[EM] Declaration of Election-Method Experts and Enthusiasts

[Richard Fobes]

The control of political parties is indirect, not direct -- just as it 
is for the influence of money in politics.

The link between money and politics is well known. Who really controls 
political parties is less-well known.

For details I suggest looking at my book titled "Ending The Hidden 
Unfairness In U.S. Elections", portions of which can be read at Google 
Books:

http://books.google.com/books?id=UOf86S4Lc-YC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage

Page 19 (Chapter 1) is a good place to start for understanding the 
indirect links between money and election results, and how political 
parties use their control of their party's money.

In any case, of course this indirect control is not directly addressed 
in our "Declaration of Election-Method Experts and Enthusiasts", which 
naturally focuses on election methods.

Richard Fobes


On 9/3/2011 6:55 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>