[EM] Purpose of Declaration of Election-Method Experts and Enthusiasts

[Dave Ketchum]

Trying again as to what we are doing:

There can be democratic need in an election effort to make a  
decision.  Selecting a collection of voters and a collection of  
candidates to do this is a complex task and important, but not part of  
this effort.  We are debating among:
.     Plurality - which we want to dispose of for inadequacy.
.     IRV - pleases some, but many want to discard for failures we  
have seen.
.     Approval - most agree that it is a slight improvement, and most  
would rather do better.
.     Condorcet/score/etc - most agree that moving to one of these is  
worth it, and debate which is best.

Most of us agree that this is a worthy Election Method effort.

Fred wants something more, which he calls an Electoral Methods  
effort.  I agree there is plenty of work to do as to such as voters  
selecting candidates, but making our effort much bigger could make it  
fail from overweight.

Dave Ketchum

On Sep 5, 2011, at 6:53 AM, Michael Allan wrote:

> Fred Gohlke wrote:
>> I think it's important for people proposing Electoral Methods to
>> know (and agree upon) the prize they seek - and not lose sight of
>> it.  I fear I've failed to make that point.  I have no problem with
>> the 'Declaration'.  I simply fear the purpose of reforming electoral
>> methods is lost in the verbiage engulfing the reforms.  ...
>
> Richard Fobes wrote:
>> I don't know what that [last] sentence means.
>
> Fred is saying that the declaration does not state its purpose in
> terms of an ultimate goal, one that the non-expert reader might relate
> to and orient by.  He was wondering if you think the goal is too
> lofty, as some think Heaven is.  He quoted Bunyan:
>
>   John Bunyan. The heavenly footman; or, a description of the man
>   that gets to Heaven; together with the way he runs in, the marks he
>   goes by; also, some directions how to run so as to obtain.  1698.
>
> The declaration speaks only of the technical means of electoral
> reform, the "way, marks and directions".  Fred is saying that the
> reader cannot see through this technical language to the unwritten
> goal, which is therefore lost to sight.  Where the end is obscure, it
> is hard to judge the means and "know that each step recommended ... is
> a move toward greater democracy".
>
> -- 
> Michael Allan
>
> Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
> http://zelea.com/
>
>
> Richard Fobes wrote:
>> On 9/4/2011 1:26 PM, Fred Gohlke wrote:
>>> ...
>>> I'd like to know that each step recommended on the Electoral Methods
>>> site is a move toward greater democracy, but I'm not sure others  
>>> agree.
>>> There seems to be greater interest in solidifying the role of  
>>> political
>>> parties in the electoral infrastructure than in improving public
>>> participation in the political process.
>>> ...
>>
>> The Declaration loosens, rather than tightens, the grip that  
>> political
>> parties now have on politics. Completely releasing that grip comes
>> later. (One step at a time...)
>>
>> I agree that aspiring to lofty goals is, for lack of a better way  
>> to say
>> it, a good goal.  It's what I've always tried to do.
>>
>> As for promoting direct public participation in the political  
>> process,
>> first we have to develop election-method "tools" that support such
>> participation.  I've done a prototype of an early kind of such a  
>> tool at
>> www.NegotiationTool.com, although first the approach needs to be  
>> learned
>> in smaller groups before it can be scaled up to reach the long-term  
>> goal
>> of direct, citizen-based participation in government. Surely that's a
>> lofty goal.
>>
>>> ... I simply fear the purpose of reforming electoral methods
>>> is lost in the verbiage engulfing the reforms. ...
>>
>> I don't know what that sentence means.
>>
>>> ... However much I'd like to
>>> see movement toward more democratic electoral systems, I recognize  
>>> that
>>> progress must be slow and incremental. ...
>>
>> I disagree. We don't have to move slowly. And the Declaration will
>> dramatically speed up "movement toward more democratic electoral  
>> systems".
>>
>> Speeding things up is what will enable us to sooner reach our shared
>> lofty goal of eventual direct-participation democracy -- without the
>> currently necessary "evil" of political parties.
>>
>> We agree that we need to take one step at a time, yet I see no reason
>> that we have to take those steps sssooo ssslllooowwwlllyyy.  This  
>> is the
>> year 2011 and we're still using plurality voting in U.S. elections?
>>
>> Richard Fobes
>>
>>
>> On 9/4/2011 1:26 PM, Fred Gohlke wrote:
>>> Good Afternoon, Richard
>>>
>>> I absolutely agree - we must crawl before we can walk. However,  
>>> since we
>>> are not babies, perhaps our position is more analogous to  
>>> wriggling out
>>> of a cesspool. To do that, it's best to have an idea of where we  
>>> want to
>>> go so we don't flounder around in it longer than necessary.
>>>
>>> In thinking about how to respond to your note, I kept coming back  
>>> to a
>>> thought that seemed important, so I looked it up:
>>>
>>> "Keep thine eye upon the prize; be sure that thy eyes be
>>> continually upon the profit thou art like to get. The
>>> reason why men are so apt to faint in their race for
>>> heaven, it lieth chiefly in either of these two things:
>>>
>>> 1. They do not seriously consider the worth of the prize;
>>> or else if they do, they are afraid it is too good for
>>> them; ...
>>>
>>> 2. And do not let the thoughts of the rareness of the
>>> place make thee say in thy heart, This is too good
>>> for me; ..."
>>> John Bunyan, 1698
>>>
>>> I was surprised to learn this thought's religious overtones (I would
>>> have guessed John Bunyan was Paul Bunyan's dad), so I must beg the
>>> indulgence of those whose minds close at the first hint of  
>>> religiosity.
>>> The quality of an idea should be independent of its source. I must  
>>> have
>>> thought this one worthy, for I kept it in the back of my mind long  
>>> after
>>> I lost my awe of religion.
>>>
>>> I think it's important for people proposing Electoral Methods to  
>>> know
>>> (and agree upon) the prize they seek - and not lose sight of it. I  
>>> fear
>>> I've failed to make that point. I have no problem with the
>>> 'Declaration'. I simply fear the purpose of reforming electoral  
>>> methods
>>> is lost in the verbiage engulfing the reforms. However much I'd  
>>> like to
>>> see movement toward more democratic electoral systems, I recognize  
>>> that
>>> progress must be slow and incremental. Even Bunyan didn't expect to
>>> reach his prize during his lifetime.
>>>
>>> The purpose of the August 24th suggestion of listing fundamental
>>> principles was intended, not to define the 'Declaration', but to  
>>> ensure
>>> that participants in the discussion had the same goal.
>>>
>>> I'd like to know that each step recommended on the Electoral Methods
>>> site is a move toward greater democracy, but I'm not sure others  
>>> agree.
>>> There seems to be greater interest in solidifying the role of  
>>> political
>>> parties in the electoral infrastructure than in improving public
>>> participation in the political process.
>>>
>>> Wouldn't it be a good idea to acknowledge that we don't need more  
>>> of the
>>> poison that's making us so sick?
>>>
>>> Fred Gohlke