Fred and Juho, Fred Gohlke said: > re: "... given the assumption of equality, the party leader is > formally on a level with any party member. Each has a > single vote at each step of the primary, including > nomination." > > Absolutely! > > This leads to the obvious question of "How?", but asking it may be > premature.
Yes, I think we should postpone that till we look at the democratic context. We'll have to use our imaginations because democracy assumes an equality and universality that has yet to be realized. Meanwhile the party is a fact, and it seems to rest (at least in definition) on a contrary assumption, that of *non*-universality. I wish therefore to begin by imagining away that assumption. What happens to the party when its primary decisions may no longer be restricted to members, but must be opened to universal and equal participation? > re: "Each has the same primary electorate. It is therefore likely > that each will make the same decision and sponsor the same > candidate." > > Why is that likely? ... It would seem that each party would start > with a different core and initially propose different candidates. > Thereafter, the decisions of the party members would be influenced > by the non-partisans. The influence would almost certainly be > toward the center because each party can be expected to already > harbor the most extreme advocates of the party's position. However, > the degree of influence would change rapidly with time and > circumstance, so the result cannot be certain. When you say "start with a different core", I'm unsure whether you mean a core of deciders, or of decisions. Either (if enforced) would violate the assumptions of universality or equality. The parties may be different from each other (in their histories, if nothing else), but henceforth they may not make decisions about the sponsorship of candidates without opening each step of the process to anyone who wishes to participate. When voicing the first nomination for party P, the lowliest member of a competing party Q has an equal opportunity to that of P's leader. An ultra-left party would normally be expected to start with a left leaning nominee, but exactly this expectation no longer applies. All leanings from the center are now equally likely, where the center is defined collectively by those who choose to participate, and the effort they expend. > re: "The next step in its (democracy's) evolution could easily > see their (political parties) elimination." > > Oh, my! Oh, my! > > I must question the use of 'easily'. There has been nothing 'easy' > about your work over the past umpteen years - or my own - (he said > with a smile). In that sense, my claim of "easy come, easy go" is woefully wrong. :-) As an engineer, however, I must say there are things worth salvaging in the party machine. This is maybe another reason to dismantle it with care. It sounds strange, but the party introduces an element of morality that is missing from the state electoral system. The state system tells us who *shall* be elected to office, but it fails to tell us who *ought* to be. This failing is something I know you already appreciate, but I want to emphasize that it's a moral failing. A power is exercised without a right. It is what we would expect from a tyrant, not from an institution of democracy. The party is the opposite of this. Rather than offering facts, the party offers norms. It says, "You may elect anyone you wish, but here is who you *ought* to elect." This is a moral contribution (in form), which is exactly what we need. Mind you, the actual content is almost always wrong. So we still need to take the machine apart, if only to fix it. But it *was* aimed in the right direction, roughly speaking. Fred Gohlke said to Juho: > ... As I've said before, parties always "seek the power to impose > their views on those who don't share them." They don't always > succeed, but when they do it's catastrophic. The threat of > domination is always present in a party-based system. Juho Laatu replied: > As well as in a party-free system. But imagine for a moment that the following is no longer possible: (a) a *primary* electoral system (b) one that sponsors candidates for *public* office (c) where voting is restricted to *private* members Specifically (c) is no longer possible. Whenever a decision is made in support of a candidate for public office (or would be candidate), that decision is open to universal participation. Further those who do participate are treated equally. Their votes are not weighted, or anything like that. In such a world, what *other* form of political domination could take hold? I would argue that domination is no longer possible. For better or worse, we would be free. -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
