[EM] language/framing quibble

Dave Ketchum davek at clarityconnect.com
Tue Mar 3 12:43:34 PST 2009

So, you do not like the word "campaign".

Suppose I take an interest in becoming mayor of Owego.

This will require my neighbors learning this, and something of what I might 
do as mayor.

What shall we call this getting the word out, if not campaigning?

Because parties are usually involved, those of us sharing thought will call 
ourselves the "People's Party", though it does nothing outside our village.

My neighbors must learn this to be able to vote for me.


On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 13:22:53 -0500 Fred Gohlke wrote:
> 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
  davek at clarityconnect.com    people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
  Dave Ketchum   108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708   607-687-5026
            Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                  If you want peace, work for justice.

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list