[EM] Partisan Politics - Excuse Me

[Michael Allan]

Fred Gohlke wrote:

> I don't understand the point of your message.  Are you asking me to 
> continue?  On what topic?
>
> I posted a critique of political parties in America.  You have not directly 
> commented on the points in that critique.  Until you do, I have no basis 
> for continuing.

Then you are at a standstill.  Before you can explain your method, you
require people to sign off, on an extended list of grievances.

Or do you *really* intend this thread to concern itself with "partisan
politics", as you have titled it?

  Mi.  Hey, I thought you were going to explain your election method!

  Fr.  Patience Mike, I will soon get to that topic.

  Mi.  Sorry!  Meanwhile, please excuse me.

> You disparage my critique as "a barrage of moral presuppositions" but make 
> no attempt to explain why they are so.  You do not, for example, show how 
> the gutting (and repeal in 1999) of the Glass-Steagall Acts by the United 
> States Congress ... the event that led directly to the incredible financial 
> debacle that's engulfing the world ... is not precisely the result of the 
> corruption of the American political system.

Well, I did "attempt to explain why they are so".  My explanation was
the topic of an entire subthread.  You were a party to it - how can
you have forgotten?  Refer to the subthread "Partisan Politics, or
Rising Above It":

http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2009-February/thread.html#24204

> Last September, I commented on 12 assertions you made in a post addressed 
> to me.  You could have continued the discussion by countering my comments 
> or accepting them as reasonable.  You did neither.  Instead, you responded 
> by calling a 'truce', as follows ...
>
>     "Truce Fred,
>
>      Whatever my critique of Practical Democracy, it may
>      well stem from a misunderstanding.  No need digging
>      for the root of it."
>
> I'm not sure why you thought a truce necessary.  I expressed my views 
> clearly and concisely in our common language.  If they were invalid, they 
> should have been refuted.  If they were valid, they could have been 
> acknowledged so we could proceed.  The 'truce' accomplished neither of 
> these.  Instead, it effectively truncated any possibility of examining the 
> points in greater detail.  I didn't respond because no response seemed 
> necessary or appropriate.

Oh, but you forget.  You did respond:

http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2008-September/022692.html

> Based on your references to Practical Democracy and the critique of 
> political parties, you are apparently familiar with the trend of my 
> thoughts about the need for, and method of, building a more democratic 
> electoral process; one that allows every member of the electorate to 
> participate in the selection of those who represent us in our government.  
> Apparently, you do not agree with the concept I espouse. That is a valid 
> position, and seems, to me, an endpoint.

It ought not to seem so.  Assuming I disagree with it, it does not
follow that we are stuck at an end point.  Disagreement usually has a
foundation - whether in misunderstanding, or in diversity of
interests.  It is often worthwhile to expose that foundation, because
we may learn from it.  So disagreement is an invitation to discourse,
discovery and learning.  (Only if we decline the invitation, then it
is an end point.)

> I am anxious to examine our political system and discuss a method of 
> building a more democratic one, but it makes no sense to proceed if we 
> disagree on the fundamentals.  What can I say that will lead to a 
> thoughtful, enlightening dialogue, in English, and not simply give you a 
> basis for denigrating my observations?

Frankly, I'm an argumentive bastard.  But we happen to be working
toward the same ends.  And I'm honour bound not to nit-pick.
(Consider that we're in Church ^[1]. ;)  Which means you have plenty
of scope for explaining your method.  So, when you feel ready, how
about you say this:

  Fr.  You know, I don't much like the party system.

  Mi.  I know, Fred.  Neither do I.

  Fr.  Why don't I explain my new election method?  It has the benefit
       of eliminating parties.

  Mi.  Yes please, tell us about it.

  Fr.  Well, it goes like this, ...


[1] http://www.robertburns.org/works/97.shtml

(PS.  Thank you, but no need to CC me.  I read all posts to the list.)
-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, 647-436-4521
http://zelea.com/