[EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process

[Juho Laatu]

On 23.6.2012, at 3.19, Fred Gohlke wrote:

> Since time immemorial, democratic political action has taken place in pretty much the same way; a community believes or is led to believe it needs leaders, everyone in the community is invited to attend a meeting and encouraged to seek a leadership position.  At some point, members of the community are nominated for office and an election is held.  This methodology is common to such disparate groups as the Junior Chamber of Commerce, the local Little League, and the Town Meetings that were once a staple of American politics - and from which our present system grew.
> 
> A notable thing about this process is that it is passive.  Democracy, which we believe to be government "by the people" implies the active participation of the people.  Our attempts to achieve democratic outcomes by this method fail because nothing in the process seeks the active participation of the individual members of the community. Instead, the membership waits for individuals to step up and take leadership positions.

I think the method in princple encourages people to participate, e.g. via membership in a party. It may however well be that this channel of inluence (bottom-up within parties) is weaker than we woud like it to be. Also voting can be seen as a very powerful yet easy way to influence on the direction that the society will take (of course unless you think that this path does not work either).

>  There is an assumption that those who step forward have the knowledge, ability and desire to serve the common interest - an assumption that is frequently wrong.

Or there is an assumption that voters will elect only or mainly people with "the knowledge, ability and desire to serve the common interest", which may also be frequently wrong.

>  There is also an assumption that those who do not step up are not competent to influence the choice of leaders - an assumption belied by the broad distribution of talented individuals in the population.

I think successful business people may have similar thoughts on the business sector. Maybe the same also with scientists etc. I mean that people tend to think that their sector, their organization, their country and they themselves are the best or the most important one, or close to that. In a democratic society people however hopefully generally feel that normal people actually should (directly or indirectly) decide what the direction of the society is and which people should lead it (otherwise we are already departing the great idea of democracy).

> 
> The idea of calling a meeting and encouraging all members of the community to attend and participate fails because most of us lack the peculiar certainty that allows us to speak for others.  That does not mean we do not have sound, rational ideas about how humans should interact, it just means we are less vociferous than those who step forward.
> 
> This phenomenon is influenced by many factors, not least of which is the size of the community.  The larger the group, the less inclined most of us are to participate in the discussion and the more inclined we are to simply form unvoiced opinions.  Many of us are unaware of our political talents because we are never placed in a situation that calls upon us to exercise that ability.  If we had an electoral process that encouraged us to discuss current and prospective issues with our peers and have meaningful input into the community's activities, some of us would blossom.  Some, who start out unsure of their ability, would, when their reason is consulted, learn they can persuade others of the value of our ideas.
> 
> Persuasion is an important component of the electoral process.  When persuasion occurs between two people, it takes place as a dialogue with one person attempting to persuade the other.  In such events, both parties are free to participate in the process.  The person to be persuaded can question the persuader as to specific points and present alternative points about the topic under discussion.  Under such circumstances, it is possible that the persuader will become the persuaded.
> 
> However, when persuasion involves multiple people, it has a greater tendency to occur as a monologue.  The transition from dialogue to monologue accelerates as the number of people to be persuaded increases.  The larger the number of people, the less free some of them are to participate in the process.  They have fewer opportunities and are less inclined to question specific points or offer alternatives about the topic under discussion.
> 
> In such circumstances, the more assertive individuals will dominate the discussion and the viewpoints of the less assertive members will not be expressed.  The assertive individual is unlikely to be persuaded of the wisdom of an alternative idea, because the view will not be expressed or discussed.
> 
> This rationale suggests the wisdom of devising an electoral method that makes every member of the electorate an active participant in the process.  The critical question such a discussion must answer is, "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?"

I agree that the methods or the working practices of organizations as a whole could and should be improved. One option is to take the approach to encourage a persuation style approach in small groups. That does not rule out other opportunities like improving the internal procedures of organizations so that they better lift up persons that would be the best to put at the top positions. All hands and all tricks are needed. People have taken few steps forward from the rules of jungle but that doesn't mean that the rules would be perfect at this point in history.

Juho


> 
> Respectfully submitted,
> 
> Fred Gohlke
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info