Good Morning, Michael
re: "... please give me your own thoughts: By what sequence of
historical events (1, 2, 3) might we transit from the status
quo to a better future, as you envision it?"
It takes several steps to change a political culture. It has taken over
200 years to reach our present state. Corrections will take time.
The first step is to form a reasonable theory and challenge it. We're
all limited by the shackles of our own minds so we must seek external
challenges to be sure our examination is thorough. This is the most
difficult step. Rational challenges are hard to find in the field of
politics. Perhaps 'different' ideas are shunned in all fields.
The heart of the difficulty lies in the academic community. These are
the people we look to for intellectual leadership, but they are no more
open-minded than the general population; perhaps less so. At present,
academia is committed to the fallacious notion that the best way to
serve the public interest is to allow oligarchic groups to aggregate
power through adversarial tactics.
The failure of that approach - in terms of humanity - roars throughout
the world; from the Middle East, Europe, and Asia to the United States,
where the powers behind the throne are warring to impose their seriously
flawed version of 'democracy' on the world.
[Our President warned us, over 100 years ago, that there was an 'unholy
alliance' between corrupt business and corrupt politics in the United
States. We couldn't break that alliance because party politics kept us
divided and allowed the uninhibited growth of the parasitic behemoths
that devour their hosts - us - like cancer.]
The second step in improving the political culture is inspiring the
academic community to consider, challenge and analyze alternatives to
the existing system. From that effort flows concrete for the foundation
of a practical, democratic political system.
The second step will come, however unlikely that may seem right now,
because political evolution is inexorable. The failures of the
pseudo-democracies that dominate our present era are too pronounced to
be ignored forever.
My greatest fear is that a demagogue will spring up and inspire a
revolution before we have prepared a practical, democratic political
system. Barring that unpleasant eventuality, when a practical
alternative to the existing systems emerges, we will take the third
step: some community, somewhere, will try it, just as Aspen, Colorado
and Burlington, Vermont are reported to have tried IRV. If the
alternative is practical and attractive from the people's perspective,
other communities will adopt it.
That's what I think will happen, Mike. Right now, we're still at the
first step: seeking rational challenges. We have a long way to go.
re: "To 'check' (i.e., 'the pursuit of self-interest') implies a
force or constraint."
That's true. The alternative to some degree of constraint is anarchy
and I do not support anarchy. Up to a point, constraints are valuable.
I need go no further than the nearest traffic light to understand why.
What, exactly, are proper constraints and what are improper is a
difficult topic I'd rather avoid at this point in our discussion, but
I've no doubt that a society with no constraint on greed (for example)
is flawed.
re: "... my overall impression is that you intend to remove
the political parties from power by imposing some kind
of reform."
The term 'removing them' implies an act of force and that is not my
intent. My purpose is not to remove them but to change their role.
Parties are a vital part of society - provided they are always a voice
and never a power. The danger is not in parties, it is in allowing
parties to control government. Society evolves through the inception
and spread of new ideas. My goal is to let parties give their most
persuasive advocates an opportunity to convince non-partisans of the
value of their perspective.
Fred
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
