Fred Gohlke said: > Good Morning, Michael > > I'm glad to see you. I hoped this topic would attract thoughtful > comment. I may have misunderstood your point, though. > > I think you are suggesting that party primaries be open to the > public? Is that your intent? ...
Yes, as a thought experiment. So even the members of competing parties may vote in the primary. Let's call this the assumption of "universality". > ... If so, would the attending non-partisans have to vote for one of > the party's candidates? Let's assume not. Let's assume instead a purely democratic process in which all choices (including the initial nominations) are decided by voting. Call this the assumption of "equality". (Later I'll explain why I think these assumptions are valid.) > I'm anxious to examine your ideas, but want to be sure my > understanding is correct. So what would be the effect on parties? Clearly they could no longer be parties by the following definition, since (c) is now eliminated. (a) a *primary* electoral system (b) one that sponsors candidates for *public* office (c) where voting is restricted to *private* members But maybe that's just a formality. What would be the *actual* effect of eliminating (c)? -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ > > (brief comments and a question) > > > > Fred Gohlke said: > > > re: "Sponsoring is a separate topic." ... Absolutely not!!!! ... > > > Sponsorship is the heart of party power. Their ability to choose > > > and sponsor the candidates we are allowed to vote for gives them > > > control of the entire political process. ... > > > > I agree. Maybe we could define the party as: > > > > (a) a *primary* electoral system > > (b) one that sponsors candidates for *public* office > > (c) where voting is restricted to *private* members > > > > > We have the tools and the ability to conceive a non-partisan > > > electoral method. Let's start. > > > > Juho Laatu said: > > > Let's generate better methods. Are you sure that you don't want > > > parties even in the sense that there would be ideological groupings > > > that people could support? Or in the sense that there would always > > > be an alternative to the current rulers. > > > > Imagine waving a wand and eliminating (c), the restriction of primary > > voting to private members. What effect would it have on the parties? > > What effect on the official elections? ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
