[EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process

[Peter Zbornik]

Dear Fred,

Thanks for the overview.
It certainly helps to get a grip on the discussion.
I am sending some unstructured ideas into the discussion.

Being a member of the Czech Green party myself, I think that political
parties are not inherently "evil".
The problem is how to make the primary election process and the "primary
legislative proces" democratic and inclusive, so that most people feel
motivated to take part of it, are able to influence politics and have the
same chances to participate - see the "classic" definition of an ideal
democracy by R. Dahl  -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Dahl#Democracy_and_polyarchies
The problem is, that there has not yet been a better proposal around.

Problems with the electoral process:
In your list, you forgot to mention "campaign spending by third parties"
and "media coverage".
I also found a list of insufficiencies of representative democracy here:
http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Representative_democracy
A candidate needs not to spend vast amounts of money, he just needs a fat
cat who spends horrendous amounts of money behind the scene to influence
public opinion through mass media.
The money of the fat cat would be wasted however, if he/she would not be
reasonably sure to get a "return of his/her investment" (ROI).
A positive ROI would fail to materialize:
1) if it would prove too expensive to bribe the voters (the fat cat has to
spend his/her money on something to help his/her candidate), for instance
if (for the sake of argument), there was no mass media, only peer-to-peer
media, and
2) if the fat cat would not be able to override the opinion of the voters
by simply closing a secret agreement with the supported candidate, that
after being elected he/she will give the fat cat the public contracts and
public money he/she needs to get his/her ROI positive.

I also think we should study how media could be democratized, using
peer-to-peer concepts. It is however no secret, that media can efficiently
"bury" or "coronate" a candidate. In the case when media is privately
owned, this means, that democracy is in part privatized too. A media owner
doesn't have to spend any money, he just tells his/her employees what to
write or send, he/she doesn't even have to order someone to do something,
it is just enough to hire and fire the right people.

Regulating and innovating the party:
I personally think, the political parties need regulation and technological
innovation in order to arrive at close to ideal democratic conditions,
which R. Dahl defined.
By regulation I mean sense, that internal party democracy will be under the
protection of law, just as in stock companies.
Fraud in member counts, intimidation, limiting comunication channels only
to some in the party, this should be ruled out.
Minorities in the party should have rights, for instance to call for audits.

By technological innovation I mean on-line and secure voting, and arenas to
exchange ideas and tools that track the history of a candidate. All of this
already works in on-line forums.

Democratical innovation of the party would be needed too of course (like
proportional election systems, which have been studied shamefully little).

Real world examples:
The German Pirate party is an exception so far and it seems it has managed
to gather many members based on the promise, that politics can be fun, and
the normal man can actually influence politics and they have a
technological platform (liquid feedback) and the expertise (I guess the
entire hacker community) to try out some new stuff. The concept of Liquid
democracy is described here:
http://spinelessliberal.wordpress.com/2012/05/26/liquid-democracy-the-future-of-ldconf/

Advantages of political parties:
An advantage of political parties is, that people seem to like meeting
likely-minded people, because then it is so much easier to agree upon
something, such as a political program, which the winning candidates should
implement.

Or, the other way around. If we manage to design an inclusive and open
primary election process, then one group might appear which has a better
idea of how the process should work. Refusing this group the possiblity to
try their thing out for real, i.e. to found a party would lead us to a
one-party state, which is practically unreformable.

Or the other way around again, if a party was 100% democratic, then we
would actually need no more than one party, as all opinions would be
adequatly taken care of.

If I should mention, what is wrong with democracy today, I would say:
1) Capital transations, which are not monitored by a regulator - i.e.
untransparent cash-flow
2) Organizational and techical innovation in all areas, exept for the
democratic functioning of the state
3) Privately-owned media, which has the ability to tilt the election
results in any direction based the owners want
4) Majority rule
5) Lack of inovation

In a deeper level, I feel it is a mistake only to focus on currently
elected positions.
I think that a more interesting question would be what positions in the
public administration and government should be elected and how.
I mean, how much power does the US president really have to really change
something?

One question I am asking myself is: How do you create an environment that
supports democratic innovation in a similar way that technological
innovation has been supported last decades? The problem with democracy
compared to capitalism (i.e. the driver of technological innovation), is
that "profit" in capitalism is easily defineable, but not in democracy. In
other words, how do we measure the "democratic profitability".

The only workable definition of "democratic profitability" I can come up
with is, that people like being member of a "public" (or innovative) party
more, than a (standard) "political" party. Part of this "liking being a
party member" is to have a feeling of belonging, meeting likely-minded
people, have a feeling of being able to change something for the better -
i.e. soft concepts, which might not be supported by a party, which mixes
all kinds of people and oppinions into one melting pot.

One might say Google innovated and changed the internet.
We need to create the "Google" of politics.

I also feel, that we could start thinking of organising society not
primarily based on geographical entities, but rather focusing on different
areas of need, like education, social welfare, corporate welfare, labor
market policies, financial market policies, energy, defense, civil society
and so on. I.e. electing different representatives to different areas of
need (pleas come up with a better notion than "area of need").

Transnational corporations have had their enormous success due to the fact
that they do not try to do "everything" in a geographically based area, but
rather they try to do "their thing" in a specific, hm, market segment (or
area of need) but without any geographical limitations.

This subject is difficult and I don't have a clear opinion myself.

Best regards
Peter Zborník

2012/8/4 Fred Gohlke <fredgohlke at verizon.net>

> 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 st rted 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
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120805/01477757/attachment-0004.htm>