Good afternoon, Peter
You're right!!! This subject is difficult and you cut a broad swath
through it.
I won't try to cover everything in one response. Instead, I'll pick
bits and pieces we can examine. We may modify our perspectives a bit or
we may find our ideas incompatible. In either case, we'll be clearing
our own heads.
I'll begin, as you did, with Robert Dahl. I am not familiar with his
work, but the following is based on the link you provided and refers to
the section on Democracy and Polyarchy. The item referred to true
democracy as a 'theoretical utopia'. If that were true, our efforts
here would be wasted, since utopias are unattainable. In my view,
democracy is not a utopia because it isn't a static condition, it's a
dynamic state that improves and regresses. Here, we seek to improve its
present state, and that is attainable.
The cited section describes five criteria for creating an ideal democracy:
* Effective participation - Citizens must have adequate and equal
opportunities to form their preference and place questions on
the public agenda and express reasons for one outcome over the
other.
* Voting equality at the decisive stage - Each citizen must be
assured his or her judgments will be counted as equal in
weights to the judgments of others.
* Enlightened understanding - Citizens must enjoy ample and equal
opportunities for discovering and affirming what choice would
best serve their interests.
* Control of the agenda - Demos or people must have the
opportunity to decide what political matters actually are and
what should be brought up for deliberation.
* Inclusiveness - Equality must extend to all citizens within the
state. Everyone has legitimate stake within the political
process.
Is it possible to merge these five points with the 11 goals?
It seems to me the first is similar to goal (3). Can we merge these two
into a single statement? Perhaps something like:
3) The electoral method must give citizens adequate and equal
opportunities to place questions on the public agenda and
express reasons for one outcome over another.
The second criterion fails to define 'decisive stage'. If the term
means decision points, they can vary from one citizen to the next,
depending on their interest in the issue being decided. To the extent
that the term means that each citizen must have an equal ability to
affect a decision, it attempts to set by decree a condition controlled
by nature or circumstance. Goal (4) comes closest to meeting the
demands of this criterion. Can it be better stated?
The third criterion is fine, except for the introductory term,
"enlightened understanding"; enlightenment cannot be ordained. An
important aspect of discovering and affirming information is access to
the matter being examined and the ability to examine it. Goal (8),
though quite differently stated, comes closest to meeting the third
criterion. Can the differences between them be resolved?
The fourth criterion is well stated and vital to achieving a democratic
political system. Unless there are objections, I plan to replace goal
(3) with this statement:
3) The electoral method must give the people a way to decide
what political matters should be brought up for deliberation.
The fifth criterion is fine as far as it goes, but must recognize that
equality of access does not guarantee equality of utilization. Goal
(4), requiring equal access and participation to the full extent of each
individual's desire and ability, is a better way of stating this criterion.
Are there issues here? Can they be resolved?
I'll try to move forward a bit in the morning.
Fred
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
