Good Morning, Mike Ossipoff
It appears I've inadvertently confused you. The message I posted at
09:30 on June 28th was in response to a post by Michael Allan. At the
time, I hadn't read your post.
I used the personal form of address to Michael because I've known him
for some years and know him to be a thoughtful student of electoral
methods. If you are interested in his work, you can study it at
http://zelea.com/.
You may think me a bit tardy in responding to your post. If so, I must
apologize, but I think - and write - quite slowly. I try to avoid quick
responses because the political malaise engulfing us is much too serious
for emotional outbursts or thoughtless comments. I'll respond to your
post now, as well as I can.
You began by categorizing my assertion that ...
"All ideologies, whether of the right or the left, differ from
Communism and National Socialism only in the extent to which
their partisans are able to impose their biases on the public."
... as nonsense and justified your opinion by saying ...
"Referring to the old Eastern-Bloc, and to Nazism, Fred is
referring to two specific systems which weren't democracies,
even in pretense."
My comment was not referring to democracies, it was referring to parties
- and it is accurate. Whether Liberal or Conservative, Democrat or
Republican, Whig or Tory, Communist or Nazi, all seek power - for the
purpose of imposing their views on those who don't share them. The
entire point of joining a party is to empower the party supported - to
impose one's will. The excesses of the -isms are a natural extension of
that purpose. It is dangerous not to recognize this fundamental reality.
re: "To say that all ideologies differ from them only to the
extent that they succeed in having influence or (even
publicly supported) power is ridiculous. Your ideology can
be a democratic one, you know. Are ideologies that include
democracy really like Hitler or Stalin? And please don't use
our current system here as an example to embarrass
democracy. Not everyone agrees that it's a democracy."
I find this difficult to comment on, so I'll select one sentence and
respond to that:
"Your ideology can be a democratic one, you know."
Mine is! I do, indeed, seek to empower the people. I believe we can
find a way to achieve government "by the people" through a
representative democracy. My purpose is to find an electoral method
that seeks out our best advocates of the common interest and raises them
to public office. It is clear that this cannot be accomplished by a
system that pits self-interest against self-interest as epitomized by
party-based systems. However, given our natural tendency for
partisanship, the question is: How can we empower the people without
vesting power in oligarchical political parties? That is the question I
address.
re: "If you don't like parties, then most or all democracies,
actual and proposed, will let you vote for an independent."
Which is, under present circumstances, the height of futility.
re: "But perhaps you want to take away others' freedom of
association."
Has anything I've written given you a valid basis for such a statement?
I won't respond to your second post to me under this subject because I
think it would just add to the confusion. If you wish to comment on my
assertions in this post, I will respond as best I can.
Fred
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
