[Election-Methods] Selecting Leaders From The People
This submission is not responsive to any of the material in tonight's discussion. It is a new topic. As a newcomer, I'm not certain this is the proper way to make my first submission. If I'm out of line, please enlighten me. Thanks, Fred Gohlke ACTIVE DEMOCRACY (Selecting leaders FROM the people) FOUNDATION To select better leaders, we must find a way to select the most principled of our people as our representatives. The method must be democratic (i.e., allow the entire electorate to participate), egalitarian (i.e., give everyone an equal chance to participate), and it must be in harmony with natural human responses. This outline will present such a concept in the simplest, most direct way possible. It will, necessarily, mention a few of the mechanics, but they are secondary. The important thing is the concept of harnessing human nature. Once we've seen a way to do that, we can concern ourselves with the myriad other details. Although the process is continuous, I will describe it as having two phases. The human factors dominating the first phase will metamorphose into a different set of factors as the second phase develops. This metamorphosis is the magic of the process. METHOD 1) Divide the entire electorate into groups of three people. 2) Assign a date and time by which each group must select one of the three to represent the other two. a. No participant may vote for himself. b. If a group is unable to select a representative in the specified time, the group is disqualified. 3) Divide the participants so selected into groups of three. 4) Repeat from step 2 until a target number of selections is reached. DISCUSSION An Election Commission conducts the process. It names the participants of each group and supplies the groups with the text of pending ordinances and a synopsis of the budget appropriate to the group. In addition, on request, it makes the full budget available and supplies the text of any existing ordinances. This insures a careful examination of public matters and encourages a thorough discussion of partisan views on matters of public concern. For convenience, we refer to each iteration as a Level, such that Level 1 is the initial grouping of the entire electorate, Level 2 is the grouping of the selections made at Level 1, and so forth. The entire electorate participates at level 1 giving everyone an equal opportunity to advance to succeeding levels. * As the process advances through the levels, the amount of time the participants spend together increases. At level 1, groups may meet for a few minutes, over a back-yard fence, so-to- speak, but that would not be adequate at higher levels. As the levels advance, the participants need more time to evaluate those they are grouped with. They also need transportation and facilities for meeting and voting. These are mechanical details. * The public has a tendency to think of elections in terms of just a few offices: a congressional seat, a senate race, and so forth. There are, however, a large number of elected officials who fill township, county, state and federal offices. The structure outlined here provides qualified candidates for those offices, as follows: At a predefined level (determined by the number of offices to be filled), the two candidates not selected to advance to the next level move into a parallel process leading to selection for offices; first in the local, then the county, then the national, and, finally, the state governments. The initial phase of the process is dominated by participants with little interest in advancing to higher levels. They do not seek public office; they simply wish to pursue their private lives in peace. Thus, the most powerful human dynamic during the first phase (i.e., Level 1 and for some levels thereafter) is a desire by the majority of the participants to select someone who will represent them. The person so selected is more apt to be someone who is willing to take on the responsibility of going to the next level than someone who actively seeks elevation to the next level, but those who do actively seek elevation are not inhibited from doing so. As the levels increase, the proportion of disinterested parties diminishes and we enter the second phase. Here, participants that advance are marked, more and more, by an inclination to seek further advancement. Thus, a powerful human trait is integrated into the system. Those who actively seek selection must persuade their group that they are the best qualified to represent the other two. While that is easy at the lower levels, it becomes more difficult as the process moves forward and participants are matched with peers who also wish to be chosen. Each participant must make a choice between the other two people in the group knowing that they must rely
[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics
Good Afternoon, Juho (I just noticed that I have another message from you, in another area. I will copy it and respond as quickly as I can, probably tomorrow. I'm inexpert at navigating this site, but learning. flg) In the message I'm responding to, you raise several important issues. IMPROVEMENT You mentioned several reasons why improving our political system is an uphill battle. I would add the complexity of human nature as another. Overcoming them is difficult, but A trek of a thousand miles begins with a single step. In my view, the first step is to seek understanding. The forces that guided our political development over the past 200 years are clear enough. So far, we've tended to think of them as inevitable. We've failed to examine them analytically for the purpose of deflecting the worst of them. (I had the privilege of sitting in on a political science course last year. It described many of the blemishes in our political process, historically and present, but did not address them from the perspective of learning to correct them. Neither, to my dismay, did it encourage such an intellectual approach.) We did not reach our present situation by accident. If we are to improve, we must learn to anticipate and inhibit the forces that derailed The Noble Experiment. It will be a long, hard road, not to be completed in my lifetime, but that is no excuse for not making the first ... small steps forward. LARGE GROUPS You make the excellent point that, under the method I outlined, large groups will succeed better than small groups. Warren Smith made the same point to me, privately. Where you suggest partisan dominance, he used advanced math to show that, based on purely racial attitudes, whites would dominate blacks. The rationale supporting some of Smith's mathematical terms were obscure, but I don't doubt the conclusion. I have no doubt the attitudes of the largest group of voters will prevail. However, the group that prevails will not be party and will not be race. It will be society (at least, insofar as society is reflected in the electorate) ... and the most common attitude in society is a desire for tranquility. Society is us. All of us; our friends, relatives, co-workers, neighbors and acquaintances. We have partisan feelings, we are influenced by our family, our race, our education, our national heritage, our age, our health and our status, but none of these are greater than the fact that we are, in toto, decent, law-abiding people. Society could not exist if we were not. This is the large group that will prevail; these are the whites in Smith's equations; these are the people whose attitudes will triumph ... if they are given a voice and a choice. GROUP SIZE and PERSUASION You suggested larger groups and fewer layers. I am not averse to such a change, but would like to describe the rationale for using a group size of three. At the initial level, when the entire electorate meets for the first time to select one member of a their group to represent the other two, there will be three kinds of participants: (1) those who do not want to be selected, (2) those willing to be selected, and (3) those seeking selection. In any group where all three participants do not want to be selected, the triad will not make a selection and all three participants will be eliminated. Thus, among the groups that actually make a selection, the people who are selected will either be people who want to be selected or people who are willing to be selected. This is not to say that each person must be of one type or the other, but rather that each person will be somewhere on the continuum from those willing to be selected to those wishing to be selected. For simplicity, we will assume that the desire to be selected is equivalent to a desire for public office and that the people we mention as examples are at one end of the wish-willingness continuum or the other. The reality is infinitely more complex but the results will differ only in degree from what we learn by thinking about the kind of people who are at the hypothetical poles. We must also note that the attitudes we've mentioned may not be static. Although, generally, a person seeking public office is unlikely to become a person willing to serve, a person willing to serve might be transformed into a person seeking public office: [If person-willing-to-serve (A) feels person-seeking-office (B) is not a good choice, (A) may seek to persuade the group that (A) or (C) is a better choice. Such an effort moves (A) closer to being a person-seeking-office because, if A will not support B, the chance that A will be chosen increases.] Based on this assessment, we can say that people who advance to the next level either persuaded the other members of their triad to select them or they relied on the other members to select them. The difference is the extent to which they used
[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics
Good Afternoon, Juho re: I tend to think that often the understanding is also the most crucial step. I mean that after such understanding and model is found that it covers all aspects and players and can be accepted by all, then people tend to think that actually it is obvious and it is natural to follow the model. The practical implementation of the model is then just straight forward work. I agree, and we are in the early stages of that process. As our understanding grows, the breadth of our grasp expands to include aspects that were formerly obscure. Because politics and human relations are very complex and we each have our blindfolds, we must, from time to time, adjust our ideas to integrate well-reasoned objections raised by others. Over time, the model appears, as you say, more and more natural ... indeed, almost inevitable ... to those who consider it. re: Note that also the current two-party system of the USA has similar characteristics. The society will be run by the representatives of the largest faction. In a sense, that's true. The parties adjust their platforms to attract voters. They pay lip service to various opinions in order to achieve power. But, as we all know to our sorrow, campaign promises are among the biggest jokes in our country. There is an enormous gap between the hopes and desires of the American people and the actions of our elected representatives. It is important to recognize that party interest and the people's interest are not synonymous. The party, through its obligation to its donors, has interests far beyond the interest or even the knowledge of the people. Parties advocate positions on stem-cell research, digital rights management, tort reform, bankruptcy proceedings, and intellectual property rights (to name just a few of the most obvious such interests), not because their position is good for the people of the United States but because the party has been paid to support those positions by the vendors who profit from them. re: Small groups may also have problems like strong individuals simply running over the less aggressive and less confident ones. This will surely happen at the lower levels because humans are characterized by varying degrees of aggressiveness. Since passive people are unlikely to advance, the more aggressive will. However, undue aggressiveness will quickly become a liability. As the levels advance, all members of each group will have some degree of aggressiveness. Those who combine other qualities ... knowledge, eloquence, forthrightness and judgment among them ... will shun those whose greatest claim to fame is aggressiveness. re: It is also possible to try to improve the behaviour of the (potentially larger) groups (to avoid monologues and other strong individual related problems) by setting some clear rules and procedures for them. I disagree. We have no shortage of rules and procedures in politics. Rules seek to identify and inhibit perverse actions rather than rendering the actions unproductive. The essence of the Active Democracy concept is that it harnesses our natural pursuit of our own interest by penalizing negative traits (excessive aggressiveness, for example) and rewarding positive ones (like intellect and integrity). However, having said that, I agree that the Search of optimal parameters should continue. Perhaps someone with expertise in the group dynamics field can contribute ideas of value. re: This next one, which really tickled me ... One general comment. It is typical that people of category 3 (seeking selection) are overrepresented in a political system (representatives and civil servants). I tend to think that a political system that would favour more category 2 candidates (willing to be selected) would be a happier one. ... because I made a similar assertion to an acquaintance in India, when I said ... Not everyone who wants to achieve public office should. In fact, those who desire public office are often the least fit to serve the public interest. In this instance, willingness is a better criterium than desire. He responded by pointing out (approximately) that reforms are carried out by people who believe they have a better idea and seek office in order to make it reality. It's a good point. I think what you and I mean is that those who seek public office for the prestige and power it brings are poor choices ... and we have too many of them, already. re: One interesting property of the proposed system is that current top level representatives, even if very popular, have a high risk of not being re-elected. You are correct and it is an important consideration. A person may very well rise to hold public office and never be elected again. Those who serve in public office are taking time out of their lives with no career guarantees. Such people must be afforded salary continuation and something similar to the G. I. Bill of
[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics
Good Morning, Juho re: But citizens may also feel that some of the elected representatives got through without any wide support, just based on their capability to explain their way through and having good luck in getting appropriate competitors/supporters when the election tree was constructed. As described in the outline, As the levels advance, the participants need more time to evaluate those they are grouped with. I didn't specify a length of time because that's an implementation factor. However, when considering the timing for the process, I estimated group life would range from 5 days at the lowest level to 26 days at the highest level, with time at the upper levels divided between formal and informal activities. The formal sessions allow participants to discuss specific matters, such as ordinances and the budget appropriate to the group. The informal sessions allow participants to evaluate each other in a relaxed atmosphere. When an individual, who has advanced through several levels and wishes to advance to the next, spends an extended period of time with two other individuals in like circumstances, it would be counter-intuitive to imagine and any one of them will let another just get through. I really don't think getting appropriate competitors/supporters when the election tree was constructed is a valid concern. The tree is not constructed in advance; each level generates the next level. Given the vagaries of human nature, it is impossible to predict which of the three people will advance. The only thing you can say with certainty is that, as the levels advance, the people selected seek continued advancement. Having said that, I think we must acknowledge the possibility that a glib individual will advance solely on that talent. While I believe such instances can occur, I think they will be rare. The people who reach the upper levels will be intelligent as well as persuasive. Hoodwinking them will not be easy; they, too, want to advance. re: Btw, what do you think of a somewhat related method of arranging a lottery among the citizens. Maybe e.g. so that the elected citizens could name someone else if they do not feel like being a representative themselves. Dr. Lyn Carson at the University of Sydney, Australia is working on that concept and has some interesting case studies. You can find information on her work at: http://www.activedemocracy.net/ (Note: When I started to outline an election process, I chose the term Active Democracy. I was unaware that Dr. Carson was already using that term. Dr. Carson's usage has primacy but I haven't changed my own use of the term because I haven't been able to think of a suitably descriptive replacement term.) Insofar as my opinion of the method is concerned, I think it has merit for special projects like those in Dr. Carson's study. I do not think it is a good basis for a national political process or to select political leaders. As I mentioned in an earlier post, our interest in government waxes and wanes throughout our lives. In some elections we may eagerly wish to participate. In others, we may not. It is our right to make such decisions for ourselves rather than having the decision made for us at random. The idea that randomly selected citizens could name someone else if they do not feel like being a representative themselves is appallingly bad. Vested interests would buy the votes of the selected citizens before the ink was dry on the enabling legislation. The system we have is bad; a system that allowed transferring votes to proxies would be atrocious. If a lottery system is ever entertained, it will have to allow opting out before the selections are made, but it can never allow the naming of a proxy by a selected individual. re: Why is partisans controlling government a bad thing? We need look no further than National Socialism and Communism to understand why partisans controlling government is a bad thing. Both had features that attracted broad public support throughout a national expanse and both degenerated into destructive forces because their partisans gained control of their governments. Actually, we need look no further than the events of 2002 to understand why partisans controlling government is a fearful thing. I find it disconcerting and a bit frightening that so many people are able to ignore the lesson of that period. The flood of manipulative news, distorted propaganda and witless hyperbole that engulfed my homeland before the invasion of Iraq was so outrageous I was moved to post this message on August 13th, 2002, on an internet site I frequent: *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** AM I ALONE? I read that we (Americans) are preparing to invade Iraq. I see it referred to on these boards. But nowhere do I see a sign of outrage that our leaders would undertake such a horribly aggressive,
[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics
Good Evening, Juho re: Some rules always exist. Of course. There is no question but that rules are an important part of the process. That is not the point. The point is that, in terms of behaviour in the Active Democracy groups, harnessing human nature is more effective at governing conduct than rules. When one's advancement is dependent on the way one is perceived by other people, one learns to forgo unacceptable behavior ... or one never advances. re: The point is just that although I assume that the 'willing' people might be more responsible and as efficient leaders as the 'seeking' ones also the seeking ones may in some cases work quite well.) I suspect our views on this are similar because, as you say, ... people have many kind of drivers. Even so, you may not share my confidence that my peers will evaluate those they are grouped with and select the person best equipped to serve the public interest. re: ... we are in a way social animals with a need to synchronize with our own flock/environment/tribe/party. It appears you see what I refer to as the will-to-believe as synchronization. Whichever it is, it is a characteristic that affects our political existence. When we can be swayed by mass merchandising techniques, when we can be convinced it is proper to perform an act for which we condemn others, we need to be aware the trait can be dangerous for society and seek a means of restricting its adverse effects. I will be away for a day or so, but will write again when I return. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics
Good Afternoon, Puho I apologize for the tardiness of my response. I've been away and had a considerable amount of work to dig through when I returned. re: I don't trust that groups of three would always make good decisions even if given time. (I see you expressed a slightly different view in a later post. My response is to this comment as it stands.) As to any specific group, one may question the wisdom of their selection. To doubt the wisdom of all the groups is to doubt the wisdom of humanity. If that is your position, there's little I can say to sway your view. For my part, I am confident that, allowed to individually and freely participate in the electoral process by expressing their views and questioning the views of others instead of responding to the mass manipulation of the media, the people will do so wisely. They will, because it's in their own best interest to do so. It is inconceivable that, when people are obligated to select between two others, their choices will consistently run counter to their own interest. It is true some people consider their interest best served by their bigotry, but it is equally true such people are an infinitesimal part of society. re: Still I see 'good' and 'bad' partisans. We need to try to make the atmosphere and rules such that the good part gets more power and the risk of the system escalating to strange paths is small. It is one thing to make such a statement. It is something else entirely different to make it happen. As I've said before, partisanship is healthy. The danger is in allowing partisans to gain power. We have far too much experience with the excesses of partisans in power to not recognize the danger. If you feel that politics should be based on partisanship, you should be happy with the systems extant. I don't, and I'm not. re: I'm sure there were people that felt something similar. Many people don't open their mouth if they see the mainstream appearing to go in some other direction that what they would take. That is, precisely and exactly, the point I've been making. I've absolutely no doubt there were many people who felt as I did. Why did they not stand up and be counted? They didn't because, as I said in an earlier message: ... there is an enormous difference between our susceptibility to ideas spread by that technique (i.e., mass marketing) when we act as a large group and our ability to evaluate the same ideas rationally when we are called upon to consider them, individually. You obviously recognize this, so I'm not sure why you resist the concept of a political system that allows people to consider issues, individually, rather than having answers, which they personally believe to be wrong, provided for them by mass marketing techniques. re: I think we are to some extent missing a commonly approved theory that would explain such phenomena where the current leaders may not take us into the right direction ... Perhaps you'd like to look my Partisan Politics post of Sunday, March 2nd. You may feel what it says is not commonly approved. I will agree ... as soon as someone rationally explains the flaws in the reasoning offered in that post. As I've said before (though probably not here), one of the earliest lessons I learned in life was that it's OK to be wrong. The error is in refusing to consider the possibility. Most of my ideas started out being wrong and gradually assumed their present form as I learned to understand why they were wrong and how they could be improved. If someone can provide a rational refutation of any part of that post, I'll be indebted to them. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics
Good Evening, Juho re: I may feel that in the long chained process some of the benefits may be lost ... In my view the long chained process or sequential nature of the group assignments add strength to the process. We know many people do not participate in the present system and we can expect a large portion of the people to be uninterested in a new electoral process, as well. The Active Democracy method allows such people to opt out. (Those who opt out of one election cycle may be eager participants in a succeeding cycle, or they may continue to opt out. Everyone has the choice, each time.) However, as discussed before, as the levels advance, those who advance can be expected to be marked, more and more, as people who want to advance. This puts the candidates in a position where they must convince others, who are as eager for advancement as themselves, of the reasons they should be selected. That is a powerful stimulus. It is also a powerful restraint because those they are trying to convince are also motivated and qualified. More to the point, the others also want to be selected, so they will not be an easy sell. Meanwhile, and this is a point not to be despised, those who did not advance can pursue their private lives in peace, secure in the knowledge that those still competing for selection will be very careful about who they select. re: It may be that in some time periods the 'science of and skills in marketing' evolves faster than the 'individual level understanding of these concepts and their impact on one's life'. Not, It may be, IT IS!!! When marketing can persuade people to buy Pet Rocks for their home, it is no longer a question. It is a fact. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics
Good Evening, Juho re: ... where the political parties break out from their simple role as groups of similar minded people and start exercising power outside of the role originally planned for them. That's close. re: The problem thus is that since the votes in practice are not secret bad mannered people like this drug dealer could make use of that. There is no requirement that the voting not be secret. I favor a secret vote but left that to be decided by others. As I said in the outline: They also need transportation and facilities for meeting and voting. These are mechanical details. re: Maybe the results of the groups of three will be published I think they should be. As I said in the outline, Furthermore, the names of advancing candidates are announced as each level completes. Members of the public with knowledge of unseemly acts by an advancing candidate can present details for consideration at the next level. Since, after the initial levels, the peers also seek advancement, they won't overlook inappropriate behavior. re: ... and in that case everyone can guess everyone else's opinions = better vote party x if you plan career in a x minded company. The three participants in a group do not represent parties, they represent themselves. When you vote for a person, you do so because you think that person is your best choice to give you the kind of government you desire. You may, or may not, know what party (if any) they belong to. Your job is to evaluate the person. If you are cowed because one of the people in your group is your boss (unlikely, but certainly possible) you will vote like a coward. If you have the courage of your convictions, you will vote for the person you think most likely to give you the kind of government you desire ... whether it happens to be your boss, or not. re: As you can see my concerns and possible improvements that I'd like to study are mainly in the areas of privacy of the votes and in proportional representation. As far as I'm concerned, the voting process should be secret. Obviously, if one person gets two votes, it is obvious how the other two people voted. Until then, I see no reason why one should be required to divulge their vote. Isn't proportional representation a party concept; the idea that one group of partisans should have a number of representatives proportional to their part of the electorate? As long as you think parties are necessary, you will have to seek that goal. The Active Democracy concept does much better: Each person elected represents the same number of people ... and I think people are more important than parties, by a long shot. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics
Good Evening, Dave re: What the parties do is more a response to the structure of government and the responsibilities of voters. Can you describe these two points more clearly? Do not the party leaders direct the parties actions? In what way(s) does the structure of government affect them? How does the responsibility of the voters figure into this. In what way can voters alter the course of a party? How, for example, would they have stopped their party from supporting the changes in the bankruptcy law? re: Take a look at the Electoral College. What would fit with what the Constitution SAYS fits with the legislatures appointing electors who, after studying such candidates as become visible to them, do their voting. The Constitutional theory was fine, but it was undermined at the state level. The critical phrase is ... after studying such candidates as become visible to them, do their voting. Electors don't study the candidates, they vote as they are directed by their party. That result flowed directly from the ability of parties to implement rules and pass laws ... at the state level ... that give them control of the electors. re: Perhaps their thoughts can move us toward a structure that gives citizens more actual control ... I hope so because that is what democracy is supposed to be. re: I see Fred's groups of 3 as too small for practicality. Can you explain why? The process is simple, understandable and straightforward. Why is it impractical? re: Let citizens choose and back members of the legislature's territory as legislators. Assuming a legislature would fit for each member to represent about 75 citizens. Then, according to backing: Right to vote based on quantity of backers, but getting an excess does not give more voting rights than 100. Right to speak depends on having at least 50 backers. Legislators at lower level legislatures act as citizens in next level legislature, with their strength based on quantity of real citizens they represent. Can you help me understand this more clearly? I'm not sure what you are suggesting. I tried to apply the math to my state but ran into a snag. My state had a voting-eligible population of 5,637,378 in 2004. Depending on whether they represented 75 or 100 people, that would have produced between 58,373 and 75,165 members. I'm not sure what you see as the next step. Given our present transporation and communications capabilities, I'm sure we could poll such numbers on all matters coming before the legislature, but I'm not sure that's what you have in mind. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics
Good Evening, Dave re: In New York, at least, the two major parties each do such as appoint half the members of the Boards of Elections. and also in regard to the related comments about party leadership, party activities, party business, state party, and county organizations. To me, this says the structure of government and the responsibilities of voters are what the parties say they are. I think that degree of control is pretty much the same in all the states. Ought we not question such an arrangement? Nothing in our Constitution grants such rights to political parties, yet they dictate all of our political activity. Do we see nothing wrong with that? Is that not, indeed, the cause of our political system's failure? Have we become so accustomed to partisan dictatorship that we can't see how destructive it is? re: In at least most states electors are not directed by their party but by party members in elections and/or caucuses. Yes. But what is the rationale for a few of our citizens ... the so-called party faithful ... dictating the actions of people who are supposed to, after they study such candidates as become visible to them, do their voting. re: You start with the size of legislature desired. If legislators should each represent about 750, multiply my numbers by 10. That's fine. The question I'm interested in, though, is how the legislators are selected. Who names the candidates? Would we not be better off finding a way to select them from among ourselves? In what way do we benefit by having them named by people who can control their votes? re: You had mentioned pr, so I propose THE VOTERS organizing themselves into the right size districts with no boundaries We have no means for the voters to organize themselves. The parties define the districts. It's called gerrymandering. It is an example of how the parties control our political process. These are the grave inequities we must find a way to correct. We can count the votes any way we like. As long as the parties control the process, we will lose. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics
Good Afternoon, Juho Again, I must apologize for my tardiness, but I've been away. The trip gave me an opportunity to consider the matter of secrecy in voting from a point of view that hadn't occurred to me before. Before describing it, I'd like to make an observation. Voting secrecy is but one consideration in politics. If the price of secrecy is a system so flawed that a majority of the electorate doesn't even bother to participate, I have to question the wisdom of insisting on secrecy. Even so, rightly or wrongly, the secret vote has gained considerable currency in our culture and should not be discarded without reason. As I said in an earlier message, I feel the voting process should be secret but I'm not a slave to that notion. While driving and pondering the relationships between the three people in a group, I realized 1) if a selection is made, the only person whose vote is unknown is the selected person's. 2) if a selection is not made, each person knows how the other two voted, because in a group of three people (A, B and C), if A votes for B, If C had voted for B, B would have been selected, therefore, C must have voted for A If B had voted for A, A would have been selected, therefore B must have voted for C This holds in all cases where a selection is not made. It introduces an interesting dynamic into the process. (Although I usually avoid gender references, I will use he/him/his in this description to avoid awkward phraseology): A knows C voted for him, so he concentrates his attention of B. At the same time, C can be expected to accelerate his efforts to obtain A's support and B will do his best to get C's vote. Fascinating. Even though the votes are cast secretly (so no-one's vote is known until after the vote is complete), the sessions will be lively. It wouldn't be surprising if the best and worst of our natures were brought out in the participants, to the ultimate benefit of all of us. re: It is however possible that a party structure will emerge (or stay) even if the method itself would not recognize any such structure among the candidates. This may apply to your method too. I think also you felt that this is natural and good if not too strong / power seeking. As you said, it is ... natural (and to some extent even unavoidable) that people do group together with other similar minded people. That will happen as naturally among those we elect to represent us as it does in the population at large. The huge difference is that those we select do not owe their election to those similar-minded people ... they were elected on their own merit. Their association with similar-minded people is voluntary, not compulsory. However much they may like those they associate with, they are not compelled to cede their votes to them. They don't need campaign funds, they don't need the party to get out the vote, and they have no obligation to vote the party line. They can be persuaded, but they can not be coerced. The difference between that and party politics is incalculable. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics
Good Afternoon, David re: How would you do better? Well, for starters, I'd ponder ways to empower the electorate by harnessing our nature and de-emphasizing partisanship. I'm sure there are many ways that can be done. You'll find an outline of one possibility at [Election-Methods] Selecting Leaders From The People Monday, February 4th, 2008 re: Somehow that is a disconnect from what I had said. Perhaps. I, too, sometimes get the sense that we are talking at cross purposes. My purpose is, and has been, to call attention to the dangers inherent in allowing two political parties to maintain a stranglehold on our nation's political infrastructure. I offered a brief overview of the problem in my initial post on this topic: [Election-Methods] Partisan Politics Sunday, March 2nd, 2008 Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics
Good Afternoon, Juho Is it possible you have not read my February 4th post, Selecting Leaders From the People? It describes an election method I call Active Democracy. If not, that may explain some of the confusion in our discussion. Throughout our exchange, I've been under the impression that you understood my references were to that election method. It was only when I read your most recent post that I realized you may not have read it. re: I note that you make the assumption that nobody will vote for himself. That is one of the stipulations in the Active Democracy concept. re: This might mean that candidate nomination is not done by parties. Exactly. Candidates are selected by the electorate FROM the electorate. re: ... financing is a problem area of its own. That is one of the strengths of the Active Democracy concept. There is no campaigning, none of the mass manipulation that characterizes campaigns, and no need for campaign funds. re: This might mean that party disciplinary actions would be forbidden. We don't have to forbid them. The parties will have no way to discipline the people we select as our representatives. re: I see this as careful finetuning of the rules to maintain independent decision making by the representatives. That is the goal. I hope you'll read (or re-read) the February 4th post. It explains how the method harnesses our natural pursuit of our own interest to select the best of our number as our representatives in government. It shows how the advancement of participants will depend on their perceived integrity as well as the probity with which they fulfill their public obligations. Now, a correction to yesterday's post about the dynamics of voting. My assertion that if a selection is not made, each person knows how the other two voted is not correct. It is possible that a member of the group failed to vote. In that case, each person's vote (or failure to vote) can not be determined by logic. Since selection requires two votes, if a group member refuses to vote, the group will be unable to select one of its members and will be disqualified. One of the benefits is that this taxes the members persuasive ability. Another is that recalcitrant people eliminate themselves from the process. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics
Good Morning, David re: I see an 'Election Commission' there. ... You're right. 'Election Commission' was a poor choice of terms on my part. Our experience with commissions in party politics is enough to destroy anyone's confidence that such entities can be objective. I could have used election clerks, department, officials, management, administrators or staff, just as well. Now that you've expressed concern about this aspect, it might be well if I were to describe the process in a bit more detail. My vision is that the entire electorate is maintained in a database and software creates the random groupings. The sole purpose of the staff is to maintain the database and run the software that assigns electors to groups. As each level completes, the staff updates the database to show the selections made and the new data is massaged to generate the groupings for the next level. Specifications for the software might include: * Group the electors geographically closest to each other, provided no group member has been grouped with either of the other two members in the previous 5 elections. * Elector(s) remaining after the maximum groups have been created are called Overflow. Overflow fill vacancies in groups caused by the death or incapacity of a member of a defined group. * If a group becomes incomplete because of the death or incapacity of a member and there is no Overflow available to complete the group, the remaining members become Overflow. * Overflow who are not assigned to groups (presumably one or two people) rise to the next level and must be the first person(s) assigned to a group at the next level. Except for preferring geographic proximity, there is no other consideration than random selection. The process continues until a target number of officials has been selected. * The database maintains a record of the group assignments for each elector. When an elected representative wishes to, or is required to, seek the guidance of those who elected him or her, the computer supplies a list of those who elected the official. * Elected officials may be recalled, but only by the people who elected them. The recall process can be initiated if some defined percentage (say, 10%) of those who elected the official petition for recall. The recall petition is voted on by each of those whose choices led to the election of the official and the recall is effective on a simple majority. re: I understand you would not have parties ... That is not exactly accurate. Parties may exist, but the process I've outlined is independent of them. Groups make their choices based on the qualities of the person they select. The qualities may or may not include their partisanship. re: ... but I have seen no mention of a magic spell that might do away with greed. The 'magic spell' is the desire for selection and the qualities we seek in our representatives. Each of us, in selecting someone to represent us, will prefer the person we believe will act in our best interest. The fact that we each pursue our own interest will influence us not to select an avaricious or dishonest person to represent us in our government. Those who wish to advance must be able to persuade their group (i.e., us) of their ability, intellect and integrity or they will not be selected. The magic in the process is our natural pursuit of our own interest. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics
Good Morning, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax Again, I'm not quite sure how to respond. Please forgive me but I seem to be too dull to grasp the point you're making, if there is one. While I believe humor is important in conveying ideas (however inept I may be at using it), facetious comments, without focus and which do not illuminate, impede rather than enhance my ability to understand. Perhaps part of the problem is that, although you sent your message to me, your comments are on material posted by DaveK. Maybe I find it confusing because you're not even talking to me. If you would like to exchange views on a point taken from either: [Election-Methods] Selecting Leaders From The People Monday, February 4th, 2008 or Election-Methods] Partisan Politics Sunday, March 2nd, 2008 I will do my best, because both will benefit from thoughtful analysis. Please keep in mind that I lack the mental capacity to consider more than one concept at a time. We will make the best progress if you explain your perspective on a single point and I respond to the best of my ability. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics
Good Morning, Juho re: The method introduces some clear benefits but also some problems. I'd maybe try to find a method that would keep most of the benefits and eliminate most of the problems. (There could be many paths forward.) I agree. We have many options. Right now, our best bet is to apply as much critical thought as we can on as many aspects of the matter as we can envision. It took 200-odd years for what De Tocqueville called The Great Experiment to reach its current state of disrepair. It will probably take as long before we learn to implement a more democratic form of government. Most of that time will be spent examining ideas. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics
Good Morning, Juho Very well said. I hope you're right. I hope we can improve our political systems in less than 200 years. But, as you point out, ... the current establishment always has clear reasons to oppose any changes. That will make the process slow, and, possibly, painful. You mention the growth of corruption as a possible alternative to the attainment of a more democratic government. There is little doubt of the cyclical nature of human interaction; a tide in the affairs of man as Shakespeare put it. Society constantly moves between states of high principle and abject baseness We can never know precisely where we are in that cycle. In fact, even though we are all a part of it, people's perception of the cycle differs. Not many young people can see the change from the human-oriented society of my youth to the corporate-dominated society we endure today. For most of them, It is what it is. They attach little importance to the obscure and arcane legislation that enabled the transition and are even less inclined to seek an understanding of how and why it happened. Is it hopeless to think we will ever look inside ourselves and learn to harness our own natures to the task of improving society? re: ... change will come when ... the citizens have some basic reason (dissatisfaction) to change the current system. One of our challenges is to prepare well-reasoned alternatives before any change occurs. There is a risk that dissatisfaction will lead to violence, and violence thrives on emotion at the expense of reason. We would do well to forestall that eventuality. Since our political institutions reflect our nature, do you think I should be surprised that so few seem willing to look at how our systems evolved? Are we so proud of our tendency toward partisanship that we're unwilling to look at how easily it is used to exploit us? Are we so anxious to say I'm right. You're wrong. that we won't consider alternatives? It is unfortunate that those who have written to me privately on this topic have not added their expertise to our public discussion. I'm deeply grateful for your participation which helps me see the issues more clearly. Your comments on secret voting led me to examine the voting process in greater detail than I had before. There are any number of other subtleties worthy of deeper thought. For example in a dynamic system of the type we've been discussing, some folks who are elected to public office will not be re-elected. In our House of Representatives in the U. S., we would be asking people to take two years out of their life for public service with no guarantee that they will not be out of a job after two years. Shouldn't our political system provide the means and the money for their transition to private life? Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics
Good Evening, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax I prefer to exchange views with you on the Election-Methods site. The way we select those who represent us in our government is critical to our society, which embodies all manner of people. To create an effective political structure I'm anxious to get thoughtful criticism from as many of those people as possible. After all, none of us have all the answers. I get the impression you disagree with my posts. Since my only hope of improving the method I outlined lays in learning its flaws, I would be gratified if you'd describe the shortcomings you see, so I may consider them. I rarely change an opinion just because someone disagrees with it, but I change it quicker than I change my socks when presented with a rational foundation for doing so. That's how I learn from those who disagree with me. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics
Good Morning, Juho Your I'm sure that is not the last meaningful step in the evolution of political systems. in response to my lament was a stunner. What a polite way you have of countering my expression of frustration. Thanks, I needed that. re: ... one needs to adapt to a situation where the main decisions and most powerful streams and even highest respect in the society will occur at a suboptimal level. I agree we must adapt to such a situation, for we have little choice, but I don't think we should accept it. The essence of progress is considering possibilities and alternatives, often to things thought immutable. On the other hand, as you say, People ... believe that their current principles (and resulting practices) are the right ones. They will fight against models that some other people may consider superior. I know. I've spent a goodly portion of my life at their forefront. In the final analysis, I think those of us who feel compelled to find a better way must do our utmost to be reasonable, seek the guidance of those with expertise, and carefully consider the thoughtful opinions of others. re: It makes sense to guarantee all the safety to this small group of members of the society to make it possible for them to fully concentrate in acting for the best of the society I agree. We should offer advanced education, career training and small business loans, and, possibly, salary continuation for a period of time following the end of their term. In addition, since the upper levels of the electoral process and actual service demand time away from one's employment, we may want to consider a law requiring that employers grant employees time to participate, without penalty. We do that for jury duty and military service. re: ... setting some limitations on their life may be sensible for the same reason. You are the first person I've talked to who recognized this need. My thoughts on the topic stem, in part, from my brief experience lobbying against the Transportation Act of 1958 (which passed, in spite of my valiant efforts.) One thing I learned was that it is well-nigh impossible to defeat the persistent access professional lobbyists have to our elected representatives, an access that fosters subornation. It seems to me our elected representatives are in service, just like members of the armed services. Like members of our armed forces, I think elected officials should be kept at a government installation and access to them should be restricted. The facilities at the installation should be as palatial as need be, with golf courses, marinas, and all forms of educational and entertainment facilities, but access to our representatives should be restricted. Those who wish to influence legislation should present their arguments, publicly, in the hearing rooms provided for the purpose. That should be the absolute limit of their interaction with our elected representatives. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics
And a cheerful Sunday Morning to you, Juho re: No need to have very strong opposing arguments ... Well, opposing arguments should be as strong as anyone can make them. Any weakness in an idea should be attacked and broken down rationally. Frequently, looking carefully at a weakness provides the basis for strengthening it. The result may well enhance the basic idea. In this connection, I've had the privilege of discussing Active Democracy with a gentleman in the U. K. This gentleman would prefer more Direct Democracy in our governments. He and I started out with widely divergent views and have narrowed the divergence considerably. One interesting concept that arose from our discussion came about through consideration of the treatment of Overflow: those voters who do not fit neatly into groups of the size in use (if you have 100 voters and set up groups of 3, what do you do with the person left over when you've assigned 99 voters to 33 groups?) I won't bore you with the substance of our discussion. Suffice it to say, it opened a new door in my mind. The point is that neither of us sought to prove the other wrong. Instead, we looked at the merit in each other's point of view and found a way to meld the strengths of both to sketch a better solution. re: ... the new theory must be given enough time and thinking/discussion so that people feel it is safe to jump into that new boat. That's true. Contradictory as it may seem, I'm not a fan of change ... we live in an era when the economic benefit of fads and fashion inundate us with waste ... but that doesn't stop me from suggesting change when it seems necessary. re: ... I think the new president, whoever he/she will be, has an opportunity to do something meaningful if he/she so wants and has the idea and strength. I agree the opportunity will be there but I've been through far too many of these changes in the power structure to believe they will work to the benefit of the humans among us. During my lifetime, I've watched the growing dominance of our government by vested interests and seen humanity squeezed out of our society. I see nothing in the present farce that will counter the trend. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics
Good Afternoon, Juho re: Unfortunately humans do have tendencies e.g. to win a discussion (and thereby make the others lose), to prove one's own viewpoints to be right, to believe that only one theory can be the truth, to believe that here is nothing to learn from points of view that are different than one's own. Not all humans ... only those whose ego exceeds their intellect. re: Maybe there is also a difference between maximizing the consumption of goods, and organizing the current system in some new better way (maybe sometimes making it more stable and/or less waste producing). Examining the economic effects of changing the method by which we select those who represent us in our government would introduce considerable complexity to the discussion. Even so, it seems likely that finding and electing the best among us as our representatives would soon put an end to the fake capitalism practiced in my country, where our laws increasingly foster the growth of financial and commercial monopolies. re: One might try to make some steps e.g. on the war related aspects (wider than just concerning one of the wars) now when that topic is hot. Prior to our most recent election, we had an enormous hullabaloo about the war. As soon as the election was over and those who professed their anti-war fervor were elected to public office ... presumably to implement the will of the people ... the topic disappeared from our political horizon. It is not wise to underestimate those who finance our political parties. They don't not act on principle. They corrupt both parties with equal facility. Nothing will change until we change the method by which we select and elect those who represent us in our government. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics
Good Morning, Juho re: Good rules, voting methods etc. are there waiting to be discovered and generally approved. And that is what we are attempting in this discussion. We are trying to learn from our mistakes. We have no shortage of lessons, whether of ideologies suppressing ideologies, nations dominating nations, tribes slaughtering tribes, or of religions exterminating religions. They teach us that antagonism begets antagonism. We are learning the dangers of political systems based on partisanship. We are seeking an alternative to such discord. We are trying to overcome the childishness of getting our own way by building massive armies, whether of voters or of soldiers. When we grasp the futility of trying to dominate our fellow man, we can put our minds to de-emphasizing our partisan differences. We can employ our reason to devise an electoral method that empowers the best of our people rather than the worst. re: (I need to add here that in addition to fighting against the rules of jungle we need to fight against the growth of bureaucracy (and excessive control of the system) too. In the US set-up this seems to be particularly relevant due to the discussions on the required strength of Washington.) Bureaucracy is an outgrowth of partisanship. Politicians make jobs for their supporters, like the former public official in New Jersey (and candidate for the U. S. Senate) who pled guilty to blocking an FBI probe into bribes and placing campaign workers on the county payroll. (Newark Star-Ledger, April 17, 2008). Over the years, the practice became so obnoxious that we passed laws to inhibit it. re: It is also true that during a war ... it is better to just work together and wait for the time after the war and then discuss what would be a good approach to the global conflicts. We did that in the 1920's and the 1940's and 50's. We had noble intentions but the institutions we created were dictated by partisanship. We live with the result. re: ... it might be good to find some ways to reduce the spending a bit (= better chances to all candidates, less dependences in the direction of the donators). The spending is welcomed by politicians and those who support them for the precise reason that it eliminates challengers. re: One could also try to arrange some more serious discussions about the policies (maybe more frequent, with less preparation) rather than leaving it to a free style marketing campaign. Yes, but how? I've suggested one method and I'm sure there are others. We need to hear them and examine them. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics
Good Afternoon, Juho re: I guess US is still a democracy in the sense that people can decide otherwise if they so wish. That is inaccurate. The only choices the people have are those foisted on them by those who control the political parties that have a stranglehold on our nation's political processes. re: Probably also the media loves the massive and long campaigns and the numerous intermediate steps (primaries, elections per state) on the way, and many citizens probably enjoy them too. Not as much as they (the media) love the political system that helped them achieve immense size and influence. re: It is a pity that the needs of show business may sometimes conflict with the needs of a simpler and more practical (and maybe also better working) political process. Is it enough to merely tut-tut the show business aspect of politics? Is it not time for specific complaints and specific alternatives? re: It is probable that the changes will take time and they may happen as many small steps. As I once said, about 200 years ... if we're lucky. As far as the many small steps are concerned, where do we start? Would it make sense to outline an alternative, analyze it, critique it, amend it and seek the guidance of other thoughtful people about how to improve the role of the people in their government? (I may be able to point you to an entertaining approach to this question in the near future. I have a friend in the U. K., who is implementing a neat idea.) re: As already said, if people want some changes, in a democracy they can get it. Not when all political activity is controlled and directed by vested interests. The only alternative available to the people is violence, and that's the poorest choice possible. Much better if we apply our intellect to seeking a solution. re: Much depends on how well the change promoters (as well as the opponents) can formulate and justify their proposals. Are you among them? As a promoter or an opponent? re: I also note again that people will roughly get the kind of system that they deserve. As an old saw, that one is pretty good ... but it fails to lay the responsibility at the feet of the people's leaders. re: Maybe one could consider better education etc. to achieve better results. We've had compulsory education in this country for over 150 years. Can we be sure the educational system is not one of the causes of the problem? Our local institute of higher learning has a substantial political science department. It does a nice job of telling students what's wrong with the system (I sat in on a course, last year), but it does nothing to encourage them to develop thoughtful alternatives. Should we be content to watch and, perhaps, smile at the foibles of our society without making a judgment as to the wisdom or rectitude of what we see? We have described how our political parties (in the U. S.) have taken control of our government, why it happened, and why it is not good for the humans among us. We have hypothesized that ... ... political parties are conduits for corruption. ... political parties control all political activity in the United States and are in no sense democratic. ... allowing those who control political parties to usurp the power of governing our nation is the antithesis of self-government. ... to improve our political system, we must find a method of selecting our representatives that is not controlled by political parties. Are these points offensive? Are they wrong? If so, in what way? If not, are they worthy of considerable intellectual effort to correct their ill effects? Ought we not stand up and be counted? How can we correct the conditions we presently endure? If we can't do it in our lifetime, is it not incumbent on us to start the process so our progeny has something to build on? Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics
Good Afternoon, Juho re: Maybe other viewpoints like the wasted money and problems of one-dollar-one-vote may have more impact on them than the interest to limit the size of the entertaining media event. Aren't you and I wasting effort focusing on such matters? They are symptoms of a deeper malaise. Ought we not seek to eliminate the disease? If you and I (and others) selected those who enact the ordinances and budget for our community, wouldn't we seek to insure the best resolution of those matters for ourselves and our community? Given the deceit we've seen partisans practice when entrusted with our affairs, would we allow them to decide these matters for us if we had an alternative? Certainly not! Ought we not, then, bend our minds to finding the means of making our own decisions about our own government, however distant such a goal may now appear? What else is learning from experience? That we have no such mechanism ought not prevent us from working on one. If, after using our best efforts, we find a better method than the way we currently elect people to represent us in our government, would we not then have a concrete proposal that others could consider, mold and adopt? What is progress but the consideration of alternatives, experimentation, and the gradual development of the insights necessary to advance? re: Yes. The starting point (or current point of interest since the process is continuous) could be in understanding/education since I don't see yet any clear public consensus opinion on what the correct direction of change would be. Can a clear public consensus opinion spring forth on it's own? If such a goal is desirable, and I think it is, is it not up to us to provide the seeds from which it can sprout ... and then cultivate and nurture them to the best of our ability? re: Violence usually doesn't help (since it may harm more than it might even theoretically help). I believe much more in seeking the best solution. I expect (healthy) people to be inclined towards adopting good solutions. Finding working and popular solutions is not always easy work. I agree, wholeheartedly. Given the degree to which partisan politics has embedded itself in our society, we should not expect to find working solutions. Even so, I have heard of towns here in the U. S. with non-partisan governments. I wish I knew where they are. Learning how they function would be enlightening. Violence is destructive and ultimately fails because it is based on emotion rather than intellect. When it is made to sound good, it is because those who disagree are vanquished and the winners write the history. If we are to find a permanent solution, it can only be done by a rebirth of reason. re: It doesn't set any responsibility but I think it may do pretty good job in revealing to the listeners that the job is not that difficult after all and the change is up to them. If people change opinions from Coca-Cola towards Pepsi that may have major commercial impacts. Changes are almost as simple in politics (and easy as well once people have made up their mind). If there is sufficient interest, some new paths will be found (not always in the correct direction at the first try, but people learn). I'm afraid I disagree. People do not change opinions from Coca-Cola towards Pepsi unaided. Nor will the people change their political system if someone doesn't seek out a new path and blaze a trail for them to follow. These things do not flow from passivity, they flow from conscious effort. Lamenting darkness does not bring forth light. re: Looks like a clear analysis. There might be some offensive tone in the sense that most of the statements point out negative things. People often don't find that tempting. Many tend to ignore areas that contain too much negative flavour. They may not want to buy that kind of negative stuff. People may need also a positive image of what is the alternative to the current state of affairs (a positive story of what people might achieve together). And, THAT, dear sir, is well-said. While it seems important to me to identify to cause of the problem, show how it took root and how it grows, my approach is, without question, a condemnation of the system embraced by the majority of my fellow Americans. One of the things I never learned was how to tell people things they don't want to hear. You've called it, and you're right. I can tell you, with great sincerity, that I wish I had the talent to do otherwise. Juho, I fear you may find the tone of my comments too aggressive. You have been unfailingly courteous, but I don't understand what course you advocate for resolving the political problems we face. Please forgive me if I seem inconsiderate. As I've mentioned before, the weight of time hangs heavily over me. I've no wish to be rude, but I am anxious to work on solutions, whether the one I've outlined or
[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics
Good Afternoon, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax I'm sorry I'm so slow in responding to your post. I am still, in my own somewhat ponderous way, reflecting on your message and considering a proper response. I will post it as quickly as I am able. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics
Good Afternoon, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax After considerable thought, a review of our prior exchanges, and several readings of your message, I can find no basis for rational discourse with you. You find me offensive and any attempt by me to alter that view runs the risk of reinforcing it. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics
Good Morning, Juho re: ... I'm more inclined to see the parties still as units that still get their strength and mandate to rule from the citizens themselves (and from their lack of interest to make the parties better and control them better). Although I (obviously) don't share your view, I will agree that the parties get their strength from the subset of the electorate that supports them. My dissent is based on (1) the fact that the so-called 'mandate' comes from a tiny subset of the electorate, (2) the 'mandate' results in destruction of the separation of powers intended to protect us from improper concentrations of political influence, and (3) it is maintained by the absolute suppression of alternatives. Instead of democracy, a tiny minority of the people provide the strength and mandate to rule that dictates the choices available to the rest of us. re: Strong emphasis on the regional representation and close contacts between the representatives and voters may to some extent also reduce the need to offer full political proportionality. We should consider the possibility that focusing on 'regional representation' and 'proportionality' are misleading. An electoral method that empowers each and every member of the electorate to the extent of their desire and ability is regional and proportional, by definition. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics
Good Morning, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax After studying your missive, it appears you make three points: Your preference for Free Association, your advocacy of Delegable Proxy, and your travails with Wikipedia. As to the latter, I can offer neither help nor guidance. I will, however, comment on the other two. Delegable Proxy The wisdom of delegating one's proxy in an election is directly proportional to the knowledge one has of the person to whom the proxy is delegated. In the absence of a clear description of the method by which one's proxy will be bestowed upon another, it is not possible for me to evaluate the logic of the suggestion. Free Association In suggesting government by Free Association, you cite the functioning of Alcoholics Anonymous as an example. I stand second to no-one in my admiration for that organization. To the extent we can learn from it, we will all be winners. As an example of Free Association, though, Alcoholics Anonymous does not fit the bill. Those who join AA are by no means free. They are driven, to the point of self-destruction. They join AA to avoid that terrible consequence. Those blessed by nature with not having to spend their lives battling such an evil, lack the incentive for such association. You may argue, and perhaps you do, that humans are addicted to self-gratification and should form an association to control that manifestation. If so, your description of how it's to be done needs body. Your assertions that the solution is astonishingly simple and is only forestalled by ignorance, cynicism, and despair are of questionable merit. By what yardstick can such a verdict be rendered? Whose profound knowledge makes that judgment valid? To say the people are ignorant, cynical and despairing must, presumably, include me, and I'm averse to accepting that characterization. Such a view is self-defeating. Voters are human. They react to stimuli in a human fashion. If they are lazy and ignorant, they have always been so and will always be so. Sermonizing will not change them. There are a multitude of reasons why people vote as they do. Party loyalty, name recognition, union membership, corporate influence, radio and television promotion, issues, and any number of other things influence how one's vote is cast. The fact that the result of those votes displeases us does not justify impugning the intellect or ambition of those who voted contrary to our preference. Those who control our political infrastructure are professionals and their profession is getting their candidates elected. Their job is to persuade the electorate to vote for their candidate. To imagine them incompetent at their trade is to grossly underestimate them. We need to look deeper. We have to question things we've taken for granted most of our lives because those are the things that produced our present state of affairs. If you still feel the public is ignorant, or cynical or whatever, and the solution is simple it would be best if we move on to another ... hopefully more productive ... point. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [Election-Methods] Partisan Politics
Good Evening, Juho re: I already commented earlier that the groups of three based method that you have studied does not implement proportionality in the traditional way. You're right. It's not traditional, but it sure is proportional. One of the unspecified conditions I intended for the 'groups of three' method was that participation in the election process should be mandatory, as it is in (I believe) Australia, Singapore and New Zealand. If every person in the electorate participates in the process of selecting those who will represent them in their government, there can be no greater proportionality. re: Large parties (or whatever opinion camps) tend to get more representatives to the higher layers (more than their proportional size is). Is that assertion not based on the assumption that large parties (or opinion camps) must dominate our political existence? What is, is not necessarily what must be. Partisan interest can not compete with private interest when private interest is given a means of expression. When each member of the electorate can pursue their own political interest, the sum total of their interests must always be the interest of society. When people have an opportunity to exercise their own judgment, they may be influenced by family, race, education, partisanship, national heritage, age, health and a multitude of other minor considerations, but none of these will override their vital interest in the specific issues of their time and place. If the preponderance of a community has a coherent desire, it will, given the means to do so, achieve it ... regardless of whether the desire is labeled liberal, conservative, or any other doctrine. It is a fallacy bordering on foolhardiness to seek the solution to societal problems in doctrinaire proposals. The difficulties we face, the wars we wage, the threat to our environment, are real. They require real thought, not the pseudo-thought of partisanship. Doctrines may attract adherents but they beget confrontations rather than solutions. That the concepts I speak of do not exist is a given. The question in my mind is whether we can look past the mind-numbing influence of partisanship to seek empowerment of the humans among us. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [Election-Methods] Partisan Politics
Good Afternoon, Juho re: Only on the (country independent) technical properties of the groups of three method. (If there are e.g. two parties, one small and one large, the probability of getting two small party supporters (that would elect one of them to the next higher level) in a group of three is so small that in the next higher level the number of small party supporters is probably lower than at this level.) The significant word in the cited passage is the gigantic 'IF' that opens it. 'IF' one assumes the entire electorate is divisible into two parties, and 'IF' those two parties can be shown to embrace all the interests of the people, it is easy to show that the parties will achieve power in proportion to their distribution in the electorate. But, to say that is to say nothing, for the assumption is faulty. It fails to recognize that, among the people, there are an agglomeration of parties ... so many they defy enumeration. Therefore, it is facile to suggest the technical properties of the 'groups of three' method will grant dominance to one party, unless one acknowledges that the party is society itself, in which case, it is (or, at least, ought to be) the goal of a democratic electoral process. It seems fairly common among those with a professional or passing interest in politics to base their assumptions and arguments on artificial delineations of human attitudes and to ignore the fictitious lines they've introduced, in spite of accumulated knowledge that shows such boundaries do not exist. It has long been known that people vote on the basis of bread-and-butter issues. They vote on the basis of what matters to them. What matters to the people comprises a long list and the components of the list are in a constant state of flux, depending on circumstances. The rank of partisanship (or ideology) in that list varies in inverse proportion to the intensity of the people's needs and desires. It is rarely, if ever, the foremost concern of the majority of people. We are surrounded by evidence of the declining influence of party politics on the electorate, not least of which is found in the reams written about declining voter turnout. In an essay about the voter turnout problem in Great Britain, a Jennie Bristow, writing on 14 April 2005, made these cogent points: The recent, in-depth discussion of the turnout crisis recognises that politics has changed - if the explanations for this change are somewhat garbled. It understands that people have real reasons for voting or not voting, and that their unwillingness to vote is a consequence, not of laziness or stupidity, but a more profound process of disengagement from formal politics. It accepts that tweaking parliamentary systems and voting processes is not going to make a fundamental difference. and ... until it can be established that people can make a difference to society, rather than simply exercising a narrow consumer choice, it doesn't really matter whether they vote or not. Ms. Bristow's essay is well worth reading. She offers an unusually keen insight into proposals for dealing with political problems (some of which are discussed on this site). You can find her essay at: http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/000CA9A1.htm If government is to be by the people, it must, by definition, come from the people. That does not mean telling the people what they want. It means asking them. Any electoral process that is not designed to let the people make their own decisions is not a democratic process. Having said all this, and recognizing your preference for party-based solutions, I wonder if we have reached the point where we will be best served by acknowledging that we have irreconcilable differences. I have genuinely enjoyed our exchanges and the challenges you have posed, but I've no wish to harangue you with the repetitious assertion of views inimical to your beliefs. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [Election-Methods] Partisan Politics
Good Afternoon, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax re: Mr. Gohlke, do you care to look at this? OK. Absent a specific definition of the group of voters to which you've assigned a ratio of 'p', 'p' can be taken to represent any group of people who have an identifiable political orientation, and 'x' is the balance of the electorate. Therefore, as you say, With many layers, as is necessary for this system to represent a large population the proportion of p rapidly approaches zero ..., which shows that ideologues ... of any stripe ... will be eliminated, leaving the non-ideological majority of the people to select the best among themselves as their representatives. That is the purpose of the process. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [Election-Methods] Partisan Politics
Good Morning, Mr. Lundell I'm sorry my response is taking so long, but I'm working my way through the link you gave me to John Stuart Mill's treatise regarding Mr. Thomas Hare's proposal. He makes the case for political proportionality admirably, although his antipathy for his country's Conservative Party forces some extra care in considering his arguments. It will take me a bit longer to compose my response. The temptation to cite segments of Mill's essay and comment on them is strong, but I'd like to avoid doing so. I am posting now to thank you for providing such a powerful link. I'd had a small exposure to Mill in a different context, but was unaware of this treatise. I'm enjoying his thoughts and his mode of expressing them. Digesting them is worth the effort. I commend them to anyone with an interest in the topic. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [Election-Methods] Partisan Politics
Good Afternoon, Mr. Lundell Thank you for your lucid explanation. It, combined with the link you provided to the J. S. Mill discussion of the topic, explained an aspect of politics I hadn't considered. At first blush, I have no issue with political proportionality. In fact, based on your example of seeking to represent a new or different view of the peoples' interest, it is an essential element of democracy. As I said in an earlier post, progressive movements always start as a minority. We are strangled when new views are denied a voice. By way of explanation for my lack of awareness of this important point, the issue did not leap to mind because my approach to the problem is from a different perspective. I am disturbed by the usurpation of the people's right to govern themselves. I am not a professional in the field of politics, my attitudes were formed by years of observation. Over those years, it has become increasingly apparent that the root of the political problems in my homeland stem from the stranglehold parties have on our political infrastructure. I don't think in terms of electoral districts because they, and gerrymandering, and primaries, and all the other minutiae of politics, are artifices foisted on the people to deprive them of their right to govern themselves. In time, I realized that when those who hold political power are allowed to write the rules by which that power is attained and exercised, one can not expect good government. When I started this thread on March 2nd, I did so with the following introduction: This site focuses on methods of conducting elections, but most posts address only a single aspect of that topic; the way votes are counted. Is not the object for which votes are cast a matter of even greater concern? When our public officials are not representative of the people who elect them and are masters of misdirection, obfuscation and deceit, ought we not ask ourselves whether there is a taint in the method by which they are selected? Ought we not consider the role of political parties in the political process? Thus, my thoughts (and my comments) are mostly concerned with calling attention to the inherent danger of partisan politics and to urge consideration of electoral methods that seek the best of our people as our representatives rather than allowing political parties to dictate who we may elect. Again, I want to thank you for broadening my horizon. What you refer to as a typical STV proposal for the California assembly has the incomparable merit of being possible in the relatively short term. At the same time, I think it important to continue calling attention to the adverse effects of partisan politics. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [Election-Methods] Partisan Politics
Good Morning, Juho re: I do have some sympathy towards regional proportionality since in many systems one could otherwise soon get a very capital area centric set of representatives (who appear more often on TV and news etc.). Regional proportionality may thus help guaranteeing that all parts of the country will be represented well enough. On the other hand voters that think mostly in ideological terms (rather than regional) may not like being limited to regional candidates only. That is, I think, the essence of the problem. When there are competing views, each with a reasonable basis, there is no 'fair' or 'complete' answer that will satisfy everyone. As you say, ... different countries and elections have different needs, but that argues against a generally acceptable arrangement. re: I also tend to think that any naturally occurring groupings among citizens are in most cases a richness of the society and they have a positive and trust creating influence on their members, and are therefore usually (at least as long as they are not targeted against other groups) worth supporting rather than something that should be rooted out. I quite agree. As I said in an earlier post, partisanship is a vital part of society ... provided it is always a voice and never a power. The danger is not in partisanship, it is in allowing partisans to control government. re: For me proportional representation of minority opinions (5% of the seats for 5% of the voters) at the top level decision making bodies is at least not a negative thing. Other approaches can be used too. In my opinion, it is unwise to seek a mathematical relationship between ideas and legislative bodies. Ideas, by their nature, cannot be measured or controlled. They are malleable little balloon-like things that bounce off people, sometimes adjusting their shape a little as they do so, and occasionally exploding on the jagged points of reality. Rather than attempt to apportion ideas, we should strive to select representatives who are receptive to them. It's a bit of a digression, but I've been wondering: When describing Active Democracy for a community the size of New Jersey, I did not attempt to carry the process to the assignment of candidates to offices. Our discussion leads me to wonder if, when a suitable number of candidates has been selected, the people should make the final election to office by ranking their preferences of those nominated by the process? re: ... one can not rule out the possibility of people asking each others what party/ideology they represent and then making decisions based on this (rather than always making their decisions based on the qualities of the candidates only). I would not want to rule out that possibility; it is such a good indication of the shallowness of the person asking. Obviously, since there is no such method extant, I can't prove it, but I suspect such people will rarely last beyond the second or third level of the process. As the levels advance, those with the wit and the will to attain office can be expected to evince a grasp of affairs far exceeding the facile one-liners of partisanship. re: I think this is a continuous (and never ending) fight. We just need to work all the time to keep the system sound and well working. It's a living process. It is, indeed. I was encouraged recently to find it may not take another 200 years to make significant progress. I had the good fortune to be introduced to John Stuart Mill's treatise, Of True and False Democracy; Representation of All, and Representation of the Majority only. It was written 147 years ago, so maybe we're further ahead than I thought. Even then, he was inveighing against the impositions of party: At present, by universal admission, it is becoming more and more difficult for any one who has only talents and character to gain admission into the House of Commons. The only persons who can get elected are those who possess local influence, or make their way by lavish expenditure, or who, on the invitation of three or four tradesmen or attorneys, are sent down by one of the two great parties from their London clubs, as men whose votes the party can depend on under all circumstances. The fact that, in 147 years, the remedy he favored has either failed of adoption or of correcting the problem, we would do well to look more carefully at its actual cause. We should soon start to recognize that The danger is not in partisanship, it is in allowing partisans to control government. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [Election-Methods] Partisan Politics + a method proposal
Good Afternoon, Juho re: One more observation on the risks. Some people may feel participation in a triad to be more challenging than dropping a ballot n a box and therefore avoid taking part in such challenging activities where they are expected to perform and prove their viewpoint. Are we to leave our fate to those unable or unwilling to express their view on the circumstances that govern our lives? There is no requirement that they take part in any 'challenging activities'. At the lowest level, they probably don't even have to go to a polling place or fill out a ballot. All they have to do is discuss their views with two of their neighbors and select one of the two to represent their interest. The extent to which they engage in the process is their option. The point is that they ... and we ... have the option. re: I haven't carefully thought what kind of method would be good for this purpose and I'm also not to familiar with the set-up. Insofar as the outline is concerned, you haven't had time to think carefully about the method and none of us know the form it will take. You apparently found aspects of my suggestion unacceptable. Therefore, it seemed worthwhile to encourage the development of a different approach. All I've done is take some of the points you mentioned and put them in a crude outline. At the moment, it can't be called a method. It will become one, if and when, we, by suggesting and challenging and justifying and discussing, gradually hone it into a semblance of a sound idea. To accomplish that, we must start by recognizing that there's no such thing as 'wrong'. Every idea is an embryo. Our job is to see to its nutrition. All we need contribute is good will, open-mindedness and a genuine desire to craft a sound electoral method. If we are able to do that, we will have realized the power and the promise of the internet. The greatest challenge we'll encounter is handling divergent opinions in a way that informs but does not detract from our joint effort. I'm not sure I have the wit or wisdom to arrange that gracefully, but, if we can make a good start, we can be sure others, more talented than I am, will come to the fore. re: I tried to offer nomination practices that would be 'equal to all'. Ideas for nomination practices are in the outline. They should be challenged, justified, modified and honed until we have an acceptable set of practices. re: There may be also other means to limit the ill effects of costly campaigning. Dave Ketchum has already made the outstanding suggestion that each candidate offer a resume of qualifications and aspirations. The idea deserves examination and enhancement. (I see you, too, approve Dave's approach. I need to include your comment in the outline.) re: In a democracy a strong and persistent majority opinion of the citizens (if one exists) should overrule the opinions of the incumbent politicians. An aspect of Active Democracy that may have escaped notice is: The process is inherently bi-directional. Because each elected official sits atop a pyramid of known electors, questions on specific issues can easily be transmitted directly to and from the electors for the guidance or instruction of the official. At the suggestion of my friend in the U. K., we are using this capability to improve the people's voice in their government. The change is so promising we may change the name of the process from Active Democracy to Inclusive Democracy; it includes the entire electorate in our government. Something has come up that may affect my availability to work on this project. I'll keep working as long as I can and will let you know if you'll need to find a replacement. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [Election-Methods] Partisan Politics + a method proposal
Good Morning, Dave I think I owe you an apology. Somehow, I failed to make myself clear. What I sought to do was put some marks on a board so you (and others) could tell me how those marks should be changed to create a sound electoral process. I anticipated differences of opinion and planned to seek the reasons behind the conflicting assertions. It was my hope that I could work out an appealing resolution. However naively, I believed we'd be able, among us, to devise a sound electoral process. I'd like to drop the whole thing. It was an unwisely ambitious plan. You might be interested to know I just learned of a paper written by Professor Jane Mansbridge of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. It concerns candidate selection and is the first work I've seen that provides an academic basis for the electoral method I've outlined on this site. If you'd like to read the paper, it can be downloaded without charge from: http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP08-010 Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [Election-Methods] Partisan Politics + a method proposal
Good Morning, Juho I haven't been idle. As a result of my discussion with you and others, it occurred to me we should distinguish between the process of selecting candidates and the process of electing those candidates to office. That idea gradually took shape over the past couple of weeks, particularly when I tried to encourage building an electoral process from scratch. The comments on that effort illustrated the need for atomization; reducing the elements to their most basic form. Part of that would be to address the selection and election processes separately. When, this week, I read Professor Jane Mansbridge's treatise, A Selection Model of Political Representation, it jolted me. I was amazed to find there was academic interest in the selection process; a topic that has occupied my mind for many years. The method I have outlined on this site is primarily concerned with selecting the best of our people to serve in our government. It is exciting to know scholarly work is being done in this area. Jane Mansbridge is the Adams Professor of Political Leadership and Democratic Values; Radcliffe Fellow, Kennedy School of Government. If you'd like to read her paper, it can be downloaded without charge from: http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP08-010 You may find it interesting. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [Election-Methods] Partisan Politics + a method proposal
Hi, Juho re: Yes, the new method has some properties that support this (i.e., replacing emotion with reason, flg). It is however not guaranteed that feelings, parties and other differentiating factors will not find their way in and play some role also in that method. You are correct. We can not guarantee the future. All we can do is use our best efforts (1) to insure there IS a future, and (2) accept the lessons of the past as we build toward that future. It is important to recognize that parties will not be dead. Once elected, representatives selected by the method I've outlined will form alliances to advance their ideas. That will happen because partisanship is natural for humans. We seek out and align ourselves with others who share our views. Through them, we hone our ideas and gain courage from the knowledge that we are not alone in our beliefs. Partisanship gives breadth, depth and volume to our voice. In and of itself, partisanship is not only inevitable, it is healthy. As a very good friend wrote me recently about what would happen if members of parliament in his country were selected by such a method ... When people in parliament form cliques, they (would be) building majority opinions on specific issues. They (would not be) bound by manifesto or indebtedness to backers. I would expect different cliques (to) form, in response to each issue raised. ... Before election, cliques are formed to get power, not to solve problems. When considering the problems of society, honest people will differ. It is essential that they should. We advance our common interest by examining conceivable options. The important thing is to ensure that the consideration is done by 'honest people'. The best way to find 'honest people' is to subject candidates to rigorous examination by other candidates who seek the same positions. An important factor bearing on the matter of inhibiting adverse factors is the dynamism of the method. As you said back in March, One interesting property of the proposed system is that current top level representatives, even if very popular, have a high risk of not being re-elected. That flows, not only from the filtering effect of the method, but from the fact that the concerns of the electorate can change considerably between elections. This method always reacts to current circumstances. Of course, as you pointed out, that implies a relatively high turnover of elected officials at each election. So, while that makes the system very dynamic and makes it difficult for rot to find a sticking place, it also makes it difficult for those who take time out of their lives to serve in public office, for they have no career guarantees. Such people must be afforded salary continuation and something similar to the G. I. Bill of Rights ... advanced education, career training, small business loans, and so forth ... to ease their transition back to private life. re: ... or if some single person simply dominates the process and makes the method reflect his/her personal visions (while expecting and reacting to comments from others). That states my case pretty well. I'm not entirely happy with it, for I really don't want to 'dominate'. I'm much more interested in helping. No one person has the wit and wisdom to understand and accommodate the immense variety of human society. Building a solid political foundation must, necessarily, be the work of all of us. Even so, I've learned a great deal from the interaction on this site and hope to learn more. I will, I happily admit, express my views with all the force at my command, but I treasure those who can identify, point out and explain weaknesses in my reasoning. I use those events to expand my views. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [Election-Methods] Partisan Politics + Candidate selection
Good Afternoon, Kevin When reading, did you see the [Election-Methods] Selecting Leaders From The People post from February 4th? A major impediment to selecting our leaders FROM the people is the role of political parties, and that led to the discussion on this thread. The cited post outlined a method of selecting candidates by sifting through the entire electorate. It is predicated on the fact that an individual's interest in politics waxes and wanes throughout their lives. It describes a method by which anyone, at any time in their life, may pursue an interest in politics to the full extent of their desire and ability. The method lets the people select representatives because of their individual qualities, rather than adherence to the dictates of a creed. It has the effect you suggest because candidates do not need party backing. They are elected on their merit. When I drafted the outline, I called it 'Active Democracy', but at the suggestion of a friend interested in improving the quality of those who speak for us in government, I plan to change that label to 'Practical Democracy'. He pointed out one of its great attributes is that it's a practical way to implement genuine democracy. I like his statement that ... The only radical thing about Practical Democracy is that it is actually democratic. I hope you enjoy the ideas and can offer a thoughtful critique. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [Election-Methods] Another Lottery Method for the Record
Good Afternoon, Forest I've thought about your proposal since I first read it the other day. I'm unclear about the human dynamics. The proposal, as later adjusted, seems to have a negative tinge; it relies on eliminating people judged undesirable rather than elevating those judged desirable. Am I wrong in imagining that accentuating the negative assumes those not eliminated must be desirable? Presumably, after the undesirables are eliminated, those randomly selected to make succeeding decisions will base them on the greater or lesser amounts of desirability of those remaining until, in the final stages, only the most desirable remain. Do I have the fundamental idea right? Does accentuating the negative provide an advantage? Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [Election-Methods] Another Lottery Method for the Record
Good Morning, Jonathan Thank you very much for explaining the purpose of the process. Except for mentioning my preference for a series of very small, randomly chosen groups of people (3) selecting the person they believe best represents their interest, a process that focuses on positives rather than negatives, I don't believe I can add anything useful to the discussion. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
Thank you for writing that, Brian Olson, I felt it but wouldn't say it. My impression, from trying to follow some of the discussions on this site, is that there's little, if any, interest in democracy. Instead, the esoteric schemes proposed here seem intended to empower minorities (factions, really) at the expense of the majority. Would that there were more interest in Dr. Jane Junn's admonition that we ... reenvision the incentives for political engagement to be more inclusive of all citizens.[1] Although there is an ample harvest of political commentary, it is mostly mundane. We will not improve our electoral processes until we step outside the common assumption that our political system is adequately democratic and start to establish a rational basis for considering alternatives that might better serve society. For example, we might ... 1) consider the working paper entitled, A 'Selection Model' of Political Representation, (By Dr. Jane Mansbridge, Working Paper Number: RWP08-010 Submitted: 02/24/2008, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Faculty Research Working Paper Series).[2] 2) ponder Dr. Alasdair MacIntyre's assertion that ... everyone must be allowed to have access to the political decision-making process to experience the internal goods that enrich society and benefit the community,[3] and Dr. Jurgen Habermas' description of 'public spheres' as places where private people gather and articulate the needs of society.[4] 3) study the Report of the Commission on Candidate Selection (a board composed of the leaders of five large political parties in Great Britain) that investigated why parties are not representative of the people.[5] (Mr. James Gilmour, on this site, called my attention to this report and I'm deeply grateful to him for doing so.) The cited material (1) offers academic support for exercising care in selecting candidates for public office; (2) provides a philosophical rationale for understanding that such a change would have a dynamic and significant impact on those who participate in the process; and (3) shows that political parties, themselves, recognize their inability to represent the people. As Dr. Mansbridge points out, trust in government is plummeting in most developed democracies. It is time to look beyond the platitudes that harness academic inquiry to existing political structures; it is time to consider the benefits that will flow from making politics a project shared by the entire community; it is time for objective analysis of the profoundly anti-democratic nature of partisan politics (in spite of the storm of calumny it is sure to unleash); it is time to show that democracy is not a vague, hypothetical state, it is citizens talking amongst themselves ... as in MacIntyre's community and Habermas' public sphere... with a purpose. Fred References: [1] http://www.tc.columbia.edu/news/article.htm?id=4479 [2] http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP08-010 [3] http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/p-macint.htm [4] http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/papers/habermas.htm [5] http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/downloads/Candidate%20Report.pdf Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] No geographical districts
Good Afternoon, Stephane Rouillon I, for one, find your suggestion original and elegant. You have described a simple way of dividing the people into districts, independent not only of their geographic location but of their ideological predispositions, as well. Candidates who seek to represent such 'districts' must attract the support of the entire community. They must be truly representative of the district they seek to represent. That is enormously different than the monstrosities we endure because of partisan politics. Thank you very much for a wonderful idea. It seeks to empower the people rather than any group. I fear it bears little chance of adoption because it protects no vested interest. The only way such a process will ever be adopted is if the concept can be made a topic of discussion, particularly among students interested in achieving a righteous government. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
Good Afternoon, Kristofer Munsterhjelm Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I understand and agree with you on plurality and two-party dominion, and their off-shoots, gerrymandering and the various forms of corruption. The difference between our views seems to be the focus on finding a 'better way' to count votes when (in my opinion) the real problems are the 'who' and the 'what' we vote for. Until we enable the people, themselves, to select who and what they will vote for, changing the way the votes are counted is an exercise in futility. Although you didn't specifically say so, I take it you do not consider the political duopoly right. Neither do I. But neither do I see wisdom in fragmentation ... replacing the duopoly with a multitude of smaller factions ... because it bypasses the vital step of studying the nature of partisanship and how it came to dominate politics, right here in the birthplace of 'The Noble Experiment': When the Founders of the American Republic wrote the U.S. Constitution in 1787, they did not envision a role for political parties in the governmental order. Indeed, they sought through various constitutional arrangements such as separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, and indirect election of the president by an electoral college to insulate the new republic from political parties and factions. Professor John F. Bibby[1] Even so, a 'party system' developed in the United States because our early leaders, through ego and to protect their own interest, used their standing to consolidate their power. Politicians in a position to do so institutionalized their advantage by forming political parties and creating rules to preserve them and aid their operation: The Democratic-Republicans and Federalists invented the modern political party -- with party names, voter loyalty, newspapers, state and local organizations, campaign managers, candidates, tickets, slogans, platforms, linkages across state lines, and patronage.[2] These features advance party interest at the expense of the public interest. They show how political parties are an embodiment of human nature; they put self-interest above all other considerations. They function precisely as a thoughtful person would expect them to function. Political parties are grounded in partisanship. Partisanship is natural for humans. We seek out and align ourselves with others who share our views. Through them, we hone our ideas and gain courage from the knowledge that we are not alone in our beliefs. Partisanship gives breadth, depth and volume to our voice. In and of itself, partisanship is not only inevitable, it is healthy. However, partisans have a penchant for denigrating those who think differently, often without considering the salient parts of opposing points of view. They seek the power to impose their views on those who don't share them, while overlooking their own shortcomings. Communism and National Socialism showed these tendencies. Both had features that attracted broad public support throughout a national expanse and both degenerated into destructive forces because their partisans gained control of their governments. The danger in Communism and National Socialism was not that they attracted partisan support; it was that the partisans gained control of government. In general, partisanship is healthy when it gives voice to our views. It is destructive when it achieves power. All ideologies, whether of the right or the left, differ from Communism and National Socialism only in the extent to which their partisans are able to impose their biases on the public. As close as I can tell, the discussion of methods assumes the existing political system, a system based on partisanship, is adequately democratic; that all that's necessary is a little tweaking. That facile assumption begs careful examination. For one thing, while the lack of participation that characterizes modern politics is often attributed to the many distractions of modern life, how many people recognize that public involvement in political affairs is adversely affected by the confrontational nature of partisanship? In all conflicts, from sports and games to politics and war, the significance of a contention is greatest for the proponents. It diminishes as the distance from the seat of the conflict grows. Partisan politics puts most people on the periphery, remote from the process. As outsiders, they are disinclined to participate. Politicians mask this indifference by creating 'hot buttons' that inspire emotional responses, but this is at the expense of the kind of deliberative contemplation required for healthy political debate. Adversarial relationships are the antithesis of deliberative relationships. Another harmful aspect of partisanship is that it subjugates the individual to the party. We laud those who,
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
Good Afternoon, Raph Frank Thank you very much for your comments. The material I referred to may have been extensive, but is not as extensive as a careful contemplation of this complex topic requires. I did not expect others to study the material. I supplied it for those who enjoy fresh points of view, rationally expressed. re: If there is a group that is always part of the minority, then that leads to resentment. The fact that a group exists does not entitle it to recognition or empowerment. If an idea lacks the intrinsic merit to gain broad acceptance, it is not entitled to representation. Those who would blow up the Statue of Liberty will (I hope) always be a minority. If they resent their lack of majority, it is incumbent on them to present the rationale for their point of view in a manner that gains adherents. The proponents of ideas must be afforded the greatest possible opportunity to convince their peers of the rectitude of their point of view but the conviction must come, not from deception and sloganeering, but from careful analysis and deliberation. re: The plurality voting system combined with mass gerrymandering is almost designed to make voting pointless. I agree. re: This is what is leading to a drop in the number of voters. In a sense, that's correct. As I indicated in an earlier post, our political system puts the public on the periphery. They have no interest because they have no role in the process (that's reserved for the 'party faithful'). re: The question is how best to decide how to vote. I disagree. The question is how we, the people, can select who and what we vote for. re: ... it might not end up giving everyone equal power, but at least it allows the groups to negotiate, rather than excluding certain groups from being part of the discussions. This appears to make the groups more important than the people. They're not. re: Candidate selection is certainly important. Control of the selection process is similar to control of the districting process, it gives alot of power. Precisely. And that power is used to the detriment of the humans amongst us. Diluting it will not eradicate it. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
Good Evening, re: The construction of organizations and their interplay in the domain of politics is, I think, more than anything else a process. I agree, and understanding the process is critical. Parties take on a life of their own ... and their life-blood is money. Their primary and continuing concern is to attract the support they need to insure their existence. Ultimately, support is and must be financial. Thus, parties are standing targets for the vested interests that benefit from the laws they enact. In the United States, this process has been running for over 200 years. During that time, we've seen the birth and cancerous growth of behemoths that owe their existence to the laws they've purchased from the people we elected, at the behest of the parties, to represent us in our government. As you say, it is a process, a process that includes gutting the laws passed after The Great Depression to limit the excesses of huge financial interests. As a result, this very weekend, we are pondering how we can prevent severe losses to foreign governments that trusted the integrity of our financial institutions. The aspect of this circumstance that is commonly overlooked is that the legislative acts that allowed the current contretemps were not seen to be ideological in nature. They were proposed and enacted as 'routine housekeeping' tasks ... just 'cleaning up some old legislation'. Since they were not branded as liberal or conservative in nature, both parties were able to support the changes without violating their ideological franchise, hence their actions were unchallenged. By far, the greatest proportion of bad legislation is purchased and passed in this way. Imagining that ideological differences have a significant impact on our legislative process is the height of folly. (In this connection, it is important to recognize that lobbying is a vital part of the democratic process. The evil is not lobbying, the evil is our failure to build an infrastructure that can forestall the potential for corruption inherent in the legislative process; the evil is our failure to devise an electoral process that makes integrity a valuable trait in our public officials.) re: The process is influenced by both external and internal constraints: what weakens and what strengthens. That's true. It is a process that, by the natural operation of self-interest, strengthens partisan control of our government and weakens the people's influence. That is NOT a good thing. re: ... multiple parties would keep any one party from gaining such dominance that it could trump through policy unopposed, even more so since the opposition of multiple parties would be stronger than the opposition of a single party. That is correct. The more we atomize the perspectives that combine to form policies, the less opportunity there is for single-party dominance. On the other hand, to be effective, opposition parties must achieve significant size and the larger they grow, the greater their susceptibility to targeting and subversion on matters purported to be non-ideological. That portion of the process is Darwinian, and, right now, the 'fittest' are not the humans among us. I must interject here that changes that weaken the stranglehold the two major parties exert over the political infrastructure in the United States are valuable. My opposition is to the lack of understanding of the process, the dynamics that produced the monster we currently endure. As you said, we need ... something with which to replace the old party dynamics ... but we can not find that 'something' until we understand how and why our present system evolved as it did and learn to harness the forces that guided its development. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] the 'who' and the 'what'
Good Morning, Michael Allan Thank you for your suggestion. I visited your site and must return to study it more carefully. My immediate concern is how candidates are evaluated. Do voters decide based on candidates' stated positions or is there a mechanism for examining candidates to establish their bona fides? Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
Good Morning, Raph Thank you for posting my letter. I suspect we are seeing the process differently. In my view, candidates can only stand for election in a single district and the only candidates the electorate will consider are those seeking election from their district: I'm Honest Joe, and I'm seeking election from the July 3rd/July 8th district. OK, we'll need a less cumbersome district naming convention, but that's the idea. I agree that, as you say, it is a 'pure majority system' but it is a majority of 1/73rd of a diverse cross-section of an electorate of 4,000,000. In such an situation, there would be no 'safe' seats. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
Good Morning, Raph I think that description is close to a sound system. Something not too different may be proposed in a community in England later this year. I have a draft of the petition I can send you, if you'd like to see it. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
Whoops! It was your entire post of Mon Sep 8 03:44:51 PDT 2008 I didn't cite it because I was responding to the entire post, which follows: (clip) One option is to select the legislature at random. Stratified random sampling would yield a highly representative legislature. The population would be split into N groups, such that each group is reasonably homogeneous and then 1 person picked from each group. This also reduces the benefit from corrupting the random process. Also, corrupting the stratification just increases the random variance, it doesn't actually change the expect result. Corrupting both means that you get to pick the legislature. This has the advantage that it eliminates the point in campaigning. Every 5 years, a group of people get a mail in the post informing them that they have been selected for 'legislature duty' .. though unlike Juries they would presumably be paid. The disadvantage (or advantage depending on your viewpoint) is that it leads to a legislature made up of average people. I have suggested that a way around it is to have a multi-stage process. The people picked at random are asked to select the 'person they know who they would most respect to hold office' and that generates a second group. The rule would require that the person picked is somehow connected to them, say friends or family members. After a few stages, say 10, the final group becomes the legislature. This should result in a reasonably competent legislature (assuming each person picks someone more competent than themselves) and the rule that you must pick a friend/family members for each link means that campaigning is pointless. This resulting legislature would then appoint the PM (or nominate 2 candidates for President) and approve any cabinet posts. The big disadvantage is that it is unlikely that a person would be re-elected. This could lead to short term thinking. OTOH, each legislator would know that he will have to live in the country after his term ends, so he won't want to mess up to badly. (clip) Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
Good Morning, Raph When I offered to send you a draft of the petition outlining a method of selecting candidates for public office, I planned to send it privately. After seeing your response, I asked the author's permission to post it publicly and he agreed. Here's the draft in its current form: (draft)(draft)(draft)(draft) P-E-T-I-T-I-0-N To the Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council Good Morning, Ladies and Gentlemen We, the undersigned citizens and registered voters of Sefton, in the spirit of Article 6, paragraph 6.03(a)(iii) of our Sefton Constitution, ask that you consider and implement our proposal to enhance community participation in Sefton's electoral process. We believe our proposal, which we call 'Practical Democracy', will make democratic access to our government available to our entire community. The process is straightforward and gives every voter an opportunity to stand as a candidate to represent the people of Sefton, based solely on their individual desire and ability. The method we outline in the dossier before you does not depend on the nomination of a candidate by persons who may have a vital interest in the candidate's election. It is a process by which the people of Sefton ... all the people of Sefton ... seek out and nominate the persons most representative of their values and aspirations for our community. The method does not rely on swaying the electors of Sefton with glibness or inflaming their passions. Instead, it ensures that candidates are examined by their peers, carefully, to determine their qualities and their principles. It creates a circumstance in which those who wish to become candidates for election must present a rational basis for their selection. They must explain their candidacy in a compelling manner ... so compelling that even those who also seek the same nomination find them worthy. In order to give the councillors an opportunity to study and reflect on the candidate selection method outlined in the dossier, I request that the Council grant me and my fellow petitioners an opportunity to return at the next Council meeting to respond to questions regarding this petition. If there are any questions, I will be happy to answer them. Otherwise, I yield the balance of my time. Thank you. PRACTICAL DEMOCRACY Candidate Selection By The People of Sefton Prepared For SEFTON METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL Petitioners: (List of Petitioners) FOUNDATION The people of Sefton wish to seek out and select those of us who are the most characteristic of our attitudes and aspirations and nominate them to serve as our representatives on the Sefton Council. The method we propose is democratic (i.e., allows the entire electorate to participate), egalitarian (i.e., gives everyone an equal chance to participate), and is in harmony with natural human impulses. We present the concept in the simplest, most direct way possible. We will, necessarily, suggest a few of the mechanics, but they are secondary to our goal of selecting those of our peers who are best suited to stand as candidates for seats on our Borough Council. We shall provide additional detail at the Council's pleasure. METHOD 1) Divide the electorate into random groupings of three people called triads. The random grouping mechanism must insure that no two people are assigned to a triad if they served together in a triad in any of the five most recent elections. 2) Assign a date and time by which each triad must select one of its members to represent the other two. If a triad fails to notify the Returning Officer (RO) of its selection by the assigned date and time, the triad shall be deemed disinclined to participate in the process. 3) Randomly divide the participants so selected into new triads. 4) Repeat from step 2 until a target number of candidates are selected. DISCUSSION The Sefton Electoral Commission conducts the process. It randomly selects the participants of each triad and supplies the triads with the text of pending ordinances and a synopsis of the budget appropriate to the group. In addition, on request, it makes the full budget available and supplies the text of any existing ordinances. This insures a careful examination of public matters and encourages a thorough discussion of partisan views on matters of public concern. For convenience, we refer to each iteration as a Level, such that Level 1 is the initial grouping of the entire electorate, Level 2 is the grouping of the selections made at Level 1, and so forth. The entire electorate participates at level 1 giving everyone an equal opportunity to advance to succeeding levels. Triad assignments at Levels 1 through 3 shall be based on geographic proximity to the maximum extent
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
Good Morning, Terry Bouricius re: ... I have long advocated a greater use of sortition (the selection by lot) to select legislators ... It seems to me the problem with picking people by lot is that it provides no means of examining them. I understand that it produces a random sample of the electorate, but why would it not be better to devise a means of examining candidates so we may select the best among them? re: I can assure you all that legislators are not more qualified, nor wiser, as Burke hoped, but rather simply less-representative and more egotistical, than average people. That's true and it is screaming evidence that our candidate selection method is flawed. We can, indeed, do better by picking people by lot, but that's only because the present system elevates unscrupulous people by design. We have, among us, many people of intellect and integrity. What we lack is a means of finding them and raising them to positions of leadership. We should make a conscious effort to select the best among us rather than settle for throwing darts against a wall. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] sortition/random legislature Was: Re: language/framing quibble
Good Morning, Aaron Armitage re: I don't think I expressed my point clearly enough: I consider that making the public the active agents in their own governance is a very major benefit of popular government. THE benefit, in fact. I think you made your point with great clarity. Those accustomed to instant gratification may miss the subtle effect of active participation on the participants, but that does not make it any less real. In The Political Philosophy of Alasdair MacIntyre in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Dr. Edward Clayton wrote: The benefits of a practice would then flow to those who participated in politics -- in fact, certain important benefits could only be achieved by political participation -- and politics would make people more virtuous rather than less virtuous as it now does. (A 'practice', as used above, is learning, using and appreciating the unique combination of skills and abilities that an endeavor calls upon.) Politics is about the way people interact. It is the means by which we derive the rules of society. The significance of the public learning to 'practice politics' is profound. It can not be accomplished by anything as sterile as selecting people by lot. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
Good Morning, Raph re: You have created a conflict of interests here. People who don't set aside their own ambition are favoured. Can you supply a rationale to support this statement? Since the human dynamics are the most important aspect of any electoral process, I'd like to understand the forces that would cause aspirants to set aside their own ambition. When a group selects one of three people to represent the other two, what human dynamic will thwart the natural tendency of each to pursue their own interest? Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
Good Afternoon, again, Kristofer Here is an analysis of the question of group size. Alternative views are welcome. Fred DELIBERATIVE GROUP SIZE and PERSUASION At the initial level, when the entire electorate meets for the first time to select one member of a triad to represent the other two, there will be three kinds of participants: (1) those who do not want to be selected, (2) those willing to be selected, and (3) those seeking selection. In any triad where all three participants do not want to be selected, the triad will not make a selection. Thus, among the triads that actually make a selection, the people who are selected will either be people who want to be selected or people who are willing to be selected. This is not to say that each person must be of one type or the other, but rather that each person will be somewhere on the continuum from those willing to be selected to those wishing to be selected. For simplicity, we will assume that the desire to be selected is equivalent to a desire for public office and that the people we mention as examples are at one end of the wish-willingness continuum or the other. The reality is infinitely more complex but the results will differ only in degree from what we learn by thinking about the kind of people who are at the hypothetical poles. We must also note that the attitudes we've mentioned may not be static. Although, generally, a person seeking public office is unlikely to become a person willing to serve, a person willing to serve might be transformed into a person seeking public office: [If person-willing-to-serve (A) feels person-seeking-office (B) is not a good choice, (A) may seek to persuade the triad that (A) or (C) is a better choice. Such an effort moves (A) closer to being a person-seeking-office because, if A will not support B, the chance that A will be chosen increases.] Based on this assessment, we can say that people who advance to the next level either persuaded the other members of their triad to select them or they relied on the other members to select them. The difference is the extent to which they used persuasion to achieve selection. In a pyramiding process of the type under discussion, it is reasonable to think that active seekers of public office will succeed more frequently than passive ones. Thus, after several iterations of the process, we can anticipate that each member of a triad will be a person seeking public office. Under such circumstances, the art of persuasion assumes mounting importance. Those making the selection want desirable qualities in the person they choose. Those seeking selection will try to persuade their peers they possess the qualities sought. When persuasion occurs between two people, it takes place as a dialogue with one person attempting to persuade the other. In such events, both parties are free to participate in the process. The person to be persuaded can question the persuader as to specific points and present alternative points about the topic under discussion. In such circumstances, it is possible that the persuader will become the persuaded. When persuasion involves multiple people, it occurs more as a monologue with one person attempting to persuade the others. The transition from dialogue to monologue accelerates as the number of people to be persuaded increases. The larger the number of people, the less free they are to participate in the process. As the number of people to be persuaded grows, the individuals among them are progressively less able to participate in the process. They can not question the persuader as to specific points or present alternative points about the topic under discussion. In such circumstances, it is impossible for the persuader to become the persuaded. Viewed in this light, we can say that when selecting public officials, a system that encourages dialogue is preferable to one which relies on a monologue. Discussion can best be encouraged by having fewer people in the session of persuasion. Because of the need for a definitive decision, we believe the best group size to encourage active involvement by all participants is three. Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
Good Afternoon, Raph re: A person who wants to be selected would try to convince the other 2 to support him, even if he thinks one of them would be better. This is the conflict of interests. Of course a person who wants to be selected will try to attract the support of the other two. That is how people who want to be selected gain advancement. As the levels move forward and the group members, who all want to be selected, interact with each other, the relationships become more dynamic. Each will be attentive to nuances they can exploit to advance their own interest. At the same time, they will gauge their peers. Their perceptions about each will run the gamut from 'absolutely not' to 'I don't think so' to 'maybe' to 'absolutely' and will shift as they gain insights into the qualities of the others. You said elsewhere that your ... big concern is the incentive to participate. I submit that the possibility of being selected or influencing the selection is an outstanding incentive to participate. When the deadline approaches, the group can make a choice or not. If they make no choice, none of them will advance, which raises an interesting point: If a group is unable to make a selection, doesn't that show none of the members had the qualities we seek in our leaders? If not one of the three could persuade two people of their suitability for advancement, how could any of them represent a multitude? re: Well, I made a suggestion. Have one triad judge the other. The 3 'judges' are thus not deciding which one of them makes it to the next round. That would defeat the purpose. One of the powerful forces that motivates humans is the pursuit of self-interest. Its influence is pervasive and affects both our economic and our political existence. It should be evident that the unbridled pursuit of self-interest is not beneficial for society. If we are to improve our political system, one of our first concerns must be to harness our tendency to pursue our own interest. That is the purpose of Practical Democracy. It does so by allowing everyone to seek public office, but creating an environment where candidates are carefully examined by people with a vital interest in the office they seek. The fact that the examination is conducted by people who also want the position is crucial. After all, who can we rely on to insure that a candidate's pursuit of self-interest is not detrimental to the public interest than someone who's own self-interest is intimately involved in the process. Who better to establish a candidate's bona fides than someone who wants the same job? Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
Good Morning, Raph re: (With regard to the suggestion that the process 'Have one triad judge the other'): Well, the person can still try to convince the judges, the point is that he doesn't act as judge of his own fitness. Basically, the six people would meet up and then after, the judging triad would meet up. This raises multiple points: First, self-judgment is not germane. The issue is not what we think of ourselves but what others think of us. Whatever we may think of ourselves, if we cannot attract the support of others, our self-regard is meaningless. As a practical matter, I would recommend that we not be allowed to select ourselves; our role should simply be to select one of the two people we're grouped with, or neither. Second, the remote nature of selecting candidates from another triad eliminates responsibility for one's actions. If one is inordinately aggressive in examining members of a different triad, they pay no penalty for undue aggressiveness. Conversely, if one is aggressive in examining members of one's own triad, that attitude will influence the others' selection. In such an event, there are at least two possible effects for an aggressive examiner: 1) the examination fails to reveal a flaw in the examinee and is deemed inappropriate, to the examinee's advantage and the examiner's disadvantage, or 2) the examination reveals a flaw in the examinee, in which case the examination is deemed appropriate and the examiner is seen to be perceptive. We sacrifice such nuances at our peril. Third, having one triad select a representative from another triad introduces an unnecessary level of complexity: * It is not clear whether a) triad 'A' selects from triad 'B' and triad 'B' selects from triad 'A', or b) triad 'A' selects from triad 'B', triad 'B' selects from triad 'x', and triad 'y' selects from triad 'A' The (a) option may raise questions, but I haven't considered the possibility in sufficient detail to be sure. The balance of this comment assumes the (b) option, which is deemed the better of the two: * The concept demands triads be paired, which requires an even number of triads. Since there may not be an even number of triads, we have the problem of providing an equitable arrangement for the odd triad. * If members of one triad must make a selection from members of another triad, there are three people, each evaluating three people instead of the proposed arrangement where three people each evaluate two people. This increases the evaluation load for each participant by 50%. Since there is a limited time in which evaluation must be completed, increasing the number of evaluation targets must reduce the depth and effectiveness of each individual's evaluation. Finally, we are discussing a concept. The actual implementation can be expected to differ from the design for a variety of reasons, some practical and some ideological. I will continue to provide a rationale for my perspective. Whether or not that rationale is compelling is for those who implement the concept to decide. re: ... the issue I was dealing with ... was for non-compulsory associations. If people don't have to participate (and everyone has to follow the law), then why bother. Although I personally prefer that participation be mandatory, I don't think it matters greatly. * If none of the three people in the initial triad wish to participate, they don't and the triad expires without a selection. * If two of the three people in the initial triad wish to participate, they can select one or the other to advance, or request a new third member to complete the triad, or they can make no selection, in which case the triad expires. * If only one of the three people wants to participate, that person can report him- or herself as the selection of the triad. If either or both of the other members of the original triad object to this default self-selection, they must participate to prevent it. In all cases, the original triad produces one selection or no selections. Since the goal is to find people who seek election to public office and then select the best of them, the process has functioned as intended. re: ... it would cause a stalemate if there was 2 people who really wanted to be promoted. The basic premise is that, after the first few levels, all members of the group really want to be promoted. That's why they reach their current level. If a stalemate results, it is productive because eliminates candidates who cannot attract the support of two people. re: However, if only one of them really wants to be promoted, then he is likely to win by putting his foot down. Is a 'no compromise' person the type that we want to get elected? How, exactly, is that person to 'put his foot down'? In an environment where we are free to choose, others can earn our support ...
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
Good Morning, Kristofer Thanks for the link. I'll check it as soon as I can. re: If the council is of size 7, no opinion that holds less than 1/7 of the voters can be represented, so if the opinion is spread too thin, it'll be removed from the system; but if you have an extreme of a single layer with PR, elected nationally, then the number is much lower. If an opinion is not held by the majority of the electorate, what is the rationale (from the point of view of a democratic society) for not removing it from the system? Holders of minority views who wish their view to gain ascendancy have an obligation to persuade the majority of their compatriots that their (currently minority) view is advantageous for all the people. If they can not do so, they have no 'inherent right' to representation in a democratic government. The problem of democracy is not to provide representation for minority views, it is to select representatives with the judgment and intellect to contemplate minority views in a rational fashion. The only reason this seems improper is that we have been subject to partisan rule for so long it's difficult to see beyond partisanship and the contentious society it produces. A wise electorate will realize their best interests are served by electing people with the wit and wisdom to listen to, consider, and, when appropriate, accept fresh points of view. re: ... each reduction of many triads to one triad has to, by some measure, aggregate minority opinion. I'm not sure the word 'minority' is proper. I think it would be better to say 'aggregate public opinion'. re: In the worst case, only the majority counts ... and the minority preference ... gets shaved off. Why is that the 'worst' case? This seems to lead back to my original comment on this thread to the effect that there is less interest in democracy than in schemes to empower minorities. re: Since the reduction is exponential, even more gets shaved off at each instance, and these slices may in the end constitute a majority. This assertion seems based on the assumption that because someone inclines toward a given view they are incapable of responding to any other view. People are not like that. Political views are a continuum. They range from one side to the other and from mild to extreme. The method we are discussing will reject extremes and advance people with a broader perspective. The attempt to preserve the 'slices' overlooks the improvement in the quality of the people selected to advance and their ability to grasp and be responsive to the advocates of those 'slices'. re: There's a question that has a yes or no answer. The concils are set up like this: L1 YYN YYN NNN | | | Y Y N | | | +---+---+ L2 YYN Here there are four ayes that overrule the five nays, simply because they're better positioned. If you look at the second level, it even seems like the ayes have 2/3 of the public support, when that is clearly not the case. One can construct a scenario to support virtually any thesis, but there's no reason to imagine such a result would occur throughout an entire electorate. Using the Church Ward in Sefton (from the Practical Democracy description) as an example, there are 9,000 people in the ward. At level 1, they constitute 3,000 triads. If the N's have the 5 to 4 advantage shown in your example, there are 5,000 N's and 4,000 Y's in the ward. It is difficult to describe a circumstance that would produce a result with a preponderance of Y's. re: one should take into consideration Parkinson's observation about committees of varying size I shall attempt to digest the Parkinson idea. re: ... the least minority that can end up with a majority of the final triad 'representatives' is one that holds an opinion shared by 13.4% of the people. I do not believe that to be true. Opinions, like ideologies, are only Y/N at the extremes. The vast majority of people are not at the extremes. Their views vary in intensity and change with circumstances. Ideas and opinions are not static, lifeless things. They are the essence of humanity. In terms of the Practical Democracy we're discussing, the rawest, tiniest seed can be implanted in an individual at a low level, germinate in succeeding levels, be tested in later levels, and appear full-grown in the final phase. Indeed, that very development may be a prime factor in the individual's advancement. To imagine that, because humans have opinions, they must bear them like crosses their whole lives (or throughout an election cycle) is a grievous error. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
Good Afternoon, Raph re: However, under your system, they (minority views) do get represented in the level 1 triads. What they lose is the having high level representatives. Ah. Now we're at the crux of the matter ... Whether or not a minority view retains high level representatives depends on how well the holder of the minority view is able to persuade others of the validity and desirability of the minority view. The system guarantees that each and every view will have an audience, but nothing, absolutely nothing, can make that view worthy of representation except compelling advocacy. re: However, since your proposal is for a council rather than the Parliament, then this is not as much an issue. The proposal I posted was drafted for a specific Council. The concept is equally appropriate for selecting representatives for any legislature. re: The worst case is that all except a minority view gets removed. Can you explain how that could occur? A dedicated minority could easily take control of the system. This doesn't necessarily mean that they are organised, just a bloc that holds a strong viewpoint. A dedicated religious group could fall into that category. If they represented 25% of the population and used a veto any appointment unless you are selected strategy, then they would be well represented in the next stage. The odds of a triad having at least one of them is 58%. Assume that half of them get through and the other half they veto, then they will represent 29% in the 2nd round. The remaining 41% will be people outside the bloc (though maybe lower as there could be vetoes there too). 29 out of 71 is 41%, so they have increased their share from 25 to 41% (65% increase). In round 2, 41% gets them a member in 79% of the triads. Assuming the same results, that gives them 39.5% through against 21% other. Thus in 2 steps they have a 65% majority. Repeated over 10 rounds would increase their share to nearly 100%. Now this is also true with standard election methods. People can stand for election on false pretenses and then do things that are not supported by the public. However, the more levels, the more chance of it happening. That's subjective. The math is neither objective nor reasonable. The argument based on the concept of a 'veto' is invalid. In a triad, it takes two to make a selection. If a zealot refuses to agree to a selection (i.e., 'vetoes' it) the triad will be unable to make a selection (I cannot believe rational people will vote for a zealot who refuses to participate). If there is no selection the bigot cannot advance. Triads are made up of human beings intent on finding the best of their number to act as their representatives. To suggest they will select bigots is preposterous. The reality is that bigots, religious or otherwise, will be the first eliminated, for there is nothing more offensive to humans than zealotry they don't share. Perhaps the most misleading point in the foregoing citation is the failure to recognize that we're talking about real, breathing human beings; people of intellect and judgment; the kind of people we interact with, every day of our lives. We may not agree with all of their views, but we must acknowledge that they are capable of reason. If not, homo sapiens isn't very sapient. re: One possible solution to this would be to have the six people meet and then have one triad judge the other. If the rationale I've presented opposing this notion is inadequate, the implementors may agree with you. re: My original suggestion was for a chain. I missed that. Sorry. Mea culpa. re: ... there is the same problem is the population is not divisible by 3. That issue is addressed in the proposal: Level 2 is a special case. If the number of candidates does not divide equally into triads, any candidates remaining are overflow. When there is overflow from Level 1, the extra person(s) automatically become candidates at Level 2. Thereafter, when there is overflow at any level, the number of people needed to create a full triad are selected at random from the people who were not selected at the previous level. re: (Since there is a limited time in which evaluation must be completed, increasing the number of evaluation targets must reduce the depth and effectiveness of each individual's evaluation.) I don't really see that as a major issue. Failure to see this as a major issue is a serious concern. The purpose of Practical Democracy is to give us an opportunity to evaluate the people who will represent us in our government. We don't know these people, yet we are going to entrust them with our future. It is imperative that we evaluate our choices. We may not always get it right, but if we have the time and the exposure to them, we can do a lot better than we've been doing. We are enduring a
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
Good Afternoon, Kristofer re: The rationale (for protecting an opinion not held by the majority of the electorate) is that it enables compromise. I submit that the essence of the Practical Democracy concept is compromise. Three people, exchanging views on a variety of public issues and choosing the spokesperson who most closely represents the attitudes of the group, will work out to the best solution possible. In most cases, 'n' won't win, and neither will 'y'. Instead, superior alternatives will be found. re: The compromise on a national level might be different from the compromise on a local level, meaning that the entire spectrum should be preserved to the extent that it is possible. That is an implementation concern. The original draft of the concept was done for the State of New Jersey (US) using the 2004 voting-eligible population of 5,637,378 people. It anticipated that, at certain levels, those not selected to advance to state or national offices would constitute a parallel process for local and county offices. The issue was not seeking ideological representation but selection of the best, brightest and most trustworthy people for public office. re: Otherwise, you can get effects similar to primaries where the primary electors elect those that are a compromise within their own ranks, and then the general election turns out to have candidates that are more extremely placed than the voters. I don't believe the methods are comparable in any way. Parties control the selection of candidates for public office. They are chosen for their bias and their lack of integrity, not for their ability to serve the public interest. That creates a situation in which corruption is inevitable. re: (A wise electorate will realize their best interests are served by electing people with the wit and wisdom to listen to, consider, and, when appropriate, accept fresh points of view.) Yes, but to do so, they need the big picture. Anyone who achieves selection to, for example, our Congress, is guaranteed, not only to have 'the big picture' but to be able to enunciate it in so compelling a manner that even those who seek the same seat are convinced. If the selected person is deficient in any way, the others will be sure the weakness is made clear before the choice is made. re: What I meant is that even if you could magic up an election method, there will be som reduction of minority opinion. There simply isn't enough room in a 200-seat legislature (to use example numbers) to perfectly represent opinions that are held by less than a 200th of the people ... That is a fact. We must keep in mind that we elect the 200 people in that legislature because we want them to make the best decisions for the entire electorate regarding issues that arise during their term. If an issue arises that affects a minority we want them to consider the matter carefully and arrive at the best resolution possible for all of us ... regardless of anyone's ideology. re: ... if the method tries, then some opinion held by a greater share will suffer. On this I think we agree ... We do. re: The majority /of that council/. That need not be the majority of the people at large. If the real majority is thinly spread, it can get successively shaved off until nothing remains. That may be. I haven't examined the point carefully because my focus is on electing better decision makers. There is no doubt that there will be issues that are not clear-cut. To resolve them, we need to change the way we maintain our laws. I could describe one way of doing so but would rather not digress unless you consider it important. re: ... if a candidate says Okay, I'll try to compromise and gets the votes of the rest of the triad, and then escalate, then what's keeping the candidate from turning on his promise? Presumably you'd expect most people to be honest, but there's still an uncertainty, and that uncertainty appears at every level. That is, and will always be, a risk in representative government. As I said in the outline: This is a distillation process, biased in favor of the most upright and capable of our citizens. It cannot guarantee that unprincipled individuals will never be selected ... such a goal would be unrealistic ... but it does insure that they are the exception rather than the rule. re: Majority flip frac is the fraction of the times that the last triad had a majority for one position where that position was in a minority among the people. Wah! Ya got me! Awww, I'm joking. I confess that I don't understand the math involved but I think I've got a slight glimmer of the picture. Let me also say this. I REALLY wish I could work with math like that. What little I can see in what you've done is exciting. I guess
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
Good Morning, Raph re: My concern would be that their opinions would be dismissed out of hand. If there is nobody pushing them at a national level, then that is an almost instinctive reaction to weird ideas (including 'good' weird ideas). Any opinion that can be dismissed out of hand, should be. Even a 'good' weird idea must have enough appeal to inspire thought. re: Well, would be worth seeing if it works at the council level first. I agree. That's why I was helping with the draft for the Sefton Borough Council. Will it cause a ripple? I dunno. re: (About explaining the worst case, where all except a minority gets removed), Ahh, I did with the religious minority? As I said in my response to that explanation, the reasoning is seriously flawed. It is based on the idea that an individual can 'veto' any selection except his own. That's a losing proposition because it prevents the individual's advance. It is not a strategy by which any ideology, however rabid, can gain power. re: The question comes down to how well the 'Veto anyone else being promoted' works. and the strained rationale that follows: The entire derivation leading to A 10.41% minority would take 10 rounds to be virtually 100% and 6 rounds to have a majority. is based on irrational assumptions. I recognize the need to find a hole in the concept, but a concerted ideological attack isn't one of them. The proposal atomizes all ideologies, the 'good' ones and the 'bad' ones, and forces their detailed examination. re: (with regard to a zealot), He says nothing about his veto plan, and then at the end if he can't get through he vetoes. That is roughly equivalent to a suicide bomber. Fortunately for all of us, such people are but an infinitesimal portion of our society (although they do damage in excess of their number.) Note that the process prevents the zealot from affecting more than two people. The effect, for them, is bad, but they have two things in their favor: They have an opportunity to convert the zealot to a different view and they have the knowledge that elections are a repetitive process. They'll have another chance. re: (with regard to whether a zealot could advance), Would people see through him? That depends on his talent for obfuscation and deceit and the perceptiveness of his peers. We currently endure a system that elevates unscrupulous people by design. They are masters of deceit and obfuscation. Were they subjected to the critical examination proposed in Practical Democracy, very few would attain public office. As I said in the outline (and to Kristofer Munsterhjelm, the other day): This is a distillation process, biased in favor of the most upright and capable of our citizens. It cannot guarantee that unprincipled individuals will never be selected ... such a goal would be unrealistic ... but it does insure that they are the exception rather than the rule. re: It would depend on how the voting works. That will be an implementation matter. In my opinion, the three people in a triad, after due deliberation, will either be able to say 'We've agreed on a candidate' or 'We cannot agree on a candidate'. I'm not sure more should be required. re: You could assume that a person from a religious group was going to be a zealot. One should not assume anything. That is particularly true when the process provides an opportunity to examine the person and determine the extent of their zealotry. re: Reason is both the problem and solution here. Reason sets up the system and reason tries to find ways to abuse it. And, that, dear Raph, is a very astute observation. No system is impervious to corruption. That's why it's important to probe for weaknesses in the proposal ... as you've been doing. re: ... I was just responding to the suggestion that having pairs of triads would cause a problem if there was an uneven number of triads. It seems the same solution could apply. That's a good point. I should have seen it ... but didn't. re: ... the increase from 2 to 3 people isn't a major increase. If people can handle 2, then they can handle 3. I don't agree. Oh! I agree they can handle 3, but I don't agree they can be as detailed or thorough in their evaluation. It takes time and attention to gain insight into another person's nature. The amount one devotes to the task affects the depth of their understanding. First impressions are slowly validated or rejected over time, and the greater the time the more accurate the assessment (and the less chance a zealot will slip through). re: The point was that the number of triads that end up in a stalemate would increase as the number of rounds pass. This is a good thought. The circumstances set up interesting dynamics. Since those who advance will be people with a strong desire for public office,
Re: [EM] Feeling left out in Sefton
Good Morning, Michael (First of all, I just found a message from you to me on September 8th. I ran across it by accident. I apologize for missing it. Perhaps it would be better if you clicked on the link with my name at the very top of my posts. When you do that your message comes to me by email. I'll try to respond to the September 8th message as soon as I can. flg.) re: Could the method leave electors feeling left out? Suppose I � am an elector. I participate in a level 1 triad, but go no � further. The decision process then bubbles up through the � higher triads. This takes about 3 months. During this � period, can I have any influence on the outcome? Those who do not advance beyond the lowest levels no longer � influence the selection process. Some, as you suggest, may feel � 'left out', particularly since our interest in politics waxes and � wanes throughout our lives. That feeling may, and should, spur � us to try harder in the next election. Some may not have the � talent to advance beyond the lower levels, but, some will hone � their skills, advance, and become leaders. The important thing is that they have the opportunity. (I'm adding a footnote on this topic.) re: My concern is a feeling of distance. Mass voting gave me � immediacy and equality (however illusory). We all had a � single vote, and we decided the issue in a day. Suppose � detractors are harping on this very point. Can the new � process stand up to their attacks? If it is not popular, � it will fail. The parenthetical expression 'however illusory' is a serious � reservation. As much as some people get a sense of immediacy and � equality, others are alienated by being called upon to vote on � people and issues chosen by others. That is one of the reasons � for the lag in voter turnout. I don't think it's widely recognized (except by political � professionals), but public involvement in political affairs is � adversely affected by the confrontational nature of partisan � politics. The significance of adversarial relationships is � greatest for the principals. Thereafter, it diminishes as the � distance from the adversaries grows. This is evident in all � conflicts from sports and games to politics and war. Partisan � politics puts most people on the periphery, remote from the � process. Their interest lags and they don't participate. The � only way to raise the interest of the people on the periphery is � to make them part of the process. Footnote: There is a possible exception to the exclusion for those at the � upper levels who do not advance. The proposal, as prepared for � the Sefton Municipal Council, is for the selection of candidates � for the council. The original proposal is more extensive. It � includes the following: The public has a tendency to think of elections in terms of � just a few offices: a congressional seat, a senate race, and � so forth. There are, however, a large number of elected � officials who fill township, county, state and federal � offices. The structure outlined here provides qualified � candidates for those offices, as follows: At a predefined level (determined by the number of offices � to be filled), the two candidates not selected to advance � to the next level move into a parallel process leading to � selection for offices; first in the local, then the � county, then the state, and, finally, the national � governments. An additional provision, suggested by a colleague but not yet � added to the text of the proposal, is that those not selected at � the uppermost levels become a pool of validated candidates from � which appointive offices must be filled. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
Good Morning, Raph re: The principle is that if you can't advance (best case scenario), then just make sure nobody else advances (2nd best scenario). Fortunately, people who would pursue such a course are rare. The majority of humans are rational, reasonable people. They have to be, for society could not exist otherwise. re: I doubt you could convert a zealot by a 20 min conversation. Even at the lowest level in the proposal, triads have five days to make a selection. re: (with regard to We can anticipate considerable tension in the later triads, and that gives the participants an opportunity to gauge the others' grace under fire. That's a significant benefit of the method.) Alternatively, if might mean that the final council ends up with quite a large range of sizes. I have no idea what you are trying to say. What 'range of sizes' are you referring to? Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] the 'who' and the 'what'
Good Afternoon, Michael This is in response to your message to me on September 8th. You describe what you have in mind via at least one level of abstraction and, for me, that adds a degree of difficulty. For example, and please forgive me obtuseness, I don't understand your closing paragraph: The point of my post is that we can actually do this today. It opens up an interesting question. In your own words: Would the voters be deciding on the 'who' and the 'what' in the form of candidates for the ballot, and norms for action? Or would they really (as McLuhan might suggest) be deciding on the whole electoral system? I believe you are referring to the mechanism on your site, but, even so, I don't understand the question. I have suggested that voters select nominees by meeting in triads and selecting one of their number to represent them. I'm unclear about how, exactly, you suggest that should or will occur. It's possible you have described these details on other threads and I missed them. If so, I apologize. I lack the time to digest all the material on this site, but do try to be thorough in any discussions I join. re: The elections are themselves an evaluative medium. Can that be true? When voting is based on media-disseminated obfuscation, deception and hyperbole, and when public susceptibility to such distortions are so well understood that spin doctors control the flow of information to the public, how can the resulting elections be evaluative of aught but the propagandists? Are the circumstances in which we find ourselves (in the United States) not proof of the fallacy of that point of view? re: The same communication channels that traffic in information about ordinary elections are also available for open elections. So voters have access to mailing lists and chat networks, blogs and broadcast media. They can use these media to share information and arguments about the candidates. At the risk of belaboring the point, these are precisely the means that foisted Weapons of Mass Destruction upon us and gave us our present crop of politicians. I'm surprised so few people recognize how the principles laid down by Pavlov, B. F. Skinner and a host of other behavioral scientists are used by our leaders (political and commercial) to milk us like cows. Mass communications is their tool and they are expert in its use. If we are to improve our electoral systems, one of our first concerns must be to find a candidate evaluation mechanism that goes deeper than the emotion-inspiring fluff we're fed by the media. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Feeling left out in Sefton
Good Morning, Michael (your message of Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:29:35) re: My recommendation was therefore to set up an *alternative* electoral system in parallel with the existing systems (primary and principal). It would give electors a different means of selection. Their participation in one system or another would then inform us which they preferred. The current plan is to present the petition as an additional method of nominating candidates. Since it is a new and different approach, we make no attempt to anticipate the rate at which it will be embraced. Novel ideas are necessarily and properly slow of adoption. My own guess is that it will take 200 years for the concept to achieve broad approval. However slow adoption may be, though, it is important that the concept become a matter of public discussion. re: Their participation in one system or another would then inform us which they preferred. There is nothing to prohibit participation in other nominating processes. re: Election implies evaluation. I understand the point you are making, and, in a limited sense, think it valid. My reservation, stated more clearly, is with the quality of the evaluation. One can not make sound evaluations based only on the assertions of those with a vested interest in guiding one's choice. Absent the knowledge that a candidate has been carefully examined, in detail, over time, by critical observers, evaluations can not be worth much. We need look no further than the lack of quality among politicians to grasp the significance of this rather obvious point. re: The winners of the level one triads become the candidates for level two. So your own practical democracy is a case in which the 'elections are themselves an evaluative medium'. Absolutely ... and the evaluation is 'up close and personal'. That is the purpose of the process. (While the choices made at each level can be called 'elections', I prefer the term 'selections' to avoid confusion with the actual 'election to public office', which occurs after the evaluation phase is complete. Whichever term you prefer, the purpose of triads is to evaluate candidates.) re: It is not correct to say that 'mailing lists and chat networks, blogs and broadcast media' were the means by which the U.S. political establishment was duped. It was not (just) the U. S. political establishment which was duped, it was the people of the United States and many of the people of the world. Mailing lists, chat rooms, and blogs were of little assistance in exposing the truth. I believe you are attempting to develop a more intellectual approach to the use of the internet. I hope it is successful. re: It is correct to say that broadcast (mass) media were used in George Bush's campaign. They were also used in Bill Clinton's And ... Do not both instances scream the need for a better way to select candidates for public office? re: You mentioned the name of Habermas in a previous post. Have you read his 'Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere'? I have not. I've only read references to it. re: If his (Habermas') thesis is correct, then the birth of modern democracy was tied to new communication media that became available in the late 1700s and early 1800s. I have no opinion regarding that thesis nor any opinion as to its correctness. My interest in Habermas flows primarily from an attitude attributed to him that I happen to share: Habermas simply does not theorize the functions of the media within the contemporary public sphere, deriving his model more from face-to-face communication and discussion, rather than from media interaction or communication mediated by the media and technology. re: Should we expect democracy to survive today if we insulate it from the public? Or if insulate the public from the media that defines it? I've no idea what these two questions mean. (your message of Sat, 27 Sep 2008 11:06:49) re: The difference is that I expose the full depth of the representative hierarachy to the scrutiny of popular assent. You do not. If you'd like me to comment, please don't allege differences without defining them. Cite them with sufficient detail so that even a dummy like me can understand how they differ. re: ... but that does not alter the fact that only 32 people (out of a total electorate of 9001) actually decided in favour of the winners. Or am I wrong? In my opinion, you are wrong. 9001 people each made the best choice they could, to the extent of their desire and ability. The result of their efforts was two candidates. The progression is more geometric than arithmetic. Since no candidate can advance without the support of both other members of the triad (unless implementors allow self-selection, which I personally oppose), you'll find that
Re: [EM] Feeling left out in Sefton
Good Morning, Michael Thank you for that. If I made my presentation in a way that could be misunderstood, the error is mine. If you misunderstood, others will too, and that's a flaw in the presentation. I appreciate your gracious offer of a truce, but deeply regret conducting myself in a manner that made it seem necessary. If I've been unable to describe the value of Practical Democracy for our society in a manner that attracted your support, I've failed miserably in the only conflict that matters ... improving the quality of those who represent us in our government. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Wilson-Pakula - an odd New York law
Good Afternoon, Dave Thank you for the Vito Marcantonio story. The story is not unique, but it is a good example of how political parties make rules and enact laws that give them a stranglehold on our political infrastructure. Parties are institutions of humans. They function precisely as a thoughtful person should expect them to function; they put their interest ahead of the public interest ... always. It is amazing so few people recognize (or are willing to acknowledge) that political parties are profoundly anti-democratic. For the most part, the commentary on this site concerns itself with gaining some form of representation for purportedly under-represented partisans. I suspect that effort is driven by the quest for power by those who feel they are disenfranchised by the present system. We would be better served if they sought the benefit of society rather than some subset of it. It is unwise to continue to ignore the very obvious fact that parties, themselves, are the problem. In the United States, we have just watched, helpless, as our elected representatives placed an enormous burden on us and our progeny, not because of conviction it was necessary to do so, but because they were given 100 billion of our dollars as bribes. How can sane men watch such travesties and not realize that the pursuit of self-interest, which is a very natural and important trait in each of us, is the force we must learn to harness? The notion that our government can be improved by forming additional centers of oligarchical power is ludicrous. We can not, and should not, deny our own tendency toward partisanship. Instead, we must devise an independent process that includes all of us and harnesses our natural tendency to seek our own interest. We must make self-interest a tool in our arsenal rather than leaving it for others to wield against us. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
Good Morning, Kristofer There is so much good material in your message that, instead of responding to all of it, I'm going to select bits and pieces and comment on them, one at a time, until I've responded to all of them. I hope this will help us focus on specific parts of the complex topic we're discussing. For today, I'm going to concentrate on two of your comments regarding group (or council) size: 1) Have a council of seven. Use a PR method like STV to pick four or five. These go to the next level. That may exclude opinions held by fewer than two of the seven, but it's better than 50%-1. If you can handle a larger council, have one of size 12 that picks 9; if seven is too many, a group of five that elects two. For small groups like this, it might be possible to make a simpler PR method than STV, but I'm not sure how. 2) It's more like (if we elect three out of nine and it's always the second who wins -- to make the diagram easier) e n wLevel 2 behknqtwz Level 1 b e h k n q t w z Level 1 abcdefghi jklmnopqr stuvwxyzA Level 0 The horizon for all the subsequent members (behknqtwz) is wider than would be the case if they were split up into groups of three. In this example, each person at a level represents three below him, just like what would be the case if you had groups of two, but, and this is the important part, they have input from the entire group of eight instead of just three. Thus some may represent all the views of less than three, while others represent some of the views of more than three. The latter type would be excluded, or at least heavily attenuated, in the triad case. For convenience, I'll work with a group size of 9 picking 3 by a form of proportional representation: Am I correct in imagining the process would function by having each of the 9 people rank the other 8 in preferential order and then resolve the preferences to select the 3 people that are most preferred by the 9? That seems like a really good idea. It is, however, a new idea for me, so it may take me some time to digest all the ramifications of the concept. Even so, the first thoughts that leap to mind are: 1) It would allow voting secrecy. In a group size of 3 selecting 1, secrecy is not possible; a selection can only be made if 2 of the three agree on the selection. Many people say secrecy is important. For my part, I'm not sure. It may be important in the kind of electoral process we have now, but I'm not sure open agreement of free people is not a better option. 2) It reduces the potential for confrontation that would be likely to characterize 3-person groups. We can make the argument that, in the selection of representatives, confrontation is a good thing. Seeing how individuals react in tense situations gives us great insight into their ability to represent our interests. We can also make the argument that a pressure-cooker environment is hard on the participants. 3) Each participant's opportunity to evaluate each other participant is reduced; they must evaluate 8 people in the allotted time instead of two. 4) There is a greater likelihood that, over an evaluation period of 1 to 4 weeks, the group members will tend to form cliques and will be influenced by their compatriots instead of relying on their own judgment. It takes me such a long time to examine new concepts, I'd like to see what objections are raised to both alternatives to be sure I've considered all the possibilities. On re-reading this, I see I haven't addressed your concern; the propagation of minority sentiment. I'm not sure I can. My problem may be that I don't see viewpoints as isolated entities. They are part of a whole, but are not, in and of themselves, the whole. I do not believe that, just because a viewpoint exists, it is entitled to a role in our government. To be adopted, a viewpoint must be shown to have merit. People of judgment will accept different viewpoints if they are presented in a rational and compelling manner. I think the issues that should concern us are the integrity and the judgment of the people we ask to represent us. If we have people of good judgment, we need not fear that a valid viewpoint will be ignored. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
, more and more, by an inclination to seek further advancement. Thus, a powerful human trait is integrated into the system. Those who actively seek selection must persuade their group that they are the best qualified to represent the other two. While that is easy at the lower levels, it becomes more difficult as the process moves forward and participants are matched with peers who also wish to be chosen. Each participant must make a choice between the other two people in the group knowing that they must rely on that person's integrity to guide their future actions and decisions. Since they are unable to control the person selected, they must choose the person they believe most likely to conduct public business in the public interest. However, they do not make their choices blindly. Elections are a periodic process. The majority of those seeking advancement will do so each time the process recurs. Some will be successful. They will achieve public office and their performance will be a matter of public record. When they participate in subsequent occurrences of the process, their peers can evaluate that record to help them decide the candidate's suitability for advancement. Furthermore, the names of advancing candidates are announced as each level completes. Members of the public with knowledge of unseemly acts by an advancing candidate can present details for consideration at the next level. Since, after the initial levels, the peers also seek advancement, they won't overlook inappropriate behavior. Face-to-face meetings in three-person groups eliminate any possibility of voting machine fraud. Significantly, they also allow participants to observe the non-verbal clues humans emit during discourse and will tend to favor moderate attitudes over extremism. The dissimulation and obfuscation that are so effective in media-based politics will not work in a group of three people, each of whom has a vital interest in reaching the same goal as the miscreant. Thus, the advancement of participants will depend on their perceived integrity as well as the probity with which they fulfill their public obligations. This is a distillation process, biased in favor of the most upright and capable of our citizens. It cannot guarantee that unprincipled individuals will never be selected ... such a goal would be unrealistic ... but it does insure that they are the exception rather than the rule. The process is inherently bi-directional. Because each elected official sits atop a pyramid of known electors, questions on specific issues can easily be transmitted directly to and from the electors for the guidance or instruction of the official. The cost of conducting an election by this method is free to the participants, except for the value of their time, and minimal to the government. Thus, it removes the greatest single cause of corruption in our current system ... the need for campaign funds. I originally thought to buttress this presentation by citing two newspaper articles that discuss the (apparent) lack of interest in the election process among the majority of the electorate and the working of corruption in our system. I've decided that to do so would be superfluous. ILLUSTRATION This table provides a visual description of the Practical Democracy method of selecting public officials. It uses the 2004 voting-eligible population of New Jersey reported by Dr. Michael McDonald, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA. At about the seventh level, unselected candidates may enter a secondary process for selection to positions in municipal, county, federal and state governments. Remaining Candidates Level Electors Selected Unselected 1) 5,637,3781,879,1263,758,252 2) 1,879,126 626,3751,252,751 3)626,375 208,791 417,584 4)208,791 69,597 139,194 5) 69,597 23,199 46,398 6) 23,1997,733 15,466 7) 7,7332,5775,156 8) 2,577 8591,718 9)859 286 573 10)286 95 191 11) 95 31 64 CONCLUSION The idea presented here will be considered radical. It bears little chance of adoption because it protects no vested interest. The only way such a process will ever be adopted is if the concept can be made a topic of discussion, particularly among students interested in achieving a righteous government. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
Good Morning, Kristofer re: So, in essence, the pyramid structure remains even after selection? Yes. We have the capability of retaining the information and it should be used to enhance the role of those elected to act as spokesperson for a segment of the electorate. In this connection, we should note the random grouping of candidates at each level insures that the segment of the electorate represented by each elected official will be diverse. How this capability is actually used will depend on those who implement the process. As I've said before, I don't favor rigid monitoring of the people we elect. However, because the process provides a simple means of enabling referenda and recall, the implementors should establish rules for their use. re: You'll lose the corruption resistance by surprise property. This would mean that external parties could try to corrupt those at the next highest level in order to overturn the highest; that is, if the next to highest council has formal powers. If it doesn't, there's nothing to say, in the worst case, that the highest level will listen to them, so let's say they have. The process does not give unselected people any powers. If they are to have powers, they must be granted by those who implement the process. As you point out, it would be fairly easy to devise rules that destroy the integrity of the system. Indeed, that is precisely the way the current system was devastated, so the risk is real and imminent. The best defense may be analyze the rule-making aspect as quickly and as thoroughly as possible, one of the many considerations I hadn't anticipated. re: ... lower levels may initiate referenda (initiative or recall) as if a majority of those below them in the pyramid had requested it ... I understand the reasoning but wonder if it's not a bit dangerous to assume those at lower levels support a given side of a single issue? Would it not be better to ask them, since the means of doing so is at hand? Your suggestion that ... if a person at level n wants to ask the people of something, he must get a majority at levels below him to agree, or a majority of the two levels below, or something like that. is probably the better option. The resolution of this issue it tied to the particulars of the election cycle(s), particularly the term of office of the elected officials. Where an entire body is replaced every two years, there should be little need for referenda. The combination of the time it takes for a public official to perform a misdeed and for that fact to become public, combined with the time the referendum takes, will usually exceed the time it will take to replace the individual in the next election. Even so, we must have a mechanism to deal with malfeasance during longer terms. re: If you have computers, you could [pass messages] in a manner similar to delegate cascade. Anybody can submit a message. The message is given weight according to (strength gained from those below the sender in the pyramid) / (population size). The computer lists messages sorted by weight. PR methods could have some form of successive downweighting so that say, a very persistent person in the middle of the pyramid doesn't crowd out others at his level. I will have to consider this more carefully. The capability for referenda is important, but I suspect the process should be simple and direct. In each case, referenda can only instruct a single representative to act in a certain manner or remove that representative from office. If a movement intended to alter the direction of the government arises, it must take form in each 'pyramid' separately. Parties can, will, and should exist, but lacking control of the process, they will perform their proper function of giving voice to ideologies. If a groundswell evolves, it can force a change of direction of government, but that is much more likely to occur through repetitive elections than through referenda. With regard to 'tiny voters', I'm inclined to think they may be the most important. Here's why. The majority of those who do not advance beyond the lower levels are people with little interest in holding public office. They are content to let others fill that role. If an event energizes them to alter their aversion to political involvement, it may be worthwhile to consider their point of view. (Of course, there is the matter of those who whine and complain about everything. Separating the wheat from that chaff may be non-trivial.) re: What do you mean by requests for guidance? Although I think, in general, those we elect should be left to fill the roles we elect them to fill, unusual circumstances can arise that are beyond the realm of normal governmental operation. The current financial debacle is but one example. At such times, our representatives should recognize
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
Good Afternoon, Kristofer re: ... the process we're describing is an exponential one. That's where it gains its power, but that also means that the views a candidate has to integrate rises very quickly. Thus it may not only be corruption that limits the representation, but simple ability ... That is true, and it is true regardless of the election method. Further, since there are a finite number of seats in an electoral body, any preference for a given ideology in one seat detracts from the potential for other ideologies to be heard in that body. In fact, that's a strong argument against partisan-based systems. I believe we will attain the diversity we seek by atomization of the electorate. In discussing the functioning of the process, we have necessarily spoken in terms of a single 'pyramid', but there are a multitude of such 'pyramids', each producing an individual representative. While, on the one hand, we anticipate that the people we select will not represent any ideological preference, we can be absolutely certain that they will also lack unanimity of outlook. We will not have a triumph of ideology, we'll have a triumph of (in my view, intelligent) diversity. re: Another cause [of the difference in our views], I think, is that I try to cover the possible errors with methods or rules. That is one of the reasons I treasure your work. Over the years, I've tried to uncover the weaknesses in the concept, but I have blind spots ... While I may have an idea or two The important views will come from you Concepts devised in a single brain Can oft by logic be split in twain re: If I am too cautious, that will only end up reducing the efficiency of the system. But if I'm not, it'll keep the system from deteriorating. We can not be too cautious when considering the way we select those who will represent us in our government. It is an idealistic endeavour, and idealists, by their nature, tend of gloss over some spots without examining them carefully ... which is why idealists often find themselves objects of ridicule. Your commentary has been on point and cogent. Some apprehensions may not be valid, but we'd be foolish not to consider them. We can discard them when we have sound reasons for doing so. Here, in the initial phases of developing a concept we would be remiss if we failed to test every assumption we can. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
Good Morning, Kristofer re: ... would be good for the petition to include information about the level of the person who originated it. My initial reaction to this suggestion was unfavorable, oddly, for the very reason you thought it worthwhile; fear that petitions coming from the lower levels of the 'pyramid' would be considered less important. On further thought, though, I agree with you. As you point out, it is likely the distribution of petitions will be simplified by including the petitioner's level. In addition, those who rose to higher levels were deemed more representative of the views of their peers than those at lower levels. It is reasonable to give their opinions greater weight. One additional factor is that it may aid discourse among those who met to make selections. re: The assumption here is that if someone high up in the pyramid petitions the official, he has the support of many below him. I agree this is a reasonable assumption in terms of how an elected official initially evaluates a petition. However, the ease with which constituents may support or oppose petitions provides a means of confirming the assumption. Since it is easy for constituents to support or oppose a petition, official performance will be better judged by actual support than by implied support. Beyond performance evaluation, though, is the impact of petitions on an official's biases. Petitions represent ideas and convictions. They may counter ideas and convictions held by the elected official or reinforce them. They may achieve merit on the breadth of their support or on the force of their reason. Thus, the bidirectionality of the system not only provides a means of sanctioning, it also serves to influence elected officials' attitudes. As you've pointed out, when participants move to higher levels they can not represent all the views of all the people who elevated them. Petitions provide a means of energizing views which are commonly held but which are 'lost in transit', so to speak. re: ... the pyramids exist ... and their composition is known to (at least) the public officials ... In my view, the composition of the pyramids and all petitions should be public information. It is true this will make those who achieve the higher levels targets for influence peddlers but I don't believe such corruption will be as easy to achieve as it is at present. Here's why: Our political landscape is dominated by political parties and political parties are conduits for corruption. Corruption occurs in static conditions and party professionals are like apples in barrels, susceptible to rot. The Practical Democracy electoral method is dynamic; is has no organization or fund raiser to provide a corrupting influence. Those who would corrupt our elected representatives can not do so en bloc, as they do with parties, they have to corrupt each elected official, individually. There is an enormous difference between telling a party fund-raiser what laws you want in return for your 'contribution' and trying to corrupt individuals who have no need of campaign funds and who are selected by their peers for their intellect and integrity. In addition to the risk of exposure, which is always a threat when approaching a target, there's the problem of effectiveness; corrupting a single official does not ensure enactment of a law in the way contributing to a party does. This method may not completely forestall corruption, but it will certainly make it more difficult and less effective than it is now. re: My broad idea is that since the pyramid is exponential in nature, with a fixed chance of petition from each at the bottom, the number of petitions would increase exponentially as well, and so in order to sift through the mass, there has to be some sort of method for finding what's truly important, some sort of information aggregation and selection. The constituents' ability to support or oppose petitions will probably have two effects: 1) It will increase public participation because those who would be unlikely to 'write a letter to their Congressman' may (and, in my view, probably will) support or oppose the petitions of others ... if it's easy to do so. 2) It will reduce the number of petitions because those who are likely to 'write a letter to their Congressman' may find that someone else has already done so. Of course, in this case, pride of authorship may inspire parallel petitions, and that could lead to the murky waters of petition amendment. I'll pass on examining that eventuality, for the moment. Are statistics available to show how frequently citizens 'write their Congressmen' and can that data can be extrapolated to guesstimate the severity of the problem? I'm not sure how helpful that will be, though, because events may cause a flurry of petitions that can not be anticipated. re: turnover of
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
Good Morning, Kristofer re: You may say that parties, wanting to be re-elected, would stay in center ... I think parties are more inclined to keep one foot in the center while stretching as far as they can toward the extreme with the other. That's why we so often hear that the 'neoconservatives' have taken control of this party or the 'ultraliberals' have taken control of that party. The stretch toward extremism to attract the more radical constituencies is the dynamic that causes the lurching we experience. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
COMMENTS ON AMERICAN POLITICAL PARTIES Political parties are quasi-official institutions designed to acquire the reins of government. They sponsor candidates for public office by providing the resources needed to conduct a campaign for election. As a condition of their sponsorship, they require that the candidates support the party, thus giving the party ultimate control of the elected officials. In the United States, our governmental system is defined by our Constitution, and nothing in our Constitution expresses or implies the need for political parties. They are an extra-Constitutional invention, devised to advance partisan interest. The problem of partisanship was well understood by the framers of our Constitution: When the Founders of the American Republic wrote the U.S. Constitution in 1787, they did not envision a role for political parties in the governmental order. Indeed, they sought through various constitutional arrangements such as separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, and indirect election of the president by an electoral college to insulate the new republic from political parties and factions. Professor John F. Bibby http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/election04/parties.htm A party system developed in our nation because our early leaders used their standing to consolidate their power. Politicians in a position to do so institutionalized their advantage by forming political parties and creating rules to preserve them and aid their operation: The Democratic-Republicans and Federalists invented the modern political party -- with party names, voter loyalty, newspapers, state and local organizations, campaign managers, candidates, tickets, slogans, platforms, linkages across state lines, and patronage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Republican_Party_(United_States) These features advance party interest at the expense of the public interest. They show how political parties are an embodiment of human nature; they put self-interest above all other considerations. They function precisely as a thoughtful person would expect them to function. When they arrogate to themselves the right to enact the rules by which political power is maintained, we are foolish to imagine they will serve the public interest. PARTISANSHIP Political parties are grounded in partisanship. Partisanship is natural for humans. We seek out and align ourselves with others who share our views. Through them, we hone our ideas and gain courage from the knowledge that we are not alone in our beliefs. Partisanship gives breadth, depth and volume to our voice. In and of itself, partisanship is not only inevitable, it is healthy. On the other hand, partisans have a penchant for denigrating those who think differently, often without considering the salient parts of opposing points of view. They seek the power to impose their views on those who don't share them, while overlooking their own shortcomings. Communism and National Socialism showed these tendencies. Both had features that attracted broad public support throughout a national expanse and both degenerated into destructive forces because their partisans gained control of their governments. The danger in Communism and National Socialism was not that they attracted partisan support; it was that their partisans gained control of government. In general, partisanship is healthy when it helps us give voice to our views. It is destructive when it achieves power. All ideologies, whether of the right or the left, differ from Communism and National Socialism only in the extent to which their partisans are able to impose their biases on the public. Partisanship is a vital part of society ... provided it is always a voice and never a power. The danger is not in partisanship, it is in allowing partisans to control government. OLIGARCHIC PARTY STRUCTURE The political parties that control all political activity in the United States are in no sense democratic. The American people do not elect those who control the parties. In fact, most Americans don't even know who they are. They are appointed by their party and serve at the party's pleasure. We, the people the parties are supposed to represent, have no control over who these people are, how long they serve, or the deals they make to raise the immense amounts of money they use to keep their party in power. They constitute a ruling elite above and beyond the reach of the American people. When we allow those who control our political parties to usurp the power of governing our nation, it is foolish to imagine that we retain the power bestowed on us by our Constitution. It is a tragedy that so few of us recognize (or are willing to acknowledge) that we have relinquished our right to govern ourselves to unknown people who proclaim themselves our agents.
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
Good Afternoon, Dave I fear there is a great difference in our views. You seem to feel parties have a rightful place in our political infrastructure. I don't. I have no objection to the existence of parties. I consider them a vital part of society. However, I deny, vehemently, that they have a right to arrogate to themselves control of our government. Democracy means that each of us have a right to participate in governing ourselves, to the extent of our interest and ability. Nothing in the concept of democracy, or in the Constitution on which our nation was founded, grants the right of governance to self-interested groups of power-seekers who have turned themselves into conduits for corruption, pandering to vested interest and operating to the detriment of the humans among us. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
Good Afternoon, Dave Your recitation of the history of the Green Party in New York is typical of efforts to create political alternatives. In my view, we will be better served when we forget labels like Left and Right and Green and Liberal and Conservative and devote our energy to seeking out and electing the best, brightest, and most ethical of our people to represent us. Incidentally, Dave, and admittedly off-topic, every time I see one of your posts it carries me back many years. I was brought up in Warsaw (Wyoming County), and spent a great deal of time on the road. I used to pass through Owego quite frequently. This was in the 50's, before Route 17 became a superhighway. Although most of my trips were south of the river, quite a few of them took me down Route 96 and through Owego. Route 96 was one of my favorite stretches of highway. Years later, when my boys were young, I rented two canoes, went to the park on the east edge of Owego, put the canoes in the water and spent several days going down the Susquehanna. My wife picked us up near Dalton, just west of Scranton. For me, it was a once-in-a-lifetime experience. Please excuse my reminiscing, but each time I see one of your posts, I'm reminded of how beautiful Owego and the surrounding country is. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
Good Morning, Kristofer Thank you very much for the link to the Mother Jones article describing efforts to curtail the utter domination corporations exert over our existence. Perhaps, in time, reason will triumph. re: Practical Democracy really then has two parts - the selection phase and the continuation phase. That was the thought behind the Sefton petition. Although it does not eliminate campaigning, the petition seeks to give the people of Sefton a means of choosing their own governmental representatives rather than letting self-interested partisans dictate the candidates. It is not a complete solution but it is a major step in the direction of returning government of the people to the people. re: It might be possible to improve one of the phases without having to improve the other, thus making the reform more continual ... Absolutely. Your reference to Keeping record of the pyramid structure for later message passing ... describes a phase that offers broad possibilities. It can be designed to be, as I would prefer, a means by which elected officials can seek the guidance of their constituents or, as others have suggested, a means by which the people can control the acts of their representatives. It seems likely different jurisdictions will implement this phase in different ways and the optimum may not appear for some time. re: Yet other parts may be applicable to all types of representative democracy; for instance, staggered elections ... or the term limit ... or ... diminishing lobbying ... Again, absolutely! And we should note that the potential for implementing such features will improve dramatically when we are able to select representatives whose interest in good government exceeds their interest in partisan issues. re: Public officials gain some knowledge of the direction of politics by interacting with the world, so even if it were permissible, we couldn't just stick them all in the council building until their term is up. How do we keep the officials free while still limiting the influence of lobbyists, when this influence is outside of the system? Interacting with the world is more commonly effected by communications devices than by personal contact. My attitude on this topic is, no doubt, idiosyncratic. It flows from the time I spent in the U. S. Air Force. Even so, I will express it. Our elected representatives are in service for the length of their term ... just like members of our armed forces ... and like members of our armed forces, they should be maintained at a government installation. The facilities at the installation can be as palatial as need be, with golf courses, marinas, and all forms of educational and entertainment facilities, but access to the facility should be restricted. Those wishing to affect pending legislation should present their arguments, publicly, in hearing rooms provided for the purpose ... and that should be the absolute limit of their personal contact with our elected representatives. Do we have the stomach for such a solution? We sequester juries in important cases. Should the conduct of our government be deemed less worthy of objectivity? re: ... what we really need is radical transparency ... In this section, you note the shortcomings of this approach. In addition to those you mentioned, there is the problem that, with the proper incentive, one may justify taking almost any position. It's called obfuscation and the most corrupt people are the most adept at the practice. Demanding transparency from a partisan politician is like holding back the tide with a pencil. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
Good Afternoon, Juho re: The first thing in my mind would not be to limit contacts between legislators and lobbyists but to limit too heavy bindings, maybe most notably monetary dependencies. One could limit e.g. second jobs, right to move to some commercial position, financing of political campaigns. That would be roughly equivalent to throwing a chunk of meat into a pack of dogs and telling them they can't eat it. We have no shortage of rules now. They are gutted, twisted and ignored to the point they are useless. My country is doling out hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to 'needy' industries. If you think that isn't the cause of an immense feeding frenzy among lobbyists and government insiders, you don't know how our government currently works. When we elect corrupt public officials by corrupt methods, when we put party above probity, we are foolish to imagine we can eliminate dishonesty by sanctimonious assertions. It might be possible to conduct our government without limiting contacts between legislators and lobbyists, but to do so we must devise a means of selecting the best of our people as our representatives rather than the dregs of our society. (If you think me harsh, provide a justification for the over 100 BILLION DOLLARS of pork demanded by our legislators before they would pass a (supposedly) emergency bill to bail out institutions whose greed, mismanagement and outright theft caused the economic disaster engulfing all of us.) re: Radical changes are often problematic since people are not able to anticipate all the implications of the changes, and they often are too idealistic or optimistic. I don't agree. Radical changes often have an adverse effect on the people because those who lead the charge for change use their influence to establish norms that gratify their interests. The American Revolution was unusual because its nominal leader had no aspirations beyond the stated aim of the revolution. re: Sometimes fast changes work quite well. That typically requires that there is some well adopted model that serves as a basis for the change. One could think e.g. Estonia that regained its independence in 1991. Although times were different before the second world war the fact that there was some old model available surely helped a lot. I agree, but we must also note that Estonia's loss of independence was externally imposed. When the shackles that bound it disintegrated, it could resume as much of its former model as it wished. re: It is also possible that there is a recently developed common basis for the change but certainly these changes fail more often. Again, I agree. The failures flow from an unwillingness or inability to harness our own natures. Morality is an acquired trait. It must be nurtured and encouraged. Systems that assume it will flourish under adverse conditions are doomed. re: When looking at Fascists in Italy and National Socialists in Germany they eventually got quite wide support among the citizens. That's the point!!! Partisanship is dangerous. As I once wrote in another context, the most destructive words in any language are: I BELIEVE!!! re: One key point in how they got to that level was that they used all means, including violence, to silence the opposition. From this point of view it is maybe important to make sure that all opinions will always be given sufficient space to breathe. Are not the cited instances of Fascism, National Socialism and Communism enough to show that in a partisan environment it's impossible to guarantee all opinions will always be given sufficient space to breathe. However much you may advocate partisanship, you can not deny its potential for extreme and destructive manifestations. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
Good Morning, Juho Let me start by apologizing for my tardy response. Although it was not the only cause, there was an extenuating circumstance: We were invaded ... by our offspring. My wife and I celebrated our 57th wedding anniversary and, for some reason, our family thought that worthy of note. To tell you the truth, after thinking about my life with my wife, I agreed with them. I am uncommonly fortunate. re: On the other hand a representational democracy needs some structure to handle different political opinions, ... Does reason not provide a better structure than bias? re: ... and having parties is not a bad approach for taking care of this need. I disagree. It is a terrible, self-defeating approach. Many humans lament the depredation of war; particularly those subject to its ravages. Why, then, is the best political system we can devise one based on confrontation? Can we not see that confrontational methods must lead to confrontational results? Do we lack the wisdom and judgment to seek a method informed by our reason rather than our passion? Most people think parties are necessary so you are among the majority. You may take comfort from that, but it gives me none. I look at the evolution, just during my lifetime, of gigantic entities that dominate our existence and devastate our planet; I look at one nation invading another; I look at monstrous greed thriving on deceit and obfuscation, and I think, Oh, Oh! There must be a better way. We've got to do better than this. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
Good Morning, Juho re: People are not always good at reason based free discussions. How could they be? What, in our political systems, encourages reason based discussions? The method I've outlined cultivates such discussion among the electorate. Not the pseudo-discussion of campaign-based politics, but real discussion among real humans; the 'people' you malign. The value of an open, discussion-based system that embraces the entire electorate can be seen in the political philosophy of Alasdair MacIntyre of Notre Dame University, as cited in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy by Dr. Edward Clayton of Central Michigan University. (Available at: http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/p-macint.htm) To convey a tiny hint of the significance of MacIntyre's work, here are a few passages from Clayton's essay: When everyone is allowed access to the political decision- making process, The matters to be discussed and decided on will not be limited as they are now; they will extend to questions about what the good life is for the community and those who make it up. The benefits of a practice would then flow to those who participated in politics -- in fact, certain important benefits could only be achieved by political participation -- and politics would make people more virtuous rather than less virtuous as it now does. When we have made the changes MacIntyre wants to see, politics will no longer be civil war by other means: 'the politics of such communities is not a politics of competing interests in the way in which the politics of the modern state is'. It is instead a shared project, and one that is shared by all adults, rather than being limited to a few elites who have gained power through manipulation and use that power to gain the goods of effectiveness for themselves. Politics will be understood and lived as a practice, and it will be about the pursuit of internal goods/goods of excellence rather than external goods/goods of effectiveness. It is only because and when a certain range of moral commitments is shared, as it must be within a community structured by networks of giving and receiving, that not only shared deliberation, but shared critical enquiry concerning that deliberation and the way of life of which it is a part, becomes possible Would that I had the wit and wisdom to enthuse others to make our political infrastructures more democratic ... and more amenable to the dynamics MacIntyre describes. We would all benefit. re: I think all political debates easily become confrontational, both free discussion based and fixed position (e.g. party) based. That is certainly true of party-based discussions. It need not be true of free discussion, though. Free discussion can concern itself with problem-solving rather than ideological posturing, and, as MacIntyre suggests, will tend to do so, naturally. re: I don't think parties are necessary. You could have fooled me. re: Few species kill each others as eagerly and as intentionally ... as we do. As long as our political systems are based on ideological confrontation, such results are inevitable. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] To see oursels as ithers see us
Good Morning, Michael re: ... you speak of those who lack faith - not in a particular judgment of the people - but more generally, in all such judgments. Yes. I think you could say that, but I'd like to look at the issue more closely: To say we believe in democracy is to say very little because, unless we know how democracy is implemented, we can not evaluate the extent to which the people control the government. The practice in the United States (which most Americans think of as the epitome of democracy) is profoundly anti-democratic. (I will post the rationale for this assertion within a few days. I urge those who would rebuke me for it to wait until then, so they can address the issues rather than bluster about generalities.) My belief in democracy is a belief that there are among us people of intellect and integrity who are suited to represent us in our government and that is it our right and our responsibility to find these people and raise them to positions of leadership. So, in terms of your comment, I speak of those who lack faith that there are among us good representatives of the people, people who can and will make the judgments that advance society. re: I also intended my answer to apply to particular institutions of democracy, such as a newly proposed election method. We cannot judge such a proposal on the basis of its principles alone. We must also look on the practical side. There too, faith is too much to ask. For the most part, I agree with you. My sole demur is on the question of practicality, an argument that can be used to deter virtually any proposal without regard to its merit. Judging a proposal on its principles alone is unwise but judging it on the basis of reason is not. All advances are built on a foundation of reason. They can't exist until they are conceived. re: Generally, do you think it's useful to look at other, similar election methods? Of course, if there are any. Studying alternatives is the essence of the spread of knowledge. re: Can you explain these informal arrangements (i.e., You drive, we're drunk.) in more detail? In terms of problem-solving ... which should be government's role in our existence ... the natural tendency of rational individuals is to select the most qualified people in the troubled group to work out the solution. We should not let the fact that ego plays a large part in selecting the most qualified people (often, if not usually, to the detriment of the group) blind us to the essential nature of the way we solve problems. Free of external constraints (It's my car, I'll drive.), we always seek the most competent person we can find to resolve the problem. Since, in terms of political choices, the external constraints are many and varied (most people won't take a cab, even when they know the driver is drunk, because of peer pressure and cost), devising an electoral method that frees us of these constraint is vital, but non-trivial. After I post the promised comments on partisan politics in the United States, I'll suggest a method of implementing a truly democratic electoral process ... a method that gives every member of the electorate an equal opportunity to influence the government ... a method that resolves the problem of external constraints ... a method that allows the people to select the best of their number to represent them in their government ... so we can examine it carefully. If we find its shortcomings exceed its benefits, the process should point us to a better solution. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
of society produces about 583,000 hits, seeking democracy produces 11,200,000, none of them presented in a manner that supports organized investigation and analysis. (Of course, my lack of expertise is an inhibiting factor for me.) We have, on this site, a smattering of people interested in electoral methods, but how many of them can or will influence society ... and how will they accomplish it? Even for those who visit the site, how many of them understand the arcane arguments presented in favor of this or that proposition ... I don't understand many of them. and I'm comfortable with the written word. The internet provides us a way to meet people of different backgrounds and exchange our views with them, but we have a long way to go before we can integrate it into our political system. Meanwhile, we would do well to examine ourselves so any implementation we devise improves rather than worsens our lot. re: Tolerance. One could also sometimes turn the other cheek. Less fear means usually less violence. Maybe one could say that for the strongest there is often no need to fight. These statements show no acceptance of human interaction. They might be nice, but people don't act that way. Our political system must function as we are, not as we could be. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Partisan Politics, or Rising Above It
Good Afternoon, Michael Oh, my goodness ... your post is not responsive to what I wrote. Well, let me comment as well as I can, under the circumstances ... First, with regard to our technological ability, we now have the means to allow everyone to participate in the political process. We can use the advances in transportation, communication and data processing developed over the 200-plus years since the founding of my homeland to build a more democratic political system. Arrangements that were undreamed of in 1787 are now practical. re: At issue is a proposed structural transformation to society. I agree that we are moving toward a structural transformation, but it's early days. My post did not propose a 'structural transformation to society', it described flaws in the existing system. Since those flaws are integrated into our system, our first concern must be to understand them so we can eliminate them and prevent their recurrence. We can't transform our structures successfully unless we know why the present structures failed. re: But any such transformation (T) raises these critical questions ... (Practical, Probable and Moral and the ensuing 'proof'), all leading to: The crucial thing, however, is that, despite those evil aspects, the transformation TO [which you define as the status quo] is a fact. The fact of its success proves that T0 [the status quo] was both practical and probable. In other words, it had good answers to T0(p,q). That is fallacious reasoning. To prove the status quo is the result of the forces that made it is simply stating the obvious. It requires no 'proof'. Furthermore, the 'proof' errs in its most basic assumption. It (apparently) assumes that, because T0 (the status quo) was successfully attained, it is the most desirable state for society. Such reasoning would undoubtedly have appealed to all the seemingly stable governments that mark the history of mankind, not least of all dictatorships and those based on the divine right of kings. And, finally, the listed 'critical questions' do not include (at least, not in an identifiable form) the will and welfare of the people. When discussing electoral methods, there is nothing (in my opinion) more fundamental than That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. (cadged from the American Declaration of Independence) re: If your argument of T0(m=parties,evil) is valid, then it follows that the moral question T(m) is not essential to a successful transformation. That's silly. It does not follow a rational train of thought. The proper statement is: If my argument is valid, since our society reached its current state, our political systems have integrated the evils I cite. Any attempt to improve a system must start with an understanding of the flaws in the current version of the system. I raised the issue of those flaws in my post. I have outlined, as you say, a tiny piece of ... the evil aspects of the existing party system. If you have superior arguments or can show those evil aspects are inconsequential, would you care to offer a rebuttal? Since you did not address the flaws, should I take it that you agree with my delineation of them? If, in fact, you agree with my comments on the destructive nature of party politics, perhaps we can move on to proposing a structural transformation that avoids their adverse effects. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Partisan Politics, or Rising Above It
Good Morning, Michael re: Sorry, I expanded the context. As we used to say, years ago, 'sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof'. When responding to my comments about political parties, why 'expand the context'? In a discussion of a complex topic, focus is imperative. Why go beyond the issues I raised. If you can refute my assertions about political parties, please do so. If not, agree they are correct, and we can proceed from that point. In addition to altering the context of the discussion, you couched your response in a different, and, to me, unintelligible, language. If we are to discuss a complex topic, it is important that we do so in a common language. I wrote my description in English. That's the only language I consider myself capable of using for communication. If you can explain why my comments about political parties are incorrect, and would care to do so in English, I will respond as well as I can. re: To state the obvious is not fallacious ... Ya got me! Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Partisan Politics, or Rising Above It
Good Afternoon, Michael I'm sorry you feel that way. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Partisan Politics - Excuse Me
Good Morning, Michael As I've said, several times, I learn from those who disagree with me. Perhaps I should have qualified that by adding, ... when they are able to support their points of disagreement with compelling arguments. Since you will not ... or can not ... respond on the issues, I fear I shan't learn much from your commentary. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
Good Afternoon, Juho re: Probably one can not avoid formation of some kind of groupings or parties, and of course they may also contribute positively. Just need to avoid the numerous common pitfalls / problems. If we are to avoid the numerous common pitfalls / problems, is not the first step the identification of those pitfalls and problems? re: My viewpoint to campaigning was that it is quite unavoidable. When you assume the only possible candidates are individuals chosen by self-interested entities, you may be correct. However, the assumption that no other method is possible is invalid. We have the technological ability to let the people choose their own candidates from among themselves. There is no reason why they must, or should, let self-interested groups arrogate the selection of candidates to themselves. We have the means to let the people make their own choices and ... if we believe in democratic government ... we have an obligation to enable them to do so. re: And efficient distribution of information is an essential requirement of democracy. I agree with the thought, even though I'd express it differently. Whether or not we have 'efficient distribution of information' is an open question, but one that is a worthwhile study in its own right. re: In what sense? [does referring to a 'one-dollar-one-vote ideal' turn a serious problem into a euphemism that can be ignored.] Who is it 'ideal' for? Certainly not for the people. The point is, using that expression masks the fact that campaigning is a primary cause of corruption in politics. Campaigning is expensive and 'He who pays the piper, calls the tune.' The people are not stupid, but they are busy with the problems of their day-to-day existence. If you want to them to recognize a serious condition, you must 'call a spade a spade', you can't feed them pablum. A 'one-dollar-one-vote ideal' is pablum to people busy with their family, their economic welfare and their private interests. 'Campaigning corrupts politicians' is more straightforward and would be more effective. re: ... my viewpoint is maybe such that instead of presenting the world as polarized and black and white ... As I've pointed out before, partisanship is the essence of polarization (and black and white). If you want an alternative, you must seek it in non-partisanship. re: ... it is better and even more efficient too to seek models that most people find sensible and worth supporting. That's true. Is that not the course I've set? Whether or not people find my suggestions 'sensible and worth supporting' is beyond my control. I can but present them and support them as clearly as I'm able. re: Negative viewpoints against other approaches may also turn people against the proposal, especially those who feel that they have been criticized. I suspect you are correct, but that creates a quandry. If one seeks to improve a system, the very first step must be to identify and expose the flaws in the current system. If there are no identifiable flaws, there is no need for improvement. The fact that identifying flaws must, necessarily, offend those who are happy with the current system (particularly those who benefit from the system's operation) should not deter one from exposing the flaws. If there's a politically correct way of exposing such flaws, it's a knack I lack. If there are bad apples in a barrel, it does not help to say, They have a nice rosy hue. If you don't find and remove the bad ones, they will taint the rest. Those identified as bad may be unhappy about that designation, but that's not a good reason to leave them where they are. Sometimes, if you move quickly enough, you can salvage most of a bad apple by cutting out the rot. If you leave it, you guarantee there will be nothing to salvage. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
be best if one can put the message in such a format that the new proposal will give the people even more benefit than the old system does, not such format that the old system and people in it are rotten and should be replaced with something totally different, leaving no stones of the old system left. You're not wrong! Practical Democracy will, in my opinion, give the people even more benefit than the old system does. However, the old system is entrenched and, for the most part, accepted without question. Raising objections to it is a non-trivial enterprise. The down side is that my observations sound like condemnation of everyone presently in politics. That's unfortunate. I believe there are many good people in politics, people who genuinely want to improve their government. They are frustrated, not because of any shortcoming on their part, but because the nature of partisan politics does not allow them to 'make a difference'. You may chastise me for my condemnation of our political institutions, but I hope, before we're done, you'll help devise an electoral method that allows those good people to reach the goals they are presently prevented from achieving. re: [exposing the flaws] Sometimes that can not be avoided. But that is usually not good marketing. In theoretical discussions one should not avoid direct talk, and a marketing oriented approach is not recommended. You will not be surprised to learn that I have no marketing talent (and, forgive me for saying so, don't want any). re: One must also be careful and avoid situations where the targets will feel hurt and as a result freeze in their existing mental positions and refuse all proposals to change. I understand your point, and, to some extent, agree with it. That is one of the reasons I try to be careful with the wording of my assertions. When it's all said and done, though, my only hope is that a few open-minded people will consider the nature of partisan politics, objectively and rationally, and lend their wit and wisdom to improving our political system. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
Good Morning, Juho re: In this case there are also opportunities in campaigning before nomination. In which case? In the case of the present system, where campaigning is used to 'sell' corrupt politicians to the people? re: [my comment] As you said to Kristofer Munsterhjelm on this thread (Thu, 26 Feb 2009), The citizens should decide what to do, not just approve the proposals. In the same way, the citizens should also decide who they want to represent them, not just approve the choices made by self-interested groups. [end of my comment] [To which you responded] To me this is another independent and interesting question. (nomination vs. campaigning) (both can be party driven or party controlled) The point is that nominations should not be party driven or party controlled. If our electoral process is to be democratic, it must be controlled by the people, not by parties. re: I presented the one-dollar-one-vote principle as a bad practice for elections. Indeed, it is. re: I don't see campaigning as a problem in itself (although there may be problems in it, particularly since some sort of campaigning or at least active information sharing seems unavoidable.) Campaigning, in itself, is a problem because politicians must 'sell their soul' for campaign funds and because the act of campaigning debases the candidate. Campaigning is only unavoidable as long as you insist that 'selling' candidates to the people is a good thing. Once you move past that people-deceiving, rabble-rousing tactic and ask yourself if there are other ways for the people to carefully examine candidates, new and better methods present themselves. re: (Party controlled campaigning or party controlled nomination could have more problems.) Not could have, do have. re: I referred to your expression He who pays the piper, calls the tune. And I intended to say simply that extensive use of money easily leads to corruption and doesn't support democracy in the best/intended way, and therefore is not a target to implement. We have agreed that the need for money in the electoral process is corrupting. Can we now take that point as 'given'? If we can accept that simple ... and obvious ... fact, we can start a list of objectives for a more democratic electoral process with, It must not place a financial burden on political candidates. re: [my comment] ... the act of campaigning corrupts the candidate's psyche. [you responded] Such risks can't be avoided. Of course they can. If we design a process that does not require campaigning, the evils of campaigning will be avoided. To persuade yourself that such risks are unavoidable is to condone them. Instead of accepting them because they are an integral part of the present system, ought we not apply our intellect to the difficult task of devising a system that avoids them? re: People often have difficulties to think in any other way than the current way. Only those willing to accept the label (often applied to voters in the United States) of being lazy or stupid have difficulty entertaining new ideas. I do not deny such people exist, but I'm confident there are enough thoughtful, creative people among us to build a better political system. The distribution of people with exemplary qualities is no less broad today than it was in the 18th century, when our Constitution was drawn. re: If the reform will be implemented using traditional political routes best efficiency might be reached by applying also marketing in various directions. It will certainly need a broad range of talents, not least of which is the ability to encourage support by describing the concepts in a persuasive manner. re: Also a more direct approach may work, but only if the case is really solid and has natural support. The best way to determine if it is really solid is to challenge it with rational arguments. Natural support will flow when our educational institutions look beyond the platitudes that harness academic inquiry to existing political structures; when they have the courage to objectively analyze the profoundly anti-democratic nature of partisan politics, and do so in spite of the storm of calumny their efforts are sure to unleash. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
Good Morning, David re: ... this is campaigning, and I do not understand your apparent fear of that word. Fear is not quite the right word, I find campaigning repugnant. Campaigning is a rabble-rousing technique. It does not appeal to the voter's reason, it is designed by professionals to suppress reason and inspire an emotional reaction. It results in a government controlled by passion at the expense of sanity. The enormous cost of political campaigns requires candidates to sell their soul to a party. The party, because of its control of a large number of politicians, attracts money from those who wish to influence the government. Parties are nothing more than conduits for the corruption that pervades our legislative bodies. Not only does the need for campaign funds invite financial corruption, the act of campaigning requires candidates to profess support for positions they do not hold and causes them to deceive by obfuscation and outright lying. The insincerity of 'campaign promises' is a sick national joke. When we devise an electoral method that eliminates the need for campaigning, we will eliminate the greatest cause of incompetence and corruption in government. re: While parties properly nominate candidates, voters should also be able to do nominations outside the party structure. 'Properly' in your view, 'improperly' in mine. To say voters should be able to nominate outside the party structure is not helpful. As long as candidates must 'campaign' for office, people nominated 'outside the party structure' have no chance of attaining office. re: As to election methods, we need to do better than Plurality. I suggest more thought as to score, IRV, and Condorcet - which let voters vote for more than one candidate. In the short term, I think you're probably right. Meanwhile, we should consider the elements of a long-term solution. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
Good Morning, David re: Suppose I take an interest in becoming mayor of Owego. This will require my neighbors learning this, and something of what I might do as mayor. The essence of democracy is not what you want, it is what the people of Owego want. The only way we can find out who the people of Owego want to be their mayor is to ask them. Our present electoral methods do not ask the people who they want, they tell the people what choices they have. Campaigning is not asking, it is telling. The failure of our political system is that it is not an asking mechanism, it is a telling mechanism. In spite of the advances in transportation, communication and data processing over the past 200-odd years, we have not yet devised a means of asking the people to make their own political decisions. We have the means, but not the method. My purpose is to devise a practical method of asking the people of Owego who they want as their mayor. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
by September 29th, 19 days later. CONCLUSION The idea presented here will be considered radical. It bears little chance of adoption because it protects no vested interest. The only way such a process will ever be adopted is if the concept can be made a topic of discussion, particularly among students interested in achieving a righteous government. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
Good Afternoon, James re: The person 'they want' may well not want the job. That is not a flaw, it is a fact of political life. However, we have no right to assume people don't want the job. We must give everyone an opportunity to seek it. Those who do not want it will make the fact known. The critical issue is that they be allowed to make the decision for themselves. re: The second flaw is that the reality is that not everyone wants [to] make their own political decisions ... That, too, is not a decision we have a right to make for others. It is incumbent on those of us who believe in the concept of democracy to ensure that everyone in the community has an opportunity to make such decisions for themselves. We must design an electoral process that gives every member of the electorate an opportunity to participate to the full extent of their desire and ability. Whether or not they avail themselves of that opportunity is a decision they must not be denied. Our society has no shortage of people who would be commendable political leaders. What we lack is a means by which the best of such people can be identified and elevated to positions of leadership. My post to Juho this morning outlined one possibility. Thoughtful people who recognize the untapped resources of humanity can probably suggest others. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
Good Afternoon, David re: Your quote sounds like part of a thought I would have expressed - be nice if you tied it back to: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:43:34 -0500 My real question then was what label you would be willing to use for what many of us call campaigning, since you seem to use a different meaning for that word. I believe your reference to the 'Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:43:34 -0500' post must be to this passage: Because parties are usually involved, those of us sharing thought will call ourselves the 'People's Party', though it does nothing outside our village. This passage suggests that, if several people hold a common view, they have a right to organize themselves and enforce their will on the community. A central, though unmentioned, tenet of this approach is that it is proper to take advantage of the fact that many people (as James Gilmour points out) put other interests ... perhaps the economic well-being of their families ... above their political interests. I don't agree. I believe democracy imposes an obligation on all of us to seek the views of all the people. The fact that our interest in politics varies does not give the cynics who bend this circumstance to their advantage a right to usurp political control of our existence. It is interesting that your suggestion shows this distinction so clearly. re: If the people of Owego are to get into the business of deciding what they want, they better get more into understanding this task than many of them realize. That may be true of 'many of them', but it is not true of all of them. The task of our electoral process must be to identify the most cogent views on the business of the community. If your thoughts are beneficial, they will withstand the careful scrutiny of your peers. re: Again, what word can we get together on as to offering? Persuasion might better fit the case than campaigning since it implies converting by force of reason rather than selling by force of manipulation. re: My first step, perhaps with help of some friends, would be to get a petition signed by enough voters to qualify myself as a candidate. I would call the next step campaigning in preparation for voting. Your approach is excellent ... in a world dominated by partisan politics. At the moment, it is the only way to 'get something done.' If you are able to thrive in this environment, it is to your advantage to pursue this approach. If, however, you feel, as I do, persistent reliance on war to settle differences of opinion, destroying our environment in the name of 'growth', and institutionalizing greed and theft in our society are matters of public concern, you may feel the need to devise a more democratic method of selecting those who represent us in our government. Political parties have controlled our existence for 200 years. During that period, we have seen incredible advances in technology, but, instead of those changes redounding to the benefit of the people, they have empowered a few at the expense of the rest of us ... Slowly the increasing complexity of tools and trades subjected the unskilled or weak to the skilled or strong; every invention was a new weapon in the hands of the strong, and further strengthened them in their mastery and use of the weak ... So in our time that Mississippi of inventions which we call the Industrial Revolution has enormously intensified the natural inequality of men. Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, Volume 1, Our Oriental Heritage, page 20. We can do better! Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
Good Afternoon, Juho re: Yes, that method reduces campaigning since all decisions are very local. The answer in this case seems to be to reduce the number of candidates that each voter can vote. The purpose of the method is not to reduce the number of candidates that each voter can vote, but to guarantee that each participant has the greatest possible opportunity to impact the political decisions of the community. The proposal reduces the number of candidates because it is a distillation process. Its purpose is to empower each of our citizens to the maximum extent possible while seeking out and elevating the best of our citizens to positions of political leadership. Groups of three (triads) are the optimum size for the exchange of ideas when a decision is required. If you like, I can provide the rationale for this assertion so it can be challenged. re: Local campaigning is of course still needed (in the small groups). That's a semantic issue. Participants who wish to advance must persuade their peers of their value. That persuasive effort can be labeled 'campaigning', but it is not really analogous to the political campaigning we experience today so I prefer using a different term to describe it. re: Also party campaigning may be present (anonymous). It will be present. Perhaps I'd better explain why I think that is a good thing: As has been pointed out, most recently by Dave Ketchum, not every member of the electorate understands the many aspects of public office. Partisans of all stripes can, and should, present their view on matters of contemporary importance so participants in the electoral process can, to the extent of their interest, inform themselves on the issues. Most participants will support some partisans and oppose others. That is the means by which complex issues are examined. It is a good thing ... as long as their participation in the electoral process is in no way dependent on their partisanship. As I've said before: Partisanship is a vital part of society ... provided it is always a voice and never a power. The danger is not in partisanship, it is in allowing partisans to control government. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] critical theory - election methods as a remedy
Good Morning, Michael re: You and he [Habermas] have similar aims. That's true. You could say, for me, he was 'preaching to the choir'. Since you cited his work, could it be you share some of his aims? Thank you for the insight into the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory and its aims. I was unaware of it. I may try to find out a little more about it because I'm interested in learning whether these thoughts have been tested. re: It happens that you have a prescription, in the form of an election method. It also happens that I have one, and it bears a resemblance to yours. I wonder if there is a basis for merging our efforts. I suppose my approach would be considered too low-tech, but I feel most people are better able to communicate verbally than in writing. I also favor physical presence because I feel the visual and auditory clues we get from others are significant sources of information. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
Good Morning, Juho re: (Exchange of ideas could be also weak in many triads.) I wonder why you think the point worth mentioning? Is it not self-evident? The intensity with which ideas are exchanged among humans varies infinitely. Practical Democracy creates a setting in which ideas can be exchanged freely. In very small randomly assembled groups, beneficial ideas take root and grow while prejudicial ideas invite rejection (who does not shudder at the thought of listening to a zealot rant?) re: Party based campaigning has also risks. Some interest group could e.g. finance the party campaign. The party would train candidates and finance representatives that are loyal to its targets (including the targets of the interest group). Those loyal candidates would benefit of the campaign and would be reach good positions within the party and would have relatively good chances of being elected also next time. That is the situation that obtains at present ... which is why participation in the electoral process must not be contingent on membership in a party. I repeat: Partisanship is a vital part of society ... provided it is always a voice and never a power. The danger is not in partisanship, it is in allowing partisans to control government. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] critical theory - election methods as a remedy
Good Morning, Michael re: ... you might consider that a strict implementation of your method is unnecessary ... I outlined a concept, implementation is a separate step. It is, I think, inevitable that the implementors will modify the method to suit the circumstances they deem important. I may have an opinion about the efficacy of those modifications, but whether or not the implementors heed my views is beyond my control. re: ... there is much to be said for these particular freedoms. They include: i) Triad size unbounded, not limited to 3 [The smaller the group size, the less impediment there is to the expression of ideas. The larger the group size, the greater the tendency for members to 'follow the leader'. A group size of 3 is not cast in concrete, but it offers advantages worthy of note.] ii) Voter chooses her own triad, and may migrate to another, at any time [If one's goal is to enable multiple parties, this may be a good suggestion, but it is not supportive of a non-partisan approach to democracy. Random assignment to small groups reduces the influence of parties. It also ensures that everyone has an equal opportunity to participate in, and learn from, the process because the dynamics that affect each participant vary from election to election.] iii) Voter may withdraw her vote, or shift it to another candidate, without restriction [That is a fundamental tenet of Practical Democracy, as proposed.] Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
Good Morning, Juho re: ... I wondered at what level in the society the discussions yield best results and where they will stimulate new discussion. At all levels! At the very first level, when three people discuss their local ordinances and budget, they will be talking about matters of vital concern to themselves. Some of them will have strong views on the issues. They will favor the person best able to protect their vital interests or seek to advance, themselves, to ensure their voice is heard. That is part of the magic of the method. Instead of having no power beyond writing futile letters to the editor of the local paper, the people can actually influence their own government. That is an enormous change from the present state of affairs. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Democracy
Good Morning, Don Thank you for taking the time to comment on my outline of Practical Democracy. Among other things, you hypothesized ... A retired worker 75 year old who ... is not interested in being the city manager. He would thus not want the other two to vote for him. By not being selected to advance to the second round he has lost his right to vote. and, from that, projected ... Thus the Triad method violates one of the most fundamental principles of democracy. However, there is no requirement that the citizen seek office. The point is not whether the citizen wishes to be city manager but whether that person wants to influence the selection of the city manager, and, hence, the government. Whether or not this individual wishes to be selected depends, not on the desire for office, but on the desire to influence the selection process. The focus of a triad, particularly at the lower levels, is less on the person who will occupy an executive or legislative seat than it is on a blend of (1) the ordinances and budget of the community and (2) the person most representative of the views of the group on these topics. The hypothesized 75 year old (who happens to be 5 years my junior) will advance as far as his (or her) desire and ability allow. The decision to accept or reject public office need not be, and, for those interested in influencing the outcome, will not be, made until that decision is imminent. Rather than violating one of the most fundamental principles of democracy, the Practical Democracy concept enhances that principle in a way, and to an extent, that is not possible in partisan systems: Everyone remains involved in the process for as long as their desire and ability allow. I will address other aspects of your post as time permits. In the meantime, perhaps you would like to examine this particular point in greater detail. Fred Gohlke Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
