re: "Arguments against direct democracy usually go that
the public is too short-sighted or that it doesn't
have enough specialized knowledge."
My personal opposition to direct democracy is the susceptibility of the
public to the influence of behavioral psychology, a tool used in
partisan politics to persuade the people to favor one point of view or
another. It is much too easy to concoct fictions, particularly to
frighten the people. To reduce the force of the manipulations that
engulf us, the people need an an electoral process that allows and
encourages them to deliberate. That would occur during the election
stage of the hybrid process.
re: "Then the argument against the "average person" is really
a claim by those whose opinions are more to the left on
that line that the public can't govern on its own."
I'm not sure where my views may appear on that line because I rarely
think in those terms. A friend recently suggested my approach leaned
toward 'virtue ethics', in contrast to an approach which emphasizes
duties or rules (deontology) or which emphasizes the consequences of
actions (consequentialism). I've no idea whether that would be leftish
or rightish. To be absolutely frank, my lack of an academic background
hinders me in this regard. I'd never heard the term 'virtue ethics'
before and had to look it up. From what I read, it seems an excellent
evaluation of my belief about electoral systems.
re: "But all things equal, we'd prefer something to the right,
because we know that concentrated unaccountable rule can
become corrupt ..."
Whether right or left, wouldn't the hybrid approach eliminate
'concentrated unaccountability' because of the inflow of fresh faces
after each election cycle? Although I may be alone in this, it seems to
me party-based systems are the most susceptible to becoming
oligarchical. They wind up both concentrated and unaccountable.
re: "One possible way would be that parties would reorganize
as advisory organizations surrounding the legislators.
If a party had drawn up a plan like the above, the members
would try to convince the members of the legislature to
go with it, and the members might or might not decide to
do so."
Considering alternatives to the status quo and integrating them to the
extent they are appropriate is vital for a vibrant, evolving society.
Using random selection makes it difficult to include the best proponents
of non-standard points of view. That is a major drawback, to the hybrid
approach. Having parties function as advisory organizations might work,
but it might be more effective if their best advocates participated in
the election phase.
re: "... any given representative will most likely only serve
one term, therefore he won't feel accountable. Thus he
would, either consciously or subconsciously, favor his
own particular interests. So the system might lead to what
one might call 'random pork'."
To do so, the rogue needs the support of a majority of the legislature
to enact the 'pork' law. Since the 'pork' is for the benefit of the
rogue, such support would be difficult to enlist. Time works against
such an enterprise. Corruption takes time. Blatant announcement of
roguish intent will alienate more people than it attracts. In the
present system, incumbents tend to be re-elected (at least, in the
United States). They have multiple terms to corrupt and be corrupted.
That is unlikely in the hybrid system. In addition, in partisan
systems, legislators are subject to pressure from the party 'whip'. If
there is no party, there is no whip.
Fred Gohlke
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
