[EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Afternoon, Peter

Our discussion started with an assertion that nothing in our political 
process seeks the active participation of the individual members of the 
community.  The electoral method assumes that the assertive individuals 
who seek positions as our political leaders have the knowledge, ability 
and desire to serve the common interest - an assumption that is 
frequently wrong. There is also an assumption that those who do not step 
forward are not competent to serve as leaders or influence the choice of 
leaders - an assumption belied by the broad distribution of talented 
individuals in the population.

The rationale for this perspective was contained in the June 22, 2012 
post that started this thread.  I urge you to take the time to read that 
post because it sets the tone for our discussion.  The post closes by 
posing the critical question: "How can we create an electoral process 
that allows and encourages the entire electorate to exercise their 
ability to guide the community's affairs to the full extent of their 
desire and ability?"

A poster said joining a party constituted active participation in the 
political process.  This raised the argument that those who join parties 
are profoundly passive because they cede their right to guide their 
community to the leaders of self-interested groups that serve narrow 
special interests.

It was suggested that voting was a powerful way to influence the 
direction of society.  This raised the objection that voting gives the 
illusion of power but is a sign of weakness because the only options 
available to the voters are those offered by party leaders.

There was discussion of the way political parties write the rules by 
which the government functions, sell legislation to vested interests, 
and choose candidates committed to enact the laws written for them by 
the people who finance their election campaigns.  (It would be hard to 
imagine a more dangerous political arrangement.)

It was pointed out that political parties are quasi-official 
institutions designed to acquire the reins of government.  They do not 
create democracies, they build oligarchies (political systems governed 
by a few people).  Surprisingly, in spite of the large number of people 
on this site that favor party-based systems, no-one stood up to defend 
party politics.

We explored why partisanship is a vital part of society provided it is 
always a voice for the people and never a power in its own right, and 
concluded the danger is not in partisanship but in allowing partisans to 
control government.

We briefly touched on the way a sortition-based system would weaken the 
role of parties but failed to examine the possibility and wisdom of 
sortition as an electoral method.

We talked about the adverse nature of political campaigning, how the 
need for funding makes political parties conduits for corruption and how 
the elevation of corrupt politicians to positions of political 
leadership destroys society because morality is a top-down phenomenon.

We talked about the wisdom of eliminating party sponsorship of 
candidates for public office and letting the people choose the best 
advocates of the public interest from among themselves, and started 
looking at ways to accomplish that.

During the course of the discussion, I suggested several possible goals 
for an electoral process.  They should be enhanced or refuted:

1) Parties must not be allowed to control the nomination of
    candidates for public office.

2) The electoral method must not require that candidates spend
    vast sums of money to achieve public office.

3) The electoral method must give the people a way to address
    and resolve contemporary issues.

4) The electoral method must allow every member of the electorate
    to become a candidate and participate in the electoral process
    to the full extent of each individual's desire and ability.

5) The electoral method must ensure that all candidates for
    public office are carefully examined to determine their
    integrity and suitability to serve as advocates for the
    people.

6) The electoral method must be repeated frequently (preferably
    annually).

7) The electoral method must include a means for the electorate
    to recall an elected official.

8) The electoral method must ensure that candidates for public
    office are examined, face-to-face, by people with a vital
    interest in ascertaining their character, and the examiners
    must have enough time to investigate their subject thoroughly.

9) The electoral method must accommodate the fact that parties,
    interest groups, factions and enclaves are a vital part of
    society.

Then, in the most recent part of the discussion, we were looking at the 
possibility of an electoral method where parties and non-partisans 
nominate people for public office, where all parties (and non-partisans) 
select the most effective advocates of the group's position internally, 
the resulting nominees decide among themselves (in public sessions 
lasting several weeks during which they may be challenged by the public 
and the media as well as each other) which individuals will be 
candidates for public office.  On the day following the selection of 
candidates, the public votes on those candidates.  The purpose of voting 
on the day after the candidates are named is to prevent campaigning, 
because all pertinent information is disclosed during the decision 
making process that results in the candidate selection. I believe this 
approach has flaws but have not yet described them because others may 
have contributions worthy of consideration.

This summary is incomplete.  For example, it does not mention the strong 
opposition of one poster.  However, it does offer a brief overview of 
the major points (as I see them).  Is that enough for you to contribute 
ideas for conceiving a democratic electoral process?

Fred