[EM] language/framing quibble

[Juho Laatu]

--- On Tue, 3/3/09, Fred Gohlke <fredgohlke at verizon.net> wrote:

> 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?

I meant that there is always "before".
If there is no campaigning after
nomination then one can try to make
oneself or one's favourite known
already before the nomination.

I didn't refer to present practices
of any country.

> 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.

I referred to the same problem as you.
Funding the campaigns may be a big
problem, but that doesn't yet mean
that all publicity of the candidates
(campaigning) would be bad. I'd like
to keep these two concepts separate.

> 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."

Yes, at least when the influence or
campaign financing gets too high.

> If we design a process that does not
> require campaigning, the evils of campaigning will be
> avoided.

How will you do that? It may be
possible to set limits to funding,
but is your intention to limit
also somehow the visibility of
the candidates (= no information
distribution at all) and the work
that voluntary campaign workers
do (that requires no money)?

Juho