Good Morning, Kristofer
re: "Whether this [the assertion that elections impart upon a
system an element of aristocracy] is a good or bad thing
depends upon whether you think aristocracy can work. In
this sense, 'aristocracy' means rule by the best, i.e. by a
minority that is selected because they're in some way better
than the rest at achieving the common good."
Whether or not 'rule by the best' can work depends in large part on how
well the electoral method integrates the reality that the common good is
dynamic. Those who are 'the best' at one time and under one set of
circumstances may not be 'the best' at another time and under different
circumstances.
re: "The pathological form of aristocracy is oligarchy, where
there's still a minority, but it's not chosen because it's
better. If aristocracy degenerates too far or too quickly
into oligarchy, that would negate the gains you'd expect to
see from picking someone who's 'better' rather than just by
chance alone."
Precisely. That is the underpinning of the notion that elections must
be frequent and must allow the participation of the entire electorate.
Frequent to forestall the development of an oligarchy; full
participation to ensure that all views of the current time and
circumstances are voiced and considered.
re: "... the collection of rules that make up the electoral
system has a significant influence on both the nature of
politics in that country as well as on the quality of the
representatives."
Which is the reason we seek the best conception for a democratic
electoral method.
re: "Thus, it's not too hard for me to think there might be sets
of rules that would make parties minor parts of politics.
Those would not work by simply outlawing parties,
totalitarian style. Instead, the rules would arrange the
dynamics so that there's little benefit to organizing in
parties."
The rules (or goals) must accommodate the fact that parties, interest
groups, factions and enclaves are a vital part of society. They are the
seeds from which new or different ideas germinate and lead civilization
forward. Outlawing parties would be an outrage against humanity.
The threat we must fear is not the existence of parties, it is letting
parties control government. We will be best served by devising rules
(or setting goals) that welcome partisans while ensuring they maintain a
persuasive rather than a controlling role in the election process.
re: "For instance, a system based entirely on random selection
would probably not have very powerful parties, as the
parties would have no way of getting 'their' candidates into
the assembly. Of course, such a system would not have the
aristocratic aspect either."
The closing sentence is what makes sortition a poor option (in my view).
It strives to achieve mediocrity rather than meritocracy.
re: "Hybrid systems could still make parties less relevant: I've
mentioned a 'sortition followed by election within the
group' idea before, where a significant sample is picked
from the population and they elect representatives from
their number. Again, parties could not be sure any of
'their' candidates would be selected at random in the first
round. While that method tries to keep some of the selection
for best, it disrupts the continuity that parties need and
the effect of 'marketing' ahead of time."
I regret that I missed this discussion. The idea strikes me as one of
considerable merit. At first blush, the major drawback seems to be that
it denies us the benefit of partisan thought and action mentioned above.
Fred
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
