[EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process

[Fred Gohlke]

Good afternoon, Peter

You're right!!!  This subject is difficult and you cut a broad swath 
through it.

I won't try to cover everything in one response.  Instead, I'll pick 
bits and pieces we can examine.  We may modify our perspectives a bit or 
we may find our ideas incompatible.  In either case, we'll be clearing 
our own heads.

I'll begin, as you did, with Robert Dahl.  I am not familiar with his 
work, but the following is based on the link you provided and refers to 
the section on Democracy and Polyarchy.  The item referred to true 
democracy as a 'theoretical utopia'.  If that were true, our efforts 
here would be wasted, since utopias are unattainable.  In my view, 
democracy is not a utopia because it isn't a static condition, it's a 
dynamic state that improves and regresses.  Here, we seek to improve its 
present state, and that is attainable.

The cited section describes five criteria for creating an ideal democracy:

* Effective participation - Citizens must have adequate and equal
   opportunities to form their preference and place questions on
   the public agenda and express reasons for one outcome over the
   other.

* Voting equality at the decisive stage - Each citizen must be
   assured his or her judgments will be counted as equal in
   weights to the judgments of others.

* Enlightened understanding - Citizens must enjoy ample and equal
   opportunities for discovering and affirming what choice would
   best serve their interests.

* Control of the agenda - Demos or people must have the
   opportunity to decide what political matters actually are and
   what should be brought up for deliberation.

* Inclusiveness - Equality must extend to all citizens within the
   state.  Everyone has legitimate stake within the political
   process.

Is it possible to merge these five points with the 11 goals?

It seems to me the first is similar to goal (3).  Can we merge these two 
into a single statement?  Perhaps something like:

  3) The electoral method must give citizens adequate and equal
     opportunities to place questions on the public agenda and
     express reasons for one outcome over another.


The second criterion fails to define 'decisive stage'.  If the term 
means decision points, they can vary from one citizen to the next, 
depending on their interest in the issue being decided.  To the extent 
that the term means that each citizen must have an equal ability to 
affect a decision, it attempts to set by decree a condition controlled 
by nature or circumstance.  Goal (4) comes closest to meeting the 
demands of this criterion.  Can it be better stated?


The third criterion is fine, except for the introductory term, 
"enlightened understanding"; enlightenment cannot be ordained.  An 
important aspect of discovering and affirming information is access to 
the matter being examined and the ability to examine it.  Goal (8), 
though quite differently stated, comes closest to meeting the third 
criterion.  Can the differences between them be resolved?


The fourth criterion is well stated and vital to achieving a democratic 
political system.  Unless there are objections, I plan to replace goal 
(3) with this statement:

  3) The electoral method must give the people a way to decide
     what political matters should be brought up for deliberation.


The fifth criterion is fine as far as it goes, but must recognize that 
equality of access does not guarantee equality of utilization.  Goal 
(4), requiring equal access and participation to the full extent of each 
individual's desire and ability, is a better way of stating this criterion.

Are there issues here?  Can they be resolved?

I'll try to move forward a bit in the morning.

Fred