Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Dear Fred, Thanks for the overview. It certainly helps to get a grip on the discussion. I am sending some unstructured ideas into the discussion. Being a member of the Czech Green party myself, I think that political parties are not inherently evil. The problem is how to make the primary election process and the primary legislative proces democratic and inclusive, so that most people feel motivated to take part of it, are able to influence politics and have the same chances to participate - see the classic definition of an ideal democracy by R. Dahl - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Dahl#Democracy_and_polyarchies The problem is, that there has not yet been a better proposal around. Problems with the electoral process: In your list, you forgot to mention campaign spending by third parties and media coverage. I also found a list of insufficiencies of representative democracy here: http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Representative_democracy A candidate needs not to spend vast amounts of money, he just needs a fat cat who spends horrendous amounts of money behind the scene to influence public opinion through mass media. The money of the fat cat would be wasted however, if he/she would not be reasonably sure to get a return of his/her investment (ROI). A positive ROI would fail to materialize: 1) if it would prove too expensive to bribe the voters (the fat cat has to spend his/her money on something to help his/her candidate), for instance if (for the sake of argument), there was no mass media, only peer-to-peer media, and 2) if the fat cat would not be able to override the opinion of the voters by simply closing a secret agreement with the supported candidate, that after being elected he/she will give the fat cat the public contracts and public money he/she needs to get his/her ROI positive. I also think we should study how media could be democratized, using peer-to-peer concepts. It is however no secret, that media can efficiently bury or coronate a candidate. In the case when media is privately owned, this means, that democracy is in part privatized too. A media owner doesn't have to spend any money, he just tells his/her employees what to write or send, he/she doesn't even have to order someone to do something, it is just enough to hire and fire the right people. Regulating and innovating the party: I personally think, the political parties need regulation and technological innovation in order to arrive at close to ideal democratic conditions, which R. Dahl defined. By regulation I mean sense, that internal party democracy will be under the protection of law, just as in stock companies. Fraud in member counts, intimidation, limiting comunication channels only to some in the party, this should be ruled out. Minorities in the party should have rights, for instance to call for audits. By technological innovation I mean on-line and secure voting, and arenas to exchange ideas and tools that track the history of a candidate. All of this already works in on-line forums. Democratical innovation of the party would be needed too of course (like proportional election systems, which have been studied shamefully little). Real world examples: The German Pirate party is an exception so far and it seems it has managed to gather many members based on the promise, that politics can be fun, and the normal man can actually influence politics and they have a technological platform (liquid feedback) and the expertise (I guess the entire hacker community) to try out some new stuff. The concept of Liquid democracy is described here: http://spinelessliberal.wordpress.com/2012/05/26/liquid-democracy-the-future-of-ldconf/ Advantages of political parties: An advantage of political parties is, that people seem to like meeting likely-minded people, because then it is so much easier to agree upon something, such as a political program, which the winning candidates should implement. Or, the other way around. If we manage to design an inclusive and open primary election process, then one group might appear which has a better idea of how the process should work. Refusing this group the possiblity to try their thing out for real, i.e. to found a party would lead us to a one-party state, which is practically unreformable. Or the other way around again, if a party was 100% democratic, then we would actually need no more than one party, as all opinions would be adequatly taken care of. If I should mention, what is wrong with democracy today, I would say: 1) Capital transations, which are not monitored by a regulator - i.e. untransparent cash-flow 2) Organizational and techical innovation in all areas, exept for the democratic functioning of the state 3) Privately-owned media, which has the ability to tilt the election results in any direction based the owners want 4) Majority rule 5) Lack of inovation In a deeper level, I feel it is a mistake only to focus on currently elected positions. I think that a more interesting
[EM] Public parties: a Trojan Horse in the party system
Ed and Peter, Ed Pastore said: I think what might help here is if you present an elevator pitch for the whole concept. ... In written form, that means something like a paragraph. Can you encapsulate the whole idea that way? ... and then perhaps the particulars will sort themselves out internally... Suppose we had an election-methods expert cornered on the elevator. I would pitch it as a technical challenge, like this: Consider that an open primary is like a political party in which the members are the general public. If such a public party were to succeed in building a primary turnout to rival that of the major political parties, then it would come thereafter to win all elections. Is this likely to prove true, or false? [1] If the experts in the EM list find no fault with the argument, then it might be worth pitching to a wider audience. Maybe as a slide show? But Thomas's idea of forcing open Facebook is equally promising, as is Mitch's offer to share/mirror votes at a technical level. [2][3] Peter Zbornik said: I think de-constructing the political party is a good idea. Your primary electoral system could work out after practicalities having been sorted out. Thanks Peter for looking at the argument. I like how you refer to it as de-constructing the political party. I think that's technically correct. However your proposal almost exclusively focused on the primary electoral system and not the primary legislative system. After the top candidates of the public party have been elected in all public elections, then what happens? I should add something about this to the wiki. Each public party has a primary legislative system and all the systems are interlinked by the vote mirroring network. Each person is thus free to choose a toolset and practices that meet his/her personal needs. Elected law makers may also participate if they wish. If a majority of them happen to agree to a primary bill at some point, they may floor it in the legislature and promulgate it. Their re-election prospects will be simultaneously revealed in the electoral primaries, which continue to run non-stop. [1] The detailed argument is here: http://metagovernment.org/wiki/User:Michael_Allan/Public_parties [2] http://metagovernment.org/pipermail/start_metagovernment.org/2012-July/004898.html BTW, vote mirroring is also an original idea of Thomas's. [3] http://metagovernment.org/pipermail/start_metagovernment.org/2012-August/004910.html -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ Ed Pastore said: Responding to Michael's full response to me, below. I guess I don't get how the system then takes hold in the public consciousness. We know build-it-and-they-will-come doesn't really work most of the time for this sort of thing. We need a really compelling motivation. I think what might help here is if you present an elevator pitch for the whole concept. If you're not familiar, the idea is you are in an elevator with a significant person and have until you get to her floor to introduce yourself and sell your idea to her. In written form, that means something like a paragraph. Can you encapsulate the whole idea that way? That may make it easier for people to wrap their minds around the whole general concept, and then perhaps the particulars will sort themselves out internally... (Note, elevator pitches can be quite hard to develop. There's a famous Pascal line at the end of a long missive that translates basically to: I made this letter very long, because I did not have the leisure to make it shorter.) Peter Zbornik said: Hi Michael, Thank you for structuring up the discussion. I think de-constructing the political party is a good idea. Your primary electoral system could work out after practicalities having been sorted out. However your proposal almost exclusively focused on the primary electoral system and not the primary legislative system. After the top candidates of the public party have been elected in all public elections, then what happens? Peter Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Public parties: a Trojan Horse in the party system
Dear all, some comments below 2012/7/21 Michael Allan m...@zelea.com Paul, Ed and Kristofer, Paul said, indeed Demoex voting was restricted to members but membership was not restricted. ... This is like a political party, but unlike a public party. A public party will not restrict voting to its members. To become a member, you actually have to be a citizen in the municipality where Demoex works (being from Sweden, I checked it out). This is a reasonable condition, and thus, unless we have a wold-wide public party, there needs to be some voter qualifications (except for being human, above 16/18/21 years of age, not seriously mentally impaired etc. ... to show the citizens that they have the real decisive power if they want to. And that is probably the most challenging part, they have to want to. The idea has to be sold and until this moment a positive response is indeed very hard to get. ... Michael Allan wrote: We want people to take the reins, but we put barriers in front of them. It's a barrier to join a party; a barrier to accept someone else's vision of democracy; to be told where and when to vote, with whom, and by what method. Even if these restrictions *seem* to be necessary, they are effective as barriers. Do you agree? Ed said, ... I think I get stuck here: The public party strives to increase its primary turnout by all means. This includes mirroring the votes of would-be competitors (other public parties) such that turnout is effectively pooled among them. * How can this mirroring be accomplished without duplication of votes? Most current formal elections (including primaries) are anonymous, and rely on a controlled registration process. If you are aggregating these controlled elections along with less-controlled input from many other sources, isn't it possible for some people to vote many times (or at least twice), while others with less energy/time/knowledge/etc. would have fewer votes (or perhaps just one)? Michael Allan wrote: Yes, that's correct. We cannot image anonymous votes. We must know the identity of the voter and the time at which the vote was cast. Only the latest vote is valid. If the identity of the voter will be public, then you open up for voter coercion - the employer, husband, political party, secret society, church etc. etc. might be tempted to buy your vote or threaten you to vote as they want (sticks and carrots). That is why voting is secret, except for the voting of elected representatives. I do not think we can dispose of voting secrecy today. Personally I thought, that in a delegative proxy system, only the voting of a person, which has more than, say 1000 votes will be public. If I give my vote to a candidate with less than 1000 votes, using a ranked ballot, he is eliminated and the candidate who is next in ranking gets my vote. I am not sure I make sense, here, as I am new to the discussion. In an ideal world with no coercion, all voting could be public, but now, we don't live in an ideal world. I think cryptography might give us a possibility to retain the secrecy of a vote, and allow the voter to reallocate his/her votes. After all, stock markets function the same way. The stock-owner knows what he owns, and can buy or sell assets anonymously. The buyer and seller however do not know to whom they sell. The same way, the voter could change vote allocation, but nobody would know to whom. I am not sure I have understood this vote-mirroring thing. Best regards Peter Zborník Paul Nollen said: Hi all, indeed Demoex voting was restricted to members but membership was not restricted. At the time they started (2002 ) and place this was the only possibility to make a list of people with voting rights. Here in Belgium, today, we can use our electronic ID card for voting. The only problem with that is that we can't exclude people who lost their voting rights by a court conviction. That list is not publically available. And the purpose is indeed to use the system in the way it is (elected representatives in a representative system) , because it is nearly impossible to change it, and act as a Troyan horse with a direct democratic initiative in a purely representative system. Of course this can be only a temporary action, just like the Troyan horse, to breach the power of the representative system and to show the citizens that they have the real decisive power if they want to. And that is probably the most challenging part, they have to want to. The idea has to be sold and until this moment a positive response is indeed very hard to get. On the other hand, the same idea is emerging, even here in Belgium, in other groups who never heard about us and Demoex. We can say that it seems to be a more or less natural proces when people become aware of the possibilities offered by the technological developments. Paul Ed Pastore said:
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
Good Morning, Michael re: It is here in these independent processes that you would confront 'strong opposition'. You would have no control over any except your own, contingent even there upon actually being able to implement it. Are you saying that anyone considering such a concept would have difficulty implementing it? I've no doubt that's true. In fact, it will be true of any concept that is 'different' than the status quo. Although implementation will undoubtedly be a matter of major concern, when considering concepts, the early steps are best devoted to finding the soundness of the precept. In this instance, I believe we agree the method we are discussing is passive in the sense that it does not actively seek the best of our people as our political leaders. Instead, it relies on members of the community assertive enough to make and/or accept nominations for public office. I consider this a vital flaw because attempts to achieve democratic outcomes fail when nothing in the process seeks the active participation of the individual members of the community. Whether or not this process can be implemented is less important than identifying this flaw because we can use the knowledge to ensure that it is addressed in whatever the final conception may be. For this reason, I'd like to add a goal to the list already offered ... 10) The electoral method must seek the active participation of the individual members of the community. re: Although a moderating/immoderating electoral process might be conceived, it could never be enforced. It would require a power that does not exist in our society. You are touching on an important aspect of political systems; the notion of externally enforcing an electoral process. If a process must be forced on the people, it is, by definition, undemocratic. If we are to have a stable, democratic process, it must be designed so that our natural tendencies strengthen rather than weaken the process. We know that the pursuit of self-interest is a natural human trait that, unchecked, can have a deleterious effect on the community. We also know that lack of integrity is a common failing among politicians. We can use this knowledge to conceive an electoral method that harnesses integrity to the pursuit of public office. This suggests another goal for our list: 11) The electoral method must make integrity a vital character trait in candidates for public office. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process
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
