[EM] language/framing quibble

[Juho Laatu]

--- On Sat, 28/2/09, Fred Gohlke <fredgohlke at verizon.net> wrote:

> 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.

In this case there are also opportunities
in campaigning before nomination.

> 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.

To me this is another independent and
interesting question. (nomination vs.
campaigning) (both can be party driven
or party controlled)

> We are not discussing the economy.

I presented the one-dollar-one-vote
principle as a bad practice for
elections.

>  All it does is deflect attention from the
> original, and very important, question:
> 
> "Is it not obvious that campaigning, itself, is the
> problem?"

I don't see campaigning as a problem
in itself (although there may be
problems in it, particularly since
some sort of campaigning or at least
"active information sharing" seems
unavoidable.

(Party controlled campaigning or party
controlled nomination could have more
problems.)

>     [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."

>   , but I
> don't understand what you mean by "rather than as a
> target".

I referred to your expression "He who
pays the piper, calls the tune". And I
intended to say simply that "extensive
use of money" easily leads to corruption
and doesn't support democracy in the
best/intended way, and therefore is not
a target to implement.

> 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?

?

> For example, we
> need to acknowledge that, not only does the need for
> campaign funds invite financial corruption,

Yes, this is a dangerous combination.

> the act of
> campaigning corrupts the candidate's psyche.

Such risks can't be avoided. Many
things in politics may do the same.

> However, the old system is entrenched and, for the most
> part, accepted without question.  Raising objections to it
> is a non-trivial enterprise.

People often have difficulties to
think in any other way than the
current way.

> 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'.

Yes.

> 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.

Happy to do so, if I any way can.

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

Also I prefer straight talk to herding.
If the reform will be implemented using
traditional political routes best
efficiency might be reached by applying
also marketing in various directions.
Also a more direct approach may work,
but only if the case is really solid
and has natural support.

Juho