[EM] A design flaw in the electoral system

[Fred Gohlke]

Hi, Michael

In describing the design flaw in the electoral process at:

http://zelea.com/project/autonomy/a/fau/fau.xht#fla

you say:

   "The formal aggregate of votes in the count engine does not
    correspond to an actual aggregate of voters in the social
    world.  The individual votes were brought together to make a
    result, but the individual voters were not brought together as
    such to make a decision; therefore no valid decision can be
    extracted from the result."

Bringing the individual voters together to make a decision is 
impractical in any community with more than a few people.  Voting by 
ballot was adopted to remedy this problem.

In the small communities that dominated the United States before the 
19th century, democratic politics were primarily of the town meeting 
variety.  In this environment, individuals participated in the 
discussion of community issues.  Decisions were made by consensus, and, 
when consensus was not reached, by a 'show of hands'.  When these 
methods became unwieldy or impractical, decisions were made by 
ballot-type voting.  The question of 'voters being separated from their 
votes' was not significant.

What made the process democratic was not the method of voting but that 
the people discussed the issues themselves and decided which were of 
sufficient import to be decided by finding the will of the majority. 
When the people voted, they voted on matters that were important to them.

Over time, that changed.

Gradually, advocates of the various perspectives played a larger role in 
the process, forming factions and attracting followers.  As their power 
grew (through the size of their following) they evolved into political 
parties, bent on seizing power.

George Washington, with remarkable foresight, warned "in the most solemn 
manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party".  He called 
partisanship an unquenchable fire that "demands a uniform vigilance to 
prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should 
consume".  He predicted that political parties were likely to become 
"potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will 
be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for 
themselves the reins of government"[1].

The tragedy of democracy in America is that our intellectual community 
failed to anticipate and forestall the 'potent engines' that robbed the 
people of their birthright.  Instead, we have been consumed by the 
parties Washington so accurately foretold.

In our time, political parties are the sole arbiters of all political 
issues.  The public is excluded from the process.  That is the flaw in 
our political system.

For a political process to be democratic, the people must decide what is 
important and must choose the best advocates of their interests to 
represent them in their government.  How many among us have the wit to 
recognize the need for such a system?

Fred Gohlke

1) http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp