[EM] language/framing quibble

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Morning, Kristofer

re: "I'm finding steadily less to comment on; we seem to be
      reaching a convergence of sorts ..."

I agree.  It would be helpful (I think) if others would add their 
insights.  Our discussion relates to the way humans interact and there 
is a broad range of opinion on that topic.  We don't need mindless 
rants, of course, but carefully reasoned views would be welcome.


re: "I use the term 'selected', since elected doesn't really fit.
      There's no public election, there's simply a whole lot of
      mini-elections that come together."

Again, I agree.  I've been using 'elected' out of deference to the site, 
but I vastly prefer the concept that we 'select' our leaders rather than 
elect them.

Some weeks ago, Mr. Nesbit made the point that "... voting is the exact 
opposite of individual rights ...".  That struck me as an astute 
observation.  There is an immense difference between, on the one hand, 
casting a vote for or against a person or idea proposed by others and, 
on the other, actually influencing the choice of that person or idea 
ourselves.  Choosing between options offered by an establishment is 
anti-democratic.

If we are to achieve democracy, each of us must be allowed to 
participate in the electoral process to the full extent of our desire 
and ability.  We must be able to make selections that are meaningful to 
us, not just endorse the choices of others.  We must be able to cast our 
votes in a way that influences the outcome.


re: "Given what you've said, how might the selected officials be
      corrupted?"

I've given this matter a lot of thought.  It seems to me the risk of 
corruption will be greater after representatives are selected than 
during the selection process.  I'll address these situations separately, 
but preface my remarks by noting that corruption covers a broad range of 
activity.  It is not limited to financial transactions, but can involve 
many other forms of pandering.  To define corruption, I'm tempted to say 
corruption is supporting positions that are not in the public interest, 
but it is not always possible to see precisely where the public interest 
lies.  As you say, there are implicit and explicit forms of corruption. 
  I will address the topic in a general sense and use the term 'bribery' 
as a token for all forms of corruption.

Having noted this difficulty, I'll start by considering the corruption 
of candidates during the selection process.

In the method we are discussing, bribery attempts can only be directed 
at individuals.  If one were to succeed, it would not come close to the 
disastrous effect of the blanket corruption we currently endure when 
political parties act as conduits for corruption and compel large 
numbers of our representatives to work in concert against our interest.

The method groups candidates randomly.  That prevents targeting an 
individual for corruption until a group has been named.  After a group 
is named, bribing a participant directly is counter-intuitive because, 
from the briber's perspective, there is no guarantee the bribed member 
will be selected, and, from, the participant's point of view, if the 
member can gain selection on merit, there is no incentive to accept a bribe.

For these reasons, bribes will tend to be offered to achieve or prevent 
the selection of another member of the group.  Bribing a member to 
prevent the selection of another member is practical, but of limited 
utility, except at the highest levels (which we will examine in a 
moment).  That leaves bribing one member to achieve selection of another.

In a group of _A_, _B_, and _C_, if one member accepts a bribe to insure 
the selection of another member, the group will have two corrupt 
members, the one that takes the bribe and the one that accedes to 
advancement by bribery.  If _B_ is bribed to guarantee the selection of 
_A_, _B_ always votes for _A_, hamstringing _C_ (selection requires 2 
votes).  If _C_ votes for _B_, _B_ can alienate _C_ to drive _C_'s vote 
to _A_, or, if _C_ persists in voting for _B_, _B_ may court _A_'s vote 
to advance.  Since both are corrupt, it shouldn't make much difference 
which advances.  In any case, _C_, the only uncorrupted individual in 
the group, can never advance.

Even so, I don't think the strategy can be pursued successfully, and 
certainly not widely.  Whether _A_ or _B_ advances a level (we'll use 
_A_ for convenience), they are grouped with two new people _D_ and _E_. 
  _D_ and _E_ reached the level either by bribery or on their merits. 
In either case, _A_ has a problem.

If _A_ (or _A_'s sponsor) propositions _D_ and _D_ is advancing by 
bribery, either _A_ or _D_ may succeed in bribing the other, but only 
one of the two miscreants can advance.

If _A_ propositions _D_ and _D_ advanced on merit, _D_ has just achieved 
advancement on the strength of intellect, attitude about public concerns 
and power of persuasion, and is filled with pride and confidence.  Under 
those conditions, _D_ is unlikely to give up the opportunity for 
continued advancement by taking an illegal (and demoralizing) payment. 
Hence, _D_ is a poor target for bribery.

Most of the ways we pursue our own interest are associated with our 
sense of our own worth.  When we meet with others, listen to their 
points of view, consider their concerns, discuss solutions and conduct 
ourselves in a manner that induces them to select us to represent their 
interests, we experience a flush of pride in ourselves and a surge in 
our sense of self-worth.  We will not forsake those feelings lightly. 
For that reason, the potential for using bribery as a means of 
corrupting the selection process diminishes as the levels advance.  The 
self-respect of those who reach the highest levels will be a significant 
deterrent to corruption.  Bribe-taking is a characteristic of the losers 
in our society.

The risk of corruption increases after the selection process is complete 
and those we select to represent us assume positions in our government. 
  At this point they become targets.  We will look at two aspects of 
this problem, the influence of other members of the government and the 
threat of external influence peddling.

Since we have a natural tendency toward partisanship, when we take our 
seats in, say, a legislative body, we will soon align ourselves with 
other members of the body that we find agreeable.  These relationships 
will lead to cooperative action with others to fulfill public 
obligations.  Individuals in a constituency may not always agree with 
the alliances a representative forms, but, unless they can be shown to 
be improper (perhaps by nuances too subtle for me to delineate), they 
can not be called corrupt.  Stated another way, there is no doubt our 
elected representatives will influence each other, but we have no basis 
for calling such influence corruption.  In fact, I consider it healthy.

The serious problem is the attack on elected officials by vested 
interests.  In a representative democracy, representatives are not 
required to have any special knowledge or training.  They are selected 
because they are believed to have the intellect and disposition to 
assimilate the information necessary to make sound decisions in the best 
interests of the people.

Since laws passed by a legislative body apply to the community, we 
anticipate that all interested parties will present their arguments for 
and against pending legislation.  Our legislatures hold hearings to 
facilitate this presentation of information.  Since the hearing rooms 
will not hold all the people with an interest in the matter, interested 
parties designate agents, called lobbyists, to present the information 
for them.

The theory is that our representatives will weigh the information 
presented by lobbyists objectively, enact laws that benefit the 
community and reject laws that are harmful.  However, at present, it 
doesn't work like that.  Although hearings are held, they are merely for 
show.  The actual decisions are made by our lawmakers outside the 
hearing room, under the influence of lobbyists.

It is the free access lobbyists have to our lawmakers that defeats a 
very sound concept.  The lobbyists wine and dine lawmakers, provide them 
with exotic vacations, hire members of their family, promise them future 
employment and, by more subterfuges than I can relate, corrupt the 
people elected to represent the public interest.  The result is the 
cesspool we currently endure.

If we are to eliminate this kind of corruption, we must deny lobbyists 
free access to our legislators.

Fred