[EM] language/framing quibble

[Juho Laatu]

--- On Tue, 17/2/09, Fred Gohlke <fredgohlke at verizon.net> wrote:

> Whether or not the US is a democracy is a semantic
> question.

I use this term roughly so that a country
is democratic if people are able to make
change x if they are determined to make
x happen. There should be no fear of coup,
revenge, police or other serious personal
problems. This is the lower limit, not a
definition of a perfect democratic system.

> 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.

I'm under the impression that many people
in the USA are patriotic and do believe
that their country is maybe even the best.
Maybe many of them make a difference
between the "country itself" and the
political system and political elite that
runs it. (In many countries it is also
common to think that the country is "us"
and the problems with the government are
just practical problems, and that also
the government and parties are included
in the (loved and idealized) "country
itself" or "us".)

> 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.

The election methods and political
systems can be improved (e.g. all kind
of proportionalities). This includes
both changes in the mechanics and
changes in the attitudes (of citizens,
representatives and civil servants).
Probably one can not avoid formation
of some kind of groupings or parties,
and of course they may also contribute
positively. Just need to avoid the
numerous common pitfalls / problems.
I think there are tricks to improve
any of them at any particular country
and situation (at least in most cases).


> I will adjust
> the heading when you furnish hard evidence that the current
> course is incorrect.

No complaints. (Or actually I complained
earlier about one detail, the fact that
the mechanisms that you proposed were
not quite proportional due to rounding
errors with small numbers.)

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

> Your comment does not answer the question. 

My viewpoint to campaigning was that
it is quite unavoidable. And efficient
distribution of information is an
essential requirement of democracy.
(See also my old wording below.)
Campaigns just are sort of last minute
information offering. One key area of
problems in campaigns is financing (the
one-dollar-one-vote related problems).

> It also, by
> referring to a 'one-dollar-one-vote ideal' turns a
> serious problem into a euphemism that can be ignored.

In what sense? In different societies
different wordings may be needed to
carry a good picture of the problem
and solution to the decision makers
(especially to the voters).

> 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).

> 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.

Yes, my viewpoint is maybe such that
instead of presenting the world as
polarized and black and white it is
better and even more efficient too
to seek models that most people find
sensible and worth supporting.
Negative viewpoints against other
approaches may also turn people
against the proposal, especially
those who feel that they have
been criticized.

Often it may be even more efficient
to concentrate on marketing one's
own (good or bad) solution. But
maybe we'll skip analysis of that
part.

> Can you refute the fact that political parties function for
> the benefit of the party rather than the benefit of the
> people,

They certainly work for the benefit of
the party, sometimes also against the
benefit of the people. But one can also
say that they need also support of the
voters in order not to lose their power.
>From this point of view voters in some
sense at least need to think that the
leading parties do support their views
and thereby do benefit them. In
multi-party systems this phenomenon is
stronger than in two-party systems.

> 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?

Having an opinion on this would
require defining the country in
question.

Juho