[EM] language/framing quibble

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Morning, Juho

re: [my comment] "There is no reason why [the people] 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." [end of my comment]

     [To which you responded] "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."

Whether or not campaigning is necessary depends on the means by which 
the candidates are selected and elected.  If the mechanism guarantees 
careful examination of each candidate by voters with a vital interest in 
choosing the best person, then participation, itself, is all the 
campaigning that is necessary or desirable.

As you said to Kristofer Munsterhjelm on this thread (Thu, 26 Feb 2009), 
"The citizens should decide what to do, not just approve the proposals". 
  In the same way, the citizens should also decide who they want to 
represent them, not just approve the choices made by self-interested groups.

In short, if the voters need more information on the candidates, they 
must be able to get the information during the electoral process. 
Clearly, letting parties choose the candidates and 'sell' them to the 
people fails to do that.


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

I absolutely agree ... and the best information they can get is by 
carefully examining the aspirants BEFORE they are accepted as 
candidates.  No intermediary, whether media, party or friend, can 
provide unbiased information about a candidate.


re: "Market driven economy is expected to follow this principle
      ... I think market economy is considered to be the leading
      model of economy by many."

We are not discussing the economy.  We are discussing electoral methods; 
more specifically, the role of political parties in the electoral process.


re: "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")."

Which helps to show that such euphemisms open a Pandora's Box of 
obfuscation, justification and nonsense.  All it does is deflect 
attention from the original, and very important, question:

"Is it not obvious that campaigning, itself, is the problem?"


re: [my comment] "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.'" [end of my comment]

     [To which you responded] "Yes. Also I wanted to point to this
     phenomenon as a problem and form of corruption rather than as
     a target."

I'm sorry.  I do not understand your response.  I think you are saying 
that you also wanted to point to campaigning "as a problem and form of 
corruption", but I don't understand what you mean by "rather than as a 
target".


re: "OK, that is more straight forward talk.  I however wanted to
      express the theory that covers campaigning and also other
      areas ... "

To what end?  The scope of politics is incredibly broad.  We are 
discussing one tiny part of that topic ... the harmful aspects of 
political campaigning.  Rather than branching out into other areas, 
we'll be better served by examining campaigning more carefully.  For 
example, we need to acknowledge that, not only does the need for 
campaign funds invite financial corruption, the act of campaigning 
corrupts the candidate's psyche.  The nature of campaigning encourages 
candidates to believe the persistent laudatory claims made on their 
behalf.  If we do not understand and acknowledge the deleterious effects 
of campaigning, we can not hope to improve our political methods.


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

Although it's unlikely a pipsqueak like me has frightened anyone, I 
would not be ashamed of frightening party politicians.

Those who think "their own party is a good party" are a different case. 
  Some portion of them have never had occasion to question the wisdom of 
their partisanship.  Although I have no wish to 'frighten' them, I would 
like to encourage them to consider the possibility that a non-partisan 
electoral process might produce a better government.  To do that, it is 
important to highlight the adverse effects of party politics.


re: "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."

You're not wrong!

Practical Democracy will, in my opinion, "give the people even more 
benefit than the old system does".  However, the old system is 
entrenched and, for the most part, accepted without question.  Raising 
objections to it is a non-trivial enterprise.  The down side is that my 
observations sound like condemnation of everyone presently in politics. 
  That's unfortunate.

I believe there are many good people in politics, people who genuinely 
want to improve their government.  They are frustrated, not because of 
any shortcoming on their part, but because the nature of partisan 
politics does not allow them to 'make a difference'.

You may chastise me for my condemnation of our political institutions, 
but I hope, before we're done, you'll help devise an electoral method 
that allows those good people to reach the goals they are presently 
prevented from achieving.


re: [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."

You will not be surprised to learn that I have no marketing talent (and, 
forgive me for saying so, don't want any).


re: "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."

I understand your point, and, to some extent, agree with it.  That is 
one of the reasons I try to be careful with the wording of my 
assertions.  When it's all said and done, though, my only hope is that a 
few open-minded people will consider the nature of partisan politics, 
objectively and rationally, and lend their wit and wisdom to improving 
our political system.

Fred Gohlke