[EM] language/framing quibble

[Juho Laatu]

--- On Wed, 25/2/09, Fred Gohlke <fredgohlke at verizon.net> wrote:

> 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?

Yes.

> 
> 
> 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.

Yes. Voters may also need more
information on those candidates
that are not already well known
to the voters. That may mean
also campaigning, by the
candidates themselves or by
some interest group.

> 
> 
> 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.

OK. My basic thinking was that
the better information the voters
have the better (democratic)
decisions they make.

> 
> 
> 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. 

Market driven economy is expected to
follow this principle (not excluding
external regulation to avoid problems,
not excluding also other "more noble"
principles to be used in order to do
also the primary one-dollar-one-vote
task well). I think market economy is
considered to be the leading model of
economy by many. It can be good for
the people too (not as a master but
as a good slave).

In politics / democracy the
one-dollar-one-vote principle is not
usually considered good, although I
have seen light references to its
possible benefits (e.g. "let the
experts decide in economical
questions", "good candidates will
get also lots of campaign money",
"lobbyists as a central part of the
decision making process", "better
make decisions that please the
investor's needs").

> 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.'

Yes. Also I wanted to point to this
phenomenon as a problem and form of
corruption rather than as a target.

> 
> 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.

OK, that is more straight forward talk.
I however wanted to express the theory
that covers campaigning and also other
areas, and how this theory deviates
from the democratic one-man-one-vote
principle.

> 
> 
> 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? 

You may have frightened the party
politicians and people that think that
their own party is a good party.

> 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.

Yes, the current limitations should be
pointed out. It would be best if one
can put the message in such a format
that the new proposal will give the
people even more benefit than the old
system does, not such format that the
old system and people in it are rotten
and should be replaced with something
totally different, leaving no stones
of the old system left.

> 
> 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. 

Sometimes that can not be avoided. But
that is usually not good marketing. In
theoretical discussions one should not
avoid direct talk, and a marketing
oriented approach is not recommended.

> 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.

One must also be careful and avoid
situations where the targets will
feel hurt and as a result freeze in
their existing mental positions and
refuse all proposals to change.

Juho

> 
> Fred Gohlke
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see
> http://electorama.com/em for list info