[EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process

[Michael Allan]

Hi Fred,

> ... the third step: some community, somewhere, will try [the new
> process], just as Aspen, Colorado and Burlington, Vermont are
> reported to have tried IRV.  If [it] is practical and attractive
> from the people's perspective, other communities will adopt it.

Could you elaborate here?  I want to look at problems of feasibility.
By what sequence of events (again 1, 2, 3) might the community transit
from the status quo to that better future, as you envision it?

Mike


Fred Gohlke said:
> Good Morning, Michael
> 
> re: "... please give me your own thoughts: By what sequence of
>       historical events (1, 2, 3) might we transit from the status
>       quo to a better future, as you envision it?"
> 
> It takes several steps to change a political culture.  It has taken over 
> 200 years to reach our present state.  Corrections will take time.
> 
> The first step is to form a reasonable theory and challenge it.  We're 
> all limited by the shackles of our own minds so we must seek external 
> challenges to be sure our examination is thorough.  This is the most 
> difficult step.  Rational challenges are hard to find in the field of 
> politics.  Perhaps 'different' ideas are shunned in all fields.
> 
> The heart of the difficulty lies in the academic community.  These are 
> the people we look to for intellectual leadership, but they are no more 
> open-minded than the general population; perhaps less so.  At present, 
> academia is committed to the fallacious notion that the best way to 
> serve the public interest is to allow oligarchic groups to aggregate 
> power through adversarial tactics.
> 
> The failure of that approach - in terms of humanity - roars throughout 
> the world; from the Middle East, Europe, and Asia to the United States, 
> where the powers behind the throne are warring to impose their seriously 
> flawed version of 'democracy' on the world.
> 
> [Our President warned us, over 100 years ago, that there was an 'unholy 
> alliance' between corrupt business and corrupt politics in the United 
> States.  We couldn't break that alliance because party politics kept us 
> divided and allowed the uninhibited growth of the parasitic behemoths 
> that devour their hosts - us - like cancer.]
> 
> The second step in improving the political culture is inspiring the 
> academic community to consider, challenge and analyze alternatives to 
> the existing system.  From that effort flows concrete for the foundation 
> of a practical, democratic political system.
> 
> The second step will come, however unlikely that may seem right now, 
> because political evolution is inexorable.  The failures of the 
> pseudo-democracies that dominate our present era are too pronounced to 
> be ignored forever.
> 
> My greatest fear is that a demagogue will spring up and inspire a 
> revolution before we have prepared a practical, democratic political 
> system.  Barring that unpleasant eventuality, when a practical 
> alternative to the existing systems emerges, we will take the third 
> step:  some community, somewhere, will try it, just as Aspen, Colorado 
> and Burlington, Vermont are reported to have tried IRV.  If the 
> alternative is practical and attractive from the people's perspective, 
> other communities will adopt it.
> 
> That's what I think will happen, Mike.  Right now, we're still at the 
> first step: seeking rational challenges.  We have a long way to go.
> 
> 
> re: "To 'check' (i.e., 'the pursuit of self-interest') implies a
>       force or constraint."
> 
> That's true.  The alternative to some degree of constraint is anarchy 
> and I do not support anarchy.  Up to a point, constraints are valuable. 
>   I need go no further than the nearest traffic light to understand why. 
>   What, exactly, are proper constraints and what are improper is a 
> difficult topic I'd rather avoid at this point in our discussion, but 
> I've no doubt that a society with no constraint on greed (for example) 
> is flawed.
> 
> 
> re: "... my overall impression is that you intend to remove
>       the political parties from power by imposing some kind
>       of reform."
> 
> The term 'removing them' implies an act of force and that is not my 
> intent.  My purpose is not to remove them but to change their role. 
> Parties are a vital part of society - provided they are always a voice 
> and never a power.  The danger is not in parties, it is in allowing 
> parties to control government.  Society evolves through the inception 
> and spread of new ideas.  My goal is to let parties give their most 
> persuasive advocates an opportunity to convince non-partisans of the 
> value of their perspective.
> 
> Fred