[EM] Time of trouble? Or put a lid on it?

[Juho Laatu]

--- On Sun, 1/2/09, Michael Allan <mike at zelea.com> wrote:

> Juho Laatu wrote:
> 
> > > > (I hope the role of public image
> > > > doesn't get so strong that people
> > > > would start thinking that their
> > > > whitened teeth and wide smile are
> > > > what they are, more than their
> > > > internal thoughts. :-)
> > > 
> > > All of us shaking hands and kissing babies. :)
> > 
> > Yes, usually that comes from the heart,
> > which is just a sign of health. :-)
> 
> I guess we're just bantering. 

Yes.

(I had also some interest in confirming
that by default the sincere preferences
of people can be said to be a key driver
behind their external behaviour.
Politicians may use an external mask
intentionally. Also citizens without any
such public position often have a mask
on. But hopefully their life is not too
much bound by that mask (and internal
thoughts not forced to reflect the image
given by the mask).)

> If we were being
> serious, I'd say the
> necessity of the "whitened teeth and wide smile"
> dates from the advent
> of TV in politics.  (Wasn't it Richard Nixon who first
> learned about
> that, back in the 60's or 70's?)  So the systematic
> of image making is
> more on the side of mass media and mass voting - a problem
> in the
> status quo.  And granted all is not problematic there, much
> is healthy
> too.  I respect our arrangements.
> 
> The problematic I would like to discuss, without quite
> knowing how, or
> with whom, is more on the social side.  The proposed voting
> method
> itself has no systematic flaws, none we've been able to
> uncover to
> date (and maybe we need to wait for empirical data).  But I
> can easily
> forsee social problems that may be released as an indirect
> consequence
> of it.
> 
> We have tensions in our societies that are held in a frozen
> suspension
> by our political arrangements, not least by our voting
> methods. 

I tend to think that all systems easily
get frozen spots for various reasons.
No set of rules is perfect enough to
keep the system viable and flexible
forever. One has to monitor and take
care and make also small improvements
to the system to keep it fresh and to
respond to changes in the environment.
There will be also many attempts to go
around, twist, change and forget the
rules. Better watch out and keep one's
mind and discussions open.

> Some
> in this list who may ordinarilly be comfortable with
> discussing the
> social side of voting, may nevertheless be uncomfortable
> with
> discussing these particular tensions.  Like Madison or
> Jefferson, who
> feared an unmoderated, unrestrained democracy, they might
> rather keep
> a lid on such issues.  Yet, although it is simple enough to
> moderate
> and restrain discussion here in the list, it may no longer
> be possible
> to keep a lid on these issues in reality.

I guess there is a balance between total
freedom and control of the society as a
whole.

One could characterize large part of the
features of our societies as an evolution
story from the "laws of jungle" towards
systems that we consider to give better
results to us as a society and as
individuals. The democratic societies
even try to allow all the members of the
society to decide the best direction of
evolution themselves. Such systems require
freedom and discipline/control/rules to be
in good balance.

> 
> The main axis of tension is probably the gross disparity in
> wealth,
> freedom and other goods that extends both locally
> (inter-class) and
> globally (inter-national). 

Yes, this is one of the key problems. Too
large gaps tend to lead e.g. to revolutions
and also various other forms of violence.

> What will happen when that
> disparity is
> thematized in formal voting and discussion, and floated in
> political
> action?  Locally, will people continue to accept the degree
> of
> inequality that our economic system seems to require, in
> order to keep
> on functioning and producing goods? 

I'm not sure that inequality would be a
requirement. Full equality in terms of
wealth and power is impossible to achieve,
but we can approximate that at some
agreed/suitable level (e.g. by balancing
the differences a bit where needed) - and
still keep the natural competitive forces
alive as the forward driving force in the
society (and its economy).

Juho



> And globally, if we
> open
> democracy to all the world's people, are we also
> prepared to open our
> borders to them?
> 
> -- 
> Michael Allan
> 
> Toronto, 647-436-4521
> http://zelea.com/
> 
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see
> http://electorama.com/em for list info