[EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Morning, Juho

re "... 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."

You mention two related issues, sponsorship and campaigning.  It may not 
be easy to correct them.  We should look at each of them more carefully:

Sponsorship:
Corruption pervades our political system because the parties control the 
selection of candidates for public office.  Candidates are not chosen 
for their integrity.  Quite the contrary, they are chosen after they 
demonstrate their willingness and ability to dissemble, to obfuscate and 
to mislead the electorate.  They are chosen when they prove they will 
renounce principle and sacrifice honor for the benefit of their party.

The result is a circular process that intensifies over time:

* Candidates for public office cannot mount a viable campaign
   without party sponsorship, so they obtain sponsorship by
   agreeing to the party's terms.

* The party, assured of the loyalty of its candidates, attracts
   donors because it can promise that its candidates will support
   the objectives set by the party, i.e., the goals of the donors.

* From the donors, the party obtains the resources it needs to
   attract appealing candidates and bind them to the party's will.

This cycle makes political parties conduits for corruption.  Businesses, 
labor unions and other vested interests give immense amounts of money 
and logistical support to political parties to push their agenda and to 
secure the passage of laws that benefit the donors.  The political 
parties meet their commitment to the donors by picking politicians who 
can be relied upon to enact the laws and implement the policies the 
donors' desire.  The result is a system that renounces virtue and is 
ruled by cynicism.  The politicians so selected are the least principled 
of our citizens, but are the only choices available to the people in our 
elections.

The only way to eliminate party sponsorship is to conceive a candidate 
selection process that empowers the people to select their best 
advocates, independent of the parties.


Campaigning:
The high cost of election campaigns makes conventional democratic 
systems susceptible to the influence of money.  Even worse than the 
inherently corruptive nature of soliciting funds to finance a campaign, 
which invites demands from the financial backers, is the corrosive 
effect campaigning has on the candidate's psyche.

Candidates must appear to stand for something but, to attract support, 
they continually adjust their assertions to appeal to the diverse groups 
whose votes are required for their election.  Their personal beliefs 
must be subordinated to the interests of their audience.  By 
campaigning, they gain expertise in avoiding direct answers to questions 
and diverting attention from unwelcome topics.

Campaigning is the antithesis of open inquiry, it is one-way 
communication centered on deceit, misdirection and obfuscation rather 
than integrity and commitment to the public interest.  That is why the 
term 'politician' is pejorative.  The process of campaigning produces 
people adept at appearing to champion some idea while standing for 
nothing but the success of their party.  Political campaigning is a 
training course in the art of deception.

To make matters worse, candidates are incessantly lionized by their 
supporters.  This, coupled with the insidious effect of repeatedly 
proclaiming their own rectitude seduces them into believing their own 
press clippings.  These things have a debilitating effect on the 
candidate's character, and, since morality is a top-down phenomenon, 
choosing political leaders by this method destroys society.

The only way to eliminate political campaigning is to conceive an 
electoral method that has candidates persuading their adversaries (not 
the public) that they are the best choice for election.


re: "Maybe the separate nature of party sponsoring allows us to
      fix it as a stand alone problem."

The concept of political parties, by definition, includes party leaders 
and the selection and sponsorship of candidates for public office. 
These things are inseparable in party politics.


re: "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."

As my kids used to say, "You got that right!!!"  And, that, of course, 
is why conceiving and adopting a new electoral method is extremely 
difficult.  My guess is that it will happen a little bit at a time. 
Some communities are already experimenting with new electoral 
approaches.  If we can conceive a practical democratic method that 
raises the best advocates of the common interest to public office, towns 
here and there will adopt it and the idea will spread.


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

Do you mean the idea that we should "Just cut out party sponsoring 
and/or set some limits to the cost of personal campaigns."?  If so, how 
can we accomplish these goals?

I think the best way to do so is to let the people, themselves, select 
the candidates (that eliminates party sponsorship) and have the 
candidates compete with each other to choose the best advocates of the 
public interest (that eliminates campaigning).  Are there better ways?


re: "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"

You may be surprised to know that I don't disagree.  If may be a good 
idea, as many people think, to press for stop-gap measures to eliminate 
the worst effects of our present systems.  I don't oppose that.  What I 
oppose is thinking it will accomplish the fundamental changes needed to 
replace our oligarchies with democracy.


re: "In a democracy we need also voters that understand these
      good intentions well enough to accept and vote for such
      changes"

Here, you touch on an important issue.  Some people don't want to 
participate in political discussions and some people lack the qualities 
needed for productive political participation.  Any practical democratic 
electoral method must function within this reality; it must let everyone 
participate, to the full extent of their own individual desire and ability.

Fred