[EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process

[Juho Laatu]

On 5.7.2012, at 23.24, Fred Gohlke wrote:

> Hi, Juho
> 
> You raised a multitude of points.
> 
> 
> re: "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.
> 
> That's a promising start.  It gives us two basic goals for our new conception:
> 
> 1) Parties must not be allowed to control the nomination of
>   candidates for public office.

To me this is not an absolute requirement but one approach worth a try.

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

This one could be a good target for practically all societies.

> 
> 
> re: "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."
> 
> If you are suggesting this as a reason for accepting the corrupt system we have, we would be foolish to defeat ourselves before we start.

Not a defence of current systems, just a warning that new systems can not be trusted either.

>  It is better that we forge ahead, however slowly, looking for a method that lets those who follow us avoid the traps that snagged us and forestalling any new obstacles we can anticipate.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson is credited with saying "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance".  Whether or not he actually said it, those who follow us should heed the sentiment.  At the same time, we must recognize that it's not enough to just be vigilant, we must also have an electoral method that lets us counter threats when they arise.  This suggests a third goal for our efforts:
> 
> 3) The electoral method must give the people a way to address
>   and resolve contemporary issues.

Ok. Is the intention to say that people should be able to react (and influence) when they see some changes in the society or when the politicians start some new initiatives?

> 
> 
> re: "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."
> 
> You've chosen a good example.  I spent five years in my country's armed forces and stand second to none in my love for my homeland.  Because of that love, I'm keenly aware of its flaws.  Instead of just lamenting them, I seek practical ways to correct them.
> 
> 
> re: "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."
> 
> The American system was "generated from scratch" and was incomparably "better than the previous systems".  Even so, over time, it became corrupted.  Our founders were aware of the dangers inherent in partisanship and did everything they could to protect the people from it, separating the powers of government to prevent the dominance of the then-perceived factions.  The level of anxiety was so great our first president, George Washington, in his Farewell Address, warned us parties were likely to become "potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government" - and that's what happened.
> 
> An early example of the danger of party politics was the plan advocated by the then Governor of Massachusetts, Elbridge Gerry, to manipulate the size and shape of legislative districts to protect existing office-holders.  The plan was opposed by the people and denigrated in the press as 'gerrymandering'.  The people of Massachusetts removed Gerry from office at the next election.  In spite of public opposition to the practice, it was adopted by politicians throughout the young nation and given the force of law in the several states.
> 
> That wasn't the end of this sorry affair.  Gerry's party, the Democratic-Republicans, demonstrated the arrogance and cynicism of party politicians by rewarding him with the Vice Presidential nomination in the 1812 national election.  Elbridge Gerry, who subverted the American ideal of democracy, became the fifth Vice President of the United States under President James Madison.
> 
> The people could do nothing to prevent this travesty.  The party system had already evolved to the point the people were excluded from the political process.  The political parties had already arrogated to themselves the right to pick the people they would let run for public office.
> 
> 
> re: "We would have to keep the candiate base very wide and
>     election process very random so that famous and powerful
>     candidates don't benefit of their position (and money)
>     too much."
> 
> If everyone in the electorate can be a candidate, that will keep the base as wide as possible.  When the people have a way to carefully examine the "famous and powerful candidates" to determine their integrity and their suitability for office, the danger posed by their fame and power will be judged by their peers.  Stated another way, if the people can determine that people of fame and power can be trusted with public office, we need not fear them.  Furthermore, validation of candidates (and public office-holders) must be repeated frequently. These points suggest additional goals for our electoral method:

People are able to evaluate their nearby and nearly similar fellow citizens reasonably well, but I'm less optimistic with how they evaluate different, psychologically powerful and well known figures. People tend to manipulate the opinions of each others. Public figures can be seen as supermen or as villains.

> 
> 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.

Yes except that we may have some limitations to keep the number of candidates reasonable. We may also try to keep the quality of the candidates good by setting some conditions that are not too difficult for good candidates to pass.

> 
> 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.

This is quite difficult but of course we should do our best to support this target. In local elections people know the canidates better. In "non-local" elections media and other public sources have an important role.

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

There are some benefits also in not having elections every day. If voters could change their represetatives any day, the representatives might follow the opinion surveys too much. I mean that in a _representative_ democracy one may expect the representatives to make also unpopular decisions (like raising the taxes when there is a need), and explain those decisions and build a complete package of their activities during their term for their supporters only before the election, so that the voters can see if the whole package was good or not. Annual elections may still be ok. And there are also benefits to allowing voters to change the political direction when they (strongly, not temporarily) feel like that.

(One approach would be to build some hysteresis to the system. If voters feel for few months that some representative should be changed to another one, then that change will take place.)

> 
> 
> re: "You can improve some essential aspects of the system. But
>     I'd like to see the complete plan, and preferrably also a
>     real experiment with the system, before I can trus that the
>     system work. It may take some time to find all the possible
>     leaks."
> 
> I could offer you a complete outline of one possible method of creating a democratic electoral process (and will, if you so desire), but I would much rather the outline be developed in concert with the minds of others on the EM site.  This site is, by far, the best I've found for the careful examination of electoral methods (even if the majority of posters seem committed to party politics).  It is my sincere hope that other posters on the site will find it worthwhile to join our discussion.

There are many kind of people on this list (good) and they have very different ways to participate in the discussion (good).

> 
> 
> re: "My intended message was just that humans in general and
>     organizations too have a tendency to seek power and stick
>     to it and eventually dominate others.
> 
> That is a fact we must recognize, address and resolve.  We must conceive an electoral method that harnesses this tendency and uses it to advance the common interest.

Yes. I see such developments roughly as small steps on the path of the mankind from the laws of jungle to something better. Although the process is slow, we can not say that the society is already as good as it gets, nor can we say that there is no hope in making it better.

> 
> Below is a copy of the list of the goals we've discussed so far.  Can they be honed and improved?  What other concerns must we address?

As already noted, people on this list have different agendas, and reasons for being here, and of course different viewpoints. Probably there will be no "list consensus" on what the goals should be. But the feedback hopefully makes your list of goals more accurate, more balanced, and better in addressing all the viewpoints and comments that potential readers might have. (I gave some quick comments above.)

Juho



> 
> Fred
> 
> 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).
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info