[EM] Declaration of Election-Method Experts and Enthusiasts

[Dave Ketchum]

I look at this and shake my head.  I am not used to parties having the  
kind of control implied here - let alone evil control.  But the evil  
control could exist in other states.

Then I look at what has been written in our declaration.  I see  
nothing for:
.     Who can be a voter - most any adult.
.     Who can be a candidate - most any voter.
.     What about primary elections?  Nothing said inconsistent with  
voters joining a party, seeing to candidates for primaries and voting  
in primaries.

Why do we have primaries?  With FPTP, multiple candidates from a party  
in the main election could be a disaster.  If parties had the power  
some imply, they could attend to this by preventing multiple party  
candidates from being in the main election.

We talk of proportional-representation, that could involve party  
control - but I do not remember the Declaration getting into that yet.

Via http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menuf.cgi I looked up NY  
election law  (ELN).  It gets deeply involved in voters nominating  
candidates by petition - voters who do not spend all their time at  
this complex task - but nothing glaring about party control.

Dave Ketchum

On Sep 3, 2011, at 1:38 PM, Richard Fobes wrote:

> To: Fred Gohlke
>
> I agree that our Declaration only reduces, and does not completely  
> eliminate, control of politics by political parties and political- 
> party leaders.  Yet, as you have pointed out in other messages, we  
> need to take one step at a time.
>
> After we have disseminated this Declaration we can move on to  
> attempting to find some kind of consensus for proportional- 
> representation methods, and then write and disseminate a separate  
> Declaration on that topic, and that PR-based Declaration (if  
> followed) will further reduce control by political-party leaders  
> (and their followers).  Then, presumably years from now, we can move  
> on to developing, and reaching consensus about, voting methods that  
> fully bypass party politics.
>
> As you have correctly pointed out, we need to take one step at a time.
>
> Richard Fobes
>
>
> On 9/2/2011 1:25 PM, Fred Gohlke wrote:
>> Good Afternoon, Mr. Fobes
>>
>> re: "I think that the listed benefits (of election-method reform)
>> cover most of your "participation" principle ..."
>>
>> The declaration presumes the right of political parties to select the
>> candidates for public office, thereby preventing meaningful
>> participation by the public.
>>
>> Over two hundred years experience with party politics (should) have
>> taught us that political parties transcend the will of the people.
>> Parties are important for the principals: the party leaders,
>> contributors, candidates and elected officials, but the significance
>> diminishes rapidly as the distance from the center of power grows.  
>> Most
>> people are on the periphery, remote from the center of power. As
>> outsiders, they have little incentive to participate in the political
>> process. The flaws in party politics are disastrous and we ought not
>> blind ourselves to the political causes of the devastation we're
>> enduring, right now.
>>
>> If the only purpose of the declaration is to break the hold of  
>> plurality
>> it may be effective, but it offers no roadmap for those countries
>> seeking an electoral method that gives their people meaningful
>> participation in the political process.
>>
>> Fred Gohlke