[EM] language/framing quibble

[Dave Ketchum]

I see that you are trying, and getting into long missives.  I will try for 
helpful thoughts.  I will speak from New York state, where some of the laws 
make sense.

Parties can be useful, but the framework needs to facilitate control by the 
party members.
      Part of this is for party committees being elected by party members. 
  Actually committee members could be nominated by the kind of committee 
you seem to fear - but with ability of voters to do their own nominating 
this can be corrected when such is needed.

While parties properly nominate candidates, voters should also be able to 
do nominations outside the party structure.

Candidate qualities should be visible to all voters with reasonable voter 
effort.  To me this is campaigning, and I do not understand your apparent 
fear of that word.
       Voters will decide for themselves how much effort they are willing 
to invest in elections - what is needed is maximizing the amount they can 
learn with reasonable effort.

As to election methods, we need to do better than Plurality.  I suggest 
more thought as to score, IRV, and Condorcet - which let voters vote for 
more than one candidate.

DWK

On  Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:21:00 -0500 Fred Gohlke wrote:
> 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
-- 
  davek at clarityconnect.com    people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
  Dave Ketchum   108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708   607-687-5026
            Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                  If you want peace, work for justice.