[EM] language/framing quibble

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Morning, David

re: "... this is campaigning, and I do not understand your
      apparent fear of that word."

Fear is not quite the right word, I find campaigning repugnant.

Campaigning is a rabble-rousing technique.  It does not appeal to the 
voter's reason, it is designed by professionals to suppress reason and 
inspire an emotional reaction.  It results in a government controlled by 
passion at the expense of sanity.

The enormous cost of political campaigns requires candidates to sell 
their soul to a party.  The party, because of its control of a large 
number of politicians, attracts money from those who wish to influence 
the government.  Parties are nothing more than conduits for the 
corruption that pervades our legislative bodies.

Not only does the need for campaign funds invite financial corruption, 
the act of campaigning requires candidates to profess support for 
positions they do not hold and causes them to deceive by obfuscation and 
outright lying.  The insincerity of 'campaign promises' is a sick 
national joke.

When we devise an electoral method that eliminates the need for 
campaigning, we will eliminate the greatest cause of incompetence and 
corruption in government.


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

'Properly' in your view, 'improperly' in mine.  To say voters should be 
able to nominate outside the party structure is not helpful.  As long as 
candidates must 'campaign' for office, people nominated 'outside the 
party structure' have no chance of attaining office.


re: "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."

In the short term, I think you're probably right.  Meanwhile, we should 
consider the elements of a long-term solution.

Fred Gohlke