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

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Afternoon, Jameson

I understand the point you make, even if I don't see it as a good idea 
for those seeking to define rational concepts.  While the technology of 
communication has advanced over time, its effectiveness has lagged 
because the modes of communication, whether printed or broadcast, are 
uni-directional - from an author or announcer to an audience.  Such 
communication, unfortunately and inaccurately, assumes the author or 
announcer has greater knowledge than the audience.  Not only is that 
rarely (if ever) true, it tends to propagate the inadequacies and biases 
of the source.  One of the results is that the audience habitually 
discounts the source's assertions.  Instead of building a sound 
knowledge base, the audience ignores opinions it doesn't share.

Rational conclusions cannot be reached unless assertions are challenged 
and the underlying concepts examined.  That is best done, one at a time. 
  It is a slow process of assembling and distilling bits of information 
that, taken together, help us identify basic principles.  The process is 
difficult because, in the realm of human interaction, most, if not all, 
principles are dynamic.  What is true in one set of circumstances may be 
untrue in another.

I understand your point of view and have used it often.  It works well 
when seeking material accomplishment.  For intellectual analysis, 
though, my personal preference is for a more structured approach, 
building a solid structure, one brick at a time.

Fred Gohlke