[EM] Voting reform statement; a clearer and more inspiring version

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Afternoon, Richard

re: "Your implication (at the bottom of your message) that our
      goal should be to create something that is 'supported by all
      members' ..."

I apologize for giving you that impression; it was not my intent.

What I was suggesting was that it might be a good idea to step back and 
find out which principles all members approve - and which they don't - 
so those on which there is disagreement can be examined.  Examination 
may lead to agreement, or to discovery of a different principle, or to 
discarding the idea, or to separate lines of analysis, all of which are 
helpful in achieving the goal of the discussion.

Specific feedback on your list is not possible for me because it would 
require accepting the assumption that party politics is the only means 
of achieving democratic government.

It's not.

A deliberative process is more effective in achieving what Lincoln 
described as government 'of the people, by the people, for the people.'

There is some recent work that shows how deliberation resolves partisan 
differences and is beneficial to the participants.  Two papers 
describing such results will be presented at the American Political 
Science Association meeting in Seattle, early in next month.  They are:

Pogrebinschi, Thamy, Participatory Democracy and the Representation of 
Minority Groups in Brazil (2011). APSA 2011 Annual Meeting Paper.

Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1901000

and

Esterling, Kevin M., Fung, Archon and Lee, Taeku, Knowledge Inequality 
and Empowerment in Small Deliberative Groups: Evidence from a Randomized 
Experiment at the Oboe Townhalls (2011). APSA 2011 Annual Meeting Paper.

Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1902664

These papers should provide the impetus for seeking an electoral process 
that is less destructive than party politics.

Fred Gohlke