[EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process

[Juho Laatu]

On 27.6.2012, at 18.03, Fred Gohlke wrote:

> How, exactly, do we make our pseudo-democratic systems better?

I have considered numerous options. At this very moment, maybe the sponsoring problem could be one easy (in theory) problem to solve. Just cut out party sponsoring and/or set some limits to the cost of personal campaigns.

> re: "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."
> 
> In what way does the fact that different countries have different rules help us correct the evils of party-based systems?

Maybe the separate nature of party sponsoring allows us to fix it as a stand alone problem. Maybe we could even follow pretty much the same rules in all countries although they may have quite different electoral systems.

> How, exactly, can the people change the 'sponsoring rules' when the parties write the rules?

That's an essential and difficult question. Any changes in the way power is distributed in any system are difficult since those people that are in power now, have been the winners in the current electoral system. If they make any changes in the system, they might just oust themselves.

> re: "I agree that sponsoring can be very dangerous to a political
>     system."
> 
> I'm glad you agree.  Can you describe an electoral process that eliminates this danger?

I briefly sketched an election method independent very simple approach above.

> re: "We must work to make the practices better."
> 
> That's true, although saying so does not constitute an effort to do so.  Can you suggest specific ways of improving the practices?

Ok, I already generated two quick improvements, one for sponsoring and one raher radical approach that eliminated the influence of parties in nominating the candidates (assuming that this is what we need). The solutions may be different for different societies and different needs, so often we need to set the target before giving the solution. I'm happy to discuss different solutions for different needs.

> re: "National Socialism grew within a democratic system. Better
>     watch out that our countries will not degrade to that level."
> 
> Stating the obvious does nothing to accomplish the goal.

It is good to keep the warning sign visible all the time. It is so easy to slip to believing that one's own system is right and on the correct track. If people would have guessed where National Socialism might lead them to, they might have rejected it. This applies also to many later and smaller problems. Brutal practices have appeared also elsewhere.

> re: "Multiple parties can be used to balance the madness of
>     the other parties."
> 
> Are you suggesting we take more of the poison that's killing us?

Many medicines are in fact poison if used in too large quantities. Since politics is a difficult game to control, it may be that we have to cure the problems generated by one governmnet by using a poison that at least cancels the effects of the previous government (although probably that also generates new problems as a side effect).

> re: "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).
> 
> That's precisely the circumstances in which we find ourselves, right now.  Note that it doesn't stop us from trying to conceive improvements.  Our only difficulty is finding people with the intellect and the energy to work on finding a better way.

In a democracy we need also voters that understand these good intentions well enough to accept and vote for such changes (unless we think that we need a revolution). In some sense I advertised parties as a method that makes peaceful "revolutions" possible, i.e. allows us to have different alternaties and therefore also oust one government and replace it with another one.

Juho