[EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process

[Juho Laatu]

On 26.6.2012, at 23.12, Fred Gohlke wrote:

> Hi, Juho
> 
> re: "Yes, I agree that parties typically have tendency to drive
>     the system towards oligarchy and not towards (more voter
>     controlled) democracy."
> 
> Precisely.  And that knowledge urges us to 'think outside the box' - to 'go where no man has gone before.'  We need new thinking.  We need a fresh approach that seeks out and elevates our best advocates of the common interest in a way that leads, inexorably, to reaching our common goals.

I agree that all modern democratic systems have potential to get better.

> 
> 
> re: "Sponsoring is a separate topic."
> 
> Absolutely not!!!!
> 
> Sponsorship is the heart of party power.

Ok, not separate but one that is associated with party power. What I meant with "separate" is that sponsoring rules and practices may be very different in different countries, and that sponsoring rules can be changed without changing the other rules.

>  Their ability to choose and sponsor the candidates we are allowed to vote for gives them control of the entire political process.  They write the rules by which the government functions, sell legislation to vested interests, and choose candidates committed to enact the laws written for them by the people who finance their election campaigns.  It would be hard to imagine a more dangerous political arrangement.

I agree that sponsoring can be very dangerous to a political system.

> 
> 
> re: "I agree. But in democracies the voters can (at least in
>     principle) kick the worst of the partis out of power."
> 
> Are you speaking of the way the people kicked the National Socialists out of power in Germany in the last century?  It took a lot of people to do that and it cost a lot of lives (not all of them German).  Must we repeat our past mistakes?

I'm afraid the main rule is that major improvements come only after major catastrophes. We must work to make the practices better.

> 
> 
> re: "There is one fundamental problem here. If you want to change
>     the direction or avoid this kind of developments you need to
>     co-operate with other people. When you form such a co-
>     operation group you already possibly form a new party (or a
>     group that later becomes a party)."
> 
> This touches on the crux of the matter.
> 
> Partisanship is natural for humans.  We seek out and align ourselves with others who share our views.  Through them, we hone our ideas and gain courage from the knowledge that we are not alone in our beliefs. Partisanship gives breadth, depth and volume to our voice.  In and of itself, partisanship is not only inevitable, it is healthy.
> 
> Unfortunately, partisans have a penchant for denigrating those who think differently, usually without considering the salient parts of opposing points of view.  Instead, they seek the power to impose their views on those who don't share them.  Communism and National Socialism showed these tendencies.  Both had features that attracted broad public support throughout a national expanse and both degenerated into destructive forces because their partisans gained control of their governments.
> 
> The danger in Communism and National Socialism was not that they attracted partisan support; it was that the partisans gained control of government.  In general, partisanship is healthy when it helps us give voice to our views.  It is destructive when it achieves power.  All ideologies, whether of the right or the left, differ from Communism and National Socialism only in the extent to which their partisans are able to impose their biases on the public.

Having one single ruling party is no more a democracy. The problems may be the same as with multiple parties, but worse. National Socialism grew within a democratic system. Better watch out that our countries will not degrade to that level.

> 
> Partisanship is a vital part of society - provided it is always a voice and never a power.  The danger is not in partisanship, it is in allowing partisans to control government.

But someone will have the power to govern. Maybe better to have some democratically elected politicians in power than people that do not need the support of the people. I'm also not sure that it would be easy to create hierarchical systems that would lift the best people to the top to govern us. In a way also communism relied on one party structure that would lift the best rulers to the top. I mean that whatever the structure of the system is, people will find ways to misuse it. Multiple parties can be used to balance the madness of the other parties. If there is only one solution, it will be officially right and it may deny eny need to improve the system (it may rather get corrupt and lock people to that now non-working structure).

> 
> We have the tools and the ability to conceive a non-partisan electoral method.  Let's start.

Let's generate better methods. Are you sure that you don't want parties even in the sense that there would be ideological groupings that people could support? Or in the sense that there would always be an alternative to the current rulers.

Juho


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