[EM] The structuring of power and the composition of norms by communicative assent
mike at zelea.com
Sun Jan 11 17:20:03 PST 2009
Juho Laatu wrote:
> ... The topmost thoughts in my mind when thinking about this
> approach is that 1) the principles are good and 2) making the votes
> public limits the usability of the method. Traditionally secret
> votes have been a building block of democracies. Public votes work
> somewhere but not everywhere.
(1). Re good principles. I've heard it suggested that modern
democracy is the political form that is best suited to
capitalism.^ If we change it to something with a firmer base in
principles - a more substansive democracy - will it continue to be
friendly to business entrepreneurs? If not, what will happen? Has
anyone explored that scenario? (Any references?)
(2). Re public/private voting. Maybe there are two possibilities:
i) Initial participation by a small group of public "pioneers"
gradually changes attitudes. Open voting comes to be accepted as
a natural form of expression in the public sphere. Participation
levels grow. (There remains a core who will not/cannot vote
openly. We can get empirical data on this.)
ii) A private voting facility (secret ballot) is grafted onto the
public medium. Anyone who is content to participate merely as a
voter (not as a delegate, or legislative drafter, etc.) may vote
without disclosure. So we could extend participation to those
who will not/cannot vote openly. Results verification (and maybe
voter authentication) would be complicated by this, but the
overall function of the medium should be unaffected.
 Jürgen Habermas. 1973. Legitimation Crisis. Translated by
Thomas McCarthy, 1975. Beacon Hill, Boston.
 John Dunn. 1992. Conclusion. In Democracy: the Unfinished
Journey, 508 BC to AD 1993. Edited by John Dunn. Oxford
More information about the Election-Methods