Good Morning, David
re: "... this is campaigning, and I do not understand your
apparent fear of that word."
Fear is not quite the right word, I find campaigning repugnant.
Campaigning is a rabble-rousing technique. It does not appeal to the
voter's reason, it is designed by professionals to suppress reason and
inspire an emotional reaction. It results in a government controlled by
passion at the expense of sanity.
The enormous cost of political campaigns requires candidates to sell
their soul to a party. The party, because of its control of a large
number of politicians, attracts money from those who wish to influence
the government. Parties are nothing more than conduits for the
corruption that pervades our legislative bodies.
Not only does the need for campaign funds invite financial corruption,
the act of campaigning requires candidates to profess support for
positions they do not hold and causes them to deceive by obfuscation and
outright lying. The insincerity of 'campaign promises' is a sick
national joke.
When we devise an electoral method that eliminates the need for
campaigning, we will eliminate the greatest cause of incompetence and
corruption in government.
re: "While parties properly nominate candidates, voters should
also be able to do nominations outside the party structure."
'Properly' in your view, 'improperly' in mine. To say voters should be
able to nominate outside the party structure is not helpful. As long as
candidates must 'campaign' for office, people nominated 'outside the
party structure' have no chance of attaining office.
re: "As to election methods, we need to do better than Plurality.
I suggest more thought as to score, IRV, and Condorcet -
which let voters vote for more than one candidate."
In the short term, I think you're probably right. Meanwhile, we should
consider the elements of a long-term solution.
Fred Gohlke
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
