[EM] language/framing quibble

[Juho Laatu]

--- On Sun, 8/3/09, Fred Gohlke <fredgohlke at verizon.net> wrote:

> Good Afternoon, Juho
> 
> re: "Yes, that method reduces campaigning since all
> decisions are
>      very local.  The answer in
> this case seems to be to reduce
>      the number of candidates that each
> voter can vote."
> 
> The purpose of the method is not to "reduce the number of
> candidates that each voter can vote"

I didn't mean that that would be
the target, just the technical
reason why campaigning is less
important in this method.

> , but to guarantee that
> each participant has the greatest possible opportunity to
> impact the political decisions of the community.  The
> proposal reduces the number of candidates because it is a
> distillation process.  Its purpose is to empower each
> of our citizens to the maximum extent possible while seeking
> out and elevating the best of our citizens to positions of
> political leadership.
> 
> Groups of three (triads) are the optimum size for the
> exchange of ideas when a decision is required. 

I agree that the use of groups of
three does maximize the ability of
one person to impact the outcome
concretely (in small but final
decisions) very well. (Exchange of
ideas could be also weak in many
triads.)

> If you
> like, I can provide the rationale for this assertion so it
> can be challenged.
> 
> 
> re: "Local campaigning is of course still needed (in the
> small
>      groups)."
> 
> That's a semantic issue.  Participants who wish to
> advance must persuade their peers of their value.  That
> persuasive effort can be labeled 'campaigning', but it is
> not really analogous to the political campaigning we
> experience today so I prefer using a different term to
> describe it.

As you can see from my mails I'd
like to use exact terminology.
Instead of saying broadly that
campaigning is not good I'd like
to see term "campaigning" to be
clearly defined, for example as
"campaigning that is based on xx
like financing" or "campaigning
as it occurs in xx elections in
country yy". (regular English
use, industry specific use and
article specific use are all ok
as long as the intended meaning
is clear to all)

> 
> 
> re: "Also party campaigning may be present (anonymous)."
> 
> It will be present.  Perhaps I'd better explain why I
> think that is a good thing:
> 
> As has been pointed out, most recently by Dave Ketchum, not
> every member of the electorate understands the many aspects
> of public office. Partisans of all stripes can, and should,
> present their view on matters of contemporary importance so
> participants in the electoral process can, to the extent of
> their interest, inform themselves on the issues.  Most
> participants will support some partisans and oppose
> others.  That is the means by which complex issues are
> examined.  It is a good thing ... as long as their
> participation in the electoral process is in no way
> dependent on their partisanship.. 

Party based campaigning has also
risks. Some interest group could
e.g. finance the party campaign.
The party would train candidates
and finance representatives that
are loyal to its targets
(including the targets of the
interest group). Those loyal
candidates would benefit of the
campaign and would be reach good
positions within the party and
would have relatively good chances
of being elected also next time.

Juho


> As I've said before:
> 
>   "Partisanship is a vital part of society ...
> provided it
>    is always a voice and never a
> power.  The danger is not
>    in partisanship, it is in allowing
> partisans to control
>    government."
> 
> Fred Gohlke
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>