[EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process (Primary Thoughts)

[Juho Laatu]

On 3.7.2012, at 1.08, Michael Allan wrote:

> Fred Gohlke said to Juho:
>> ... As I've said before, parties always "seek the power to impose
>> their views on those who don't share them."  They don't always
>> succeed, but when they do it's catastrophic.  The threat of
>> domination is always present in a party-based system.
> 
> Juho Laatu replied:
>> As well as in a party-free system.
> 
> But imagine for a moment that the following is no longer possible:
> 
> (a) a *primary* electoral system
> (b) one that sponsors candidates for *public* office
> (c) where voting is restricted to *private* members
> 
> Specifically (c) is no longer possible.  Whenever a decision is made
> in support of a candidate for public office (or would be candidate),
> that decision is open to universal participation.  Further those who
> do participate are treated equally.  Their votes are not weighted, or
> anything like that.  In such a world, what *other* form of political
> domination could take hold?
> 
> I would argue that domination is no longer possible.  For better or
> worse, we would be free.

I agree that getting rid of the financial ties and getting rid of the party internal control on who can be elected would reduce oligarchy within the parties and power of money. But I'm afraid that humans are clever enough to find some new ways to find power and control the processes in ways that are not very beneficiial to the society. The threat will be present even if we would get rid of some of the key mechanisms that cause us problems today.

I used the soviet example to point out that even in a system that, according to its idealistic supporters, was supposed to get rid of the evils of the past, people soon found ways to corrupt the system. Maybe the same applies to the U.S.A. too. It is known to be a leading fortress of democracy, but now I hear some complaints about how it works. No doubt, also new systems, especially if generated from scratch, would find some ways to corrupt themselves. Hopefully they are better than the previous systems, but not always. So we better be careful with them and too hgh doses of idealism. But maybe we can trust that, despite of all these risks, we are on our way from the laws of jungle to something better.

Juho