Good Morning, Juho
re: "I agree that all modern democratic systems have potential
to get better."
That's not exactly a profound comment. In what way does it advance our
discussion? How, exactly, do we make our pseudo-democratic systems better?
re: "What I meant with "separate" is that sponsoring rules and
practices may be very different in different countries, and
that sponsoring rules can be changed without changing the
other rules."
In what way does the fact that different countries have different rules
help us correct the evils of party-based systems?
How, exactly, can the people change the 'sponsoring rules' when the
parties write the rules? The people have no access to, or input into,
the formulation of the electoral rules (witness, for example, the
travesty called 'gerrymandering' in my country). Those rules are
enacted by legislators sponsored by, and responsible to, the parties.
re: "I agree that sponsoring can be very dangerous to a political
system."
I'm glad you agree. Can you describe an electoral process that
eliminates this danger?
re: "I'm afraid the main rule is that major improvements come
only after major catastrophes."
You may consider that the 'main rule', but there's no reason we can't
use our intellectual capacity to avoid it.
re: "We must work to make the practices better."
That's true, although saying so does not constitute an effort to do so.
Can you suggest specific ways of improving the practices?
re: "National Socialism grew within a democratic system. Better
watch out that our countries will not degrade to that level."
Stating the obvious does nothing to accomplish the goal.
re: "But someone will have the power to govern. Maybe better to
have some democratically elected politicians in power than
people that do not need the support of the people."
As we have already agreed, current electoral methods do not elect
politicians 'democratically' because our party systems have degenerated
into oligarchies.
re: "I'm also not sure that it would be easy to create
hierarchical systems that would lift the best people
to the top to govern us."
Of course it won't be easy - worthwhile things rarely are.
re: "I mean that whatever the structure of the system is,
people will find ways to misuse it."
That may be true, but it is no excuse for accepting the obviously flawed
systems we now endure.
re: "Multiple parties can be used to balance the madness of
the other parties."
Are you suggesting we take more of the poison that's killing us?
re: "If there is only one solution, it will be officially right
and it may deny eny need to improve the system (it may
rather get corrupt and lock people to that now non-working
structure).
That's precisely the circumstances in which we find ourselves, right
now. Note that it doesn't stop us from trying to conceive improvements.
Our only difficulty is finding people with the intellect and the
energy to work on finding a better way.
re: "Are you sure that you don't want parties even in the sense
that there would be ideological groupings that people could
support?"
As I've already explained in considerable detail, partisanship is
natural and healthy. Society evolves through the inception and spread
of new ideas. I have no objection to parties - as long as they are not
allowed to control our government. In fact, the method I outlined here
several years ago relies on parties to bring new ideologies to the fore.
If I can come up with a way to use parties productively, brighter
people can do better - when they take the time and expend the energy
necessary to do so.
Fred
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
