If it is not too early, then I have some questions about the practical
problem of actually implementing a reformed electoral process.
Fred Gohlke said on July 27:
re [Juho]: If the second phase is a traditional election,
traditional financing practices may apply.
That is one of several reasons for having the [official] election on
the day after the [selected] candidates are announced - it will
limit the deception and obfuscations of campaigning.
I guess we can safely assume that reforms (whatever they are) will not
begin with the official electoral process. It is too difficult to
change and too easy to circumvent. What matters is the selection of
candidates, namely the primary electoral process. Right? *
Assume that primary reform is at least possible. Consider a point in
the future at which there are five main primary processes in operation
at varying levels of turnout, with at least two being reformed
processes (your choice which).
Process Turnout
--- ---
P 20 %
Q 15(at least two are
R5reformed processes)
S2
T1
Is this expectation more-or-less reasonable? Anyone?
When you speak (Fred) of controlling the time at which candidates are
announced, do you mean only for the process that you and Juho are
mooting, say one of P-T? Or all processes P-T? Your purpose would
seem to require control of all the major primaries.
* Primary electoral reforms accompanied the historical rise of the
modern party system. Selection of candidates used to be in local
hands, but it was centralized it in the latter 1800s. The most
important reform for this purpose was the secret ballot. It was
promoted for laudible reasons (ending corruption) and less laudable
(disenfranchising the negro), but the real motivation behind it was
the concentration of power in political parties, which were then
gearing up for a newly enfranchised mass electorate. The secret
ballot helped them because it eliminated the local hustings in
which candidates were openly nominated and affirmed (in Britain),
and eroded the power of the local political machines such as
Tammany Hall (US). Political power turns out to be based on
control of primary elections and little else. So it happened that
the parties (as we know them) rose to power.
--
Michael Allan
Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
http://zelea.com/
Fred Gohlke said:
Good Afternoon, Juho
re: Ok, two phases then. One to elect the party candidates (by
voters, by party members, or by nominees?) and then the
final election.
Although we've approached this idea from a party perspective, there's no
reason we can't have nominees who don't identify with any of the
existing parties. They will form a separate group. In terms of phases,
we may have:
1) Nominations.
2) A filtering period of some length so the nominees can decide
which of their number are the best able to proclaim the
group's position and the best able to engage the other groups
during the candidate selection phase. In short, those the
nominees think the best advocates for their groups.
3) An open competition between the advocates of the various
groups spanning several weeks during which the nominees for
the groups advance their perspective and respond to challenges
from the public, the media, and the other groups, while
contending with each other for selection as candidates for
specific public offices.
4) The public election.
re: The proportions may be manageable if there are e.g.
1,000,000 voters, 10 parties, 1000 nominees per party, that
elect 10 candidates per party. I wonder if you want some
proportionality (e.g. betwee two wings of a party) or not.
That would influence also the first phase.
The number of parties and the number of nominees will depend on the
public sentiment at the time of the election and the rules (if any) set
by those who implement the process. Proportionality will occur
naturally, depending on each party's ability to attract supporters,
nominees, and, ultimately, candidates.
The decision to form 'wings' rather than separate parties depends on the
dynamics perceived by those who share the separate view. If they feel
they can be more effective trying to influence the party, they'll form a
wing; if they think they'll be more effective trying to influence the
public, they'll form a party.
re: If the second phase is a traditional election, traditional
financing practices may apply.
That is one of several reasons for having the election on the day after
the candidates are announced - it will limit the deception and
obfuscations of campaigning.
The concept we are discussing assumes a public election in which the
people vote for their choices among the candidates. The competition
between the
