[EM] electoral college/Serious thoughts

[Curt Siffert]

I still like the idea of pushing hard enough to eventually find a 
system that is
elegant enough that it will appear to be clearly better than the status 
quo,
removing much of the obstacle to voting against it.  For instance, I 
think the
reason we haven't gotten rid of the E.C. yet is because it is usually 
only considered
against the possibility of a national popular vote.  Since the national 
popular
vote isn't compelling enough to be a clearly better idea than the E.C., 
it hasn't
passed.  But I think that is as much because of the weakness of the 
popular
vote argument as it is the vested interests states have in the E.C.  
The states
only have a vested interest in power, not the E.C. specifically.

That said, if it is true that this kind of reform isn't reasonably 
possible, it is
hard to be encouraged about convincing the system to reform!  It's that 
sort
of scenario that makes me think about designing new forms of voluntary
government.  It's not completely out of the realm of possibility to 
imagine an
internet organization popping up that solicits donations, has a 
real-life meetup
component, and an emphasis on selecting representatives in a direct 
democracy
process, scaled by how large the organization is.  Unlike other 
organizations it
would not have any agenda other than to represent the population 
participating
in it.  If the organization reached a point of critical mass so that it 
actually started
affecting change in the nation, and offered benefits to its members, 
then who is
to say it wouldn't be an extra layer of voluntary government, with its 
own elected
leaders and legislative components?

Curt

On May 1, 2004, at 7:42 PM, Alex Small wrote:

> I want to emphasize that I am not defending the status quo, I'm just
> expressing pessimism about reform.  If my analysis should turn out to 
> be
> wrong, and reform is indeed possible, I will be delighted.