[EM] language/framing quibble

[Raph Frank]

I have only had a quick look at your (extensive) references.  In
fairness, they are pretty large blocks of text, and it isn't entirely
reasonable to expect people to go through them in their entirety.

On 9/1/08, Fred Gohlke <fredgohlke at verizon.net> wrote:
> 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.

Do you think that is what PR is for?

Also, what is 'the majority'?  Do you think there is a certain 50%+ of
the population that constitute 'the majority' or would you view it as
dynamic, where it is a different group on different issues?

The second option is much healthier for society.  If there is a group
that is always part of the minority, then that leads to resentment.

> 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]

The plurality voting system combined with mass gerrymandering is
almost designed to make voting pointless.  This is what is leading to
a drop in the number of voters.  I don't think increased education is
causing fewer people to vote.

Proportional representation makes every voter's vote matter.  This
makes it actually worth voting.

Also, the author in [1] seems to value equality of outcomes above
equality of opportunity.

>  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.

Surely that is what people are doing here by proposing changes?

> 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]

That is an interesting point that I have seen raised.

The question is how best to decide how to vote.

One viewpoint is that voters should vote for trustworthy candidate.
These people then act as they consider best for society, when they get
into the legislature, ignoring any considerations for re-election.

The second viewpoint is that politicans are not trustworthy and it is
only the fact that they must be mindful of re-election that makes them
act in the best interests of the community.

Increasing the length of terms and adding things like term limits
favour the first viewpoint.

People who don't trust politicians would likely have the 2nd (and
probably more popular) viewpoint.

OTOH, a majority often re-elect a President.  In this context, they
are voting someone into office that will not be held accountable by
needing re-election.  This is presumably because they trust that
person based on term 1.  This also applies to older legislators, who
are likely to retire.

Adb's proxy/free association ideas are based on the selection model.
This is especially true when Asset voting is used as the initial
layer.  You need to pass your votes to a trusted proxy.

>  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]

Again, that is what PR is designed to do, it gives everyone equal
representation.

Ofc, 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.

>  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.)

Candidate selection is certainly important.  Control of the selection
process is similar to control of the districting process, it gives
alot of power.

I wouldn't favour gender (or ethnic) quotas though.  Selection should
be based on the best person for the job.

However, again PR, especially PR-STV helps alot.  Closed list systems,
though, go in the other direction.

PR-STV gives pretty good choice for the electorate and in fact, tends
to require that politicians put in alot of effort.

Perhaps, a good rule would be to require that parties run at least 1
additional candidate.  For example, if you only run 3 candidates, then
you can only win 2 seats at most.

This might be hard to get to work for independents as it requires a
way to differentiate between party candidates and independents.  Ofc,
parties already have to register to have their logo, so maybe it
wouldn't be a major issue.  If you want to run with the party's logo
beside your name, you count as part of that party.

Also, if byelections are filled using the original ballots, then it
automatically creates that incentive.

>  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.

Right, but again the voting system does actually matter.  It
determines the basis on which discussions between the various groups
are based.

A 2 party system means that the discussions are seen along only 1 axis.

Also, maybe it is just that people are becoming less trusting in
general, mass media and the internet mean that the tricks that
governments get up to are more visable and thus, people offer less
blind trust.