[EM] To see oursels as ithers see us

[Fred Gohlke]

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