[EM] language/framing quibble

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Morning, Juho

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

In which case?  In the case of the present system, where campaigning is 
used to 'sell' corrupt politicians to the people?


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

     [To which you responded] "To me this is another independent
     and interesting question. (nomination vs. campaigning) (both
     can be party driven or party controlled)"

The point is that nominations should not be "party driven or party 
controlled".  If our electoral process is to be democratic, it must be 
controlled by the people, not by parties.


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

Indeed, it is.


re: "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.)"

Campaigning, in itself, is a problem because politicians must 'sell 
their soul' for campaign funds and because the act of campaigning 
debases the candidate.  Campaigning is only unavoidable as long as you 
insist that 'selling' candidates to the people is a good thing.  Once 
you move past that people-deceiving, rabble-rousing tactic and ask 
yourself if there are other ways for the people to carefully examine 
candidates, new and better methods present themselves.


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

Not "could have", "do have".


re: "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."

We have agreed that the need for money in the electoral process is 
corrupting.  Can we now take that point as 'given'?  If we can accept 
that simple ... and obvious ... fact, we can start a list of objectives 
for a more democratic electoral process with, "It must not place a 
financial burden on political candidates."


re: [my comment] "... the act of campaigning corrupts the
     candidate's psyche."

     [you responded] "Such risks can't be avoided."

Of course they can.  If we design a process that does not require 
campaigning, the evils of campaigning will be avoided.  To persuade 
yourself that such risks are unavoidable is to condone them.  Instead of 
accepting them because they are an integral part of the present system, 
ought we not apply our intellect to the difficult task of devising a 
system that avoids them?


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

Only those willing to accept the label (often applied to voters in the 
United States) of being lazy or stupid have difficulty entertaining new 
ideas.  I do not deny such people exist, but I'm confident there are 
enough thoughtful, creative people among us to build a better political 
system.  The distribution of people with exemplary qualities is no less 
broad today than it was in the 18th century, when our Constitution was 
drawn.


re: "If the reform will be implemented using traditional
      political routes best efficiency might be reached by
      applying also marketing in various directions."

It will certainly need a broad range of talents, not least of which is 
the ability to encourage support by describing the concepts in a 
persuasive manner.


re: "Also a more direct approach may work, but only if the case
      is really solid and has natural support."

The best way to determine if it is really solid is to challenge it with 
rational arguments.  Natural support will flow when our educational 
institutions look beyond the platitudes that harness academic inquiry to 
existing political structures; when they have the courage to objectively 
analyze the profoundly anti-democratic nature of partisan politics, and 
do so in spite of the storm of calumny their efforts are sure to unleash.

Fred Gohlke