[EM] language/framing quibble

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Morning, Juho

re: "I think the US still is a democracy.  If people want to see
      the current policy changed they can do that (within the next
      4 years at least). People could in principle change also
      e.g. the voting system, but such smaller changes already
      easily get lost under the major questions (e.g. economic
      situation, war and peace)."

Whether or not the US is a democracy is a semantic question.  The 
present government is certainly 'of the people', but it is not 'by the 
people' or 'for the people'.  It is 'by those who control our political 
parties' and it is 'for the corporations that control our existence'.

You may believe what passes for democracy in the US (and elsewhere) is 
'government by the people'.  I don't.  It is probable that our views on 
this topic are sufficiently divergent that reconciling them is unlikely.

Last June 6th, James Gilmour addressed both of us and called our 
attention to a report requested by the (British) Electoral Reform 
Society that looked at the question of partisanship in elections.  The 
report, published in 2003, is in the form of a 222KB pdf you can 
download from:

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/downloads/Candidate%20Report.pdf

The report does a excellent job of describing why political parties fail 
to represent the people   It was rendered by the heads of the major 
parties in the U.K.  Even though the interest of the party leaders who 
formed the Commission was to advance a pro-partisan point of view, their 
report makes the points I'm expressing much more clearly and 
authoritatively than I can.  Your comments, at the time, did not address 
the core issue of the failure of the parties to represent the people. 
I've downloaded it, and if you like, can send you a copy.


re: "Status quo is is often the safest approach to citizens and
      politicians.  And they may be lazy too. Current leading
      politicians have reached their current positions using the
      current system, so they often do not like changes. So you
      need lots of work and some luck."

I'm intimately familiar with the difficulty of getting people to examine 
their biases.  I always thought it would take about 200 years.  After 
all, it took The Noble Experiment 200 years to deteriorate to its 
present state.  I don't expect the correction to occur any more quickly.


re: "I'm not saying that changes are not possible. They are
      possible and they happen all the time. We just need to be
      patient and consistent and keep the rudder straight."

I'm holding the tiller as steady as I can.  It wouldn't surprise me if 
you found my persistence in the direction I've chosen a bit frustrating. 
  I will adjust the heading when you furnish hard evidence that the 
current course is incorrect.


re: (in response to my question:  "Is it not obvious that
      campaigning, itself, is the problem?")

     "The problem is that with uncontrolled funding of the
      campaigns you take steps towards the one-dollar-one-vote
      ideal.  Traditionally the one-man-one-vote principle is
      considered important for democracies (one-dollar-one-vote
      is typically used in economical systems)."

Your comment does not answer the question.  It also, by referring to a 
'one-dollar-one-vote ideal' turns a serious problem into a euphemism 
that can be ignored.


re: "You may need some sort of campaigning in order to be able to
      to distribute information about the candidates."

I won't comment on this point, at this time, because I plan to outline 
an electoral method that does not require campaigning (although a 
version has been suggested that allows it).


re: "But surely you don't recommend the opposite either, no
      tolerance, slapping others on the cheek if we feel pain etc."

Of course not.  I don't waste my time recommending changes in the nature 
of humans.  I focus on imagining systems that thrive on the nature of 
humans.

Do you not see the inconsistency of recommending tolerance and control 
of aggression while advocating an adversarial political system?  If we 
are to limit intolerance and excessive aggression, it makes sense to 
encourage reason in our political system rather than passion.


Can you refute the fact that political parties function for the benefit 
of the party rather than the benefit of the people, that they are 
controlled by oligarchs beyond the reach of the people, that they are 
inherently corrupt, that they defeat the checks and balances intended to 
restrain excesses?  If so, such refutation is important.

It may be that the points I make are incorrect.  If so, they can be 
countered with better arguments.  If they are not refuted, they must, 
however unpleasant they may be to contemplate, be correct.  If they are 
correct, they are valid considerations in any discussion of electoral 
methods.

- - - - -

I'm glad you read the Alasdair MacIntyre reference.  His insights are 
penetrating.  Unfortunately, assertions that we 'should' or 'could' do 
this or that will not bring us any closer to creating an environment in 
which the matters discussed "extend to what the good life is for the 
community and those who make it up".  I prefer working on ways to 
actually implement the ideas MacIntyre expressed.

Fred Gohlke