one-dollar-one-vote ideal' turns a > serious problem into a euphemism that can be ignored. In what sense? In different societies different wordings may be needed to carry a good picture of the problem and solution to the decision makers (especially to the voters). > re: "You may need some sort of campaigning in order to > be able to > to distribute information about the candidates." > > I won't comment on this point, at this time, because I > plan to outline an electoral method that does not require > campaigning (although a version has been suggested that > allows it). > Do you not see the inconsistency of recommending tolerance > and control of aggression while advocating an adversarial > political system? If we are to limit intolerance and > excessive aggression, it makes sense to encourage reason in > our political system rather than passion. Yes, my viewpoint is maybe such that instead of presenting the world as polarized and black and white it is better and even more efficient too to seek models that most people find sensible and worth supporting. Negative viewpoints against other approaches may also turn people against the proposal, especially those who feel that they have been criticized. Often it may be even more efficient to concentrate on marketing one's own (good or bad) solution. But maybe we'll skip analysis of that part. > Can you refute the fact that political parties function for > the benefit of the party rather than the benefit of the > people, They certainly work for the benefit of the party, sometimes also against the benefit of the people. But one can also say that they need also support of the voters in order not to lose their power. >From this point of view voters in some sense at least need to think that the leading parties do support their views and thereby do benefit them. In multi-party systems this phenomenon is stronger than in two-party systems. > that they are controlled by oligarchs beyond the > reach of the people, that they are inherently corrupt, that > they defeat the checks and balances intended to restrain > excesses? Having an opinion on this would require defining the country in question. Juho ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
