[EM] language/framing quibble

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Afternoon, Juho

re: "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."

If we are to "avoid the numerous common pitfalls / problems", is not the 
first step the identification of those pitfalls and problems?


re: "My viewpoint to campaigning was that it is quite
      unavoidable."

When you assume the only possible candidates are individuals chosen by 
self-interested entities, you may be correct.  However, the assumption 
that no other method is possible is invalid.

We have the technological ability to let the people choose their own 
candidates from among themselves.  There is no reason why they must, or 
should, let self-interested groups arrogate the selection of candidates 
to themselves.  We have the means to let the people make their own 
choices and ... if we believe in democratic government ... we have an 
obligation to enable them to do so.


re: "And efficient distribution of information is an essential
      requirement of democracy."

I agree with the thought, even though I'd express it differently. 
Whether or not we have 'efficient distribution of information' is an 
open question, but one that is a worthwhile study in its own right.


re: "In what sense?" [does referring to a 'one-dollar-one-vote
      ideal' turn a serious problem into a euphemism that can
      be ignored.]

Who is it 'ideal' for?  Certainly not for the people.  The point is, 
using that expression masks the fact that campaigning is a primary cause 
of corruption in politics.  Campaigning is expensive and 'He who pays 
the piper, calls the tune.'

The people are not stupid, but they are busy with the problems of their 
day-to-day existence.  If you want to them to recognize a serious 
condition, you must 'call a spade a spade', you can't feed them pablum.

A 'one-dollar-one-vote ideal' is pablum to people busy with their
   family, their economic welfare and their private interests.

'Campaigning corrupts politicians' is more straightforward and
   would be more effective.


re: "... my viewpoint is maybe such that instead of presenting
      the world as polarized and black and white ..."

As I've pointed out before, partisanship is the essence of polarization 
(and black and white).  If you want an alternative, you must seek it in 
non-partisanship.


re: "... it is better and even more efficient too to seek models
      that most people find sensible and worth supporting."

That's true.  Is that not the course I've set?  Whether or not people 
find my suggestions 'sensible and worth supporting' is beyond my 
control.  I can but present them and support them as clearly as I'm able.


re: "Negative viewpoints against other approaches may also turn
      people against the proposal, especially those who feel that
      they have been criticized."

I suspect you are correct, but that creates a quandry.  If one seeks to 
improve a system, the very first step must be to identify and expose the 
flaws in the current system.  If there are no identifiable flaws, there 
is no need for improvement.

The fact that identifying flaws must, necessarily, offend those who are 
happy with the current system (particularly those who benefit from the 
system's operation) should not deter one from exposing the flaws.  If 
there's a politically correct way of exposing such flaws, it's a knack I 
lack.

If there are bad apples in a barrel, it does not help to say, "They have 
a nice rosy hue."  If you don't find and remove the bad ones, they will 
taint the rest.  Those identified as bad may be unhappy about that 
designation, but that's not a good reason to leave them where they are. 
  Sometimes, if you move quickly enough, you can salvage most of a bad 
apple by cutting out the rot.  If you leave it, you guarantee there will 
be nothing to salvage.

Fred Gohlke