[EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Afternoon, Jameson

It's great to see you.  This may lead to a lively discussion, which will 
be wonderful, if it helps us build consensus.

re: "Under plurality, parties are a necessary evil; primaries
      weed the field and prevent vote-splitting."

      (Note to self:  Be sure to read the WHOLE thing, Fred.)

     "Of course, plurality itself is an entirely unnecessary evil,
      mostly because it makes parties necessary."

I looked up 'plurality' but the definition seemed to relate more to a 
number of votes than to a political system.  Obviously, I lack 
familiarity with the term.  In the past, I've taken it to mean a 
political process that results in a two-party system.  If that's 
inadequate, please correct me.

In any case, our (U. S.) governmental system is defined by our 
Constitution, and nothing in our Constitution expresses or implies the 
need for political parties.  They are an extra-Constitutional invention, 
devised to advance partisan interest.

Plurality is not ordained!!!


re: "Even without plurality, there would probably still be named,
      structured groupings."

As I mentioned in an earlier post, partisanship is natural for humans. 
Not only is it natural, it's healthy.  It provides the multitude of tiny 
feet on which society gradually creeps forward.  The degree of group 
structure varies, depending on several factors.  In modern political 
parties, that structure is quite advanced, to support the hunt for power.


re: "Unstructured anarchy may be desirable, but it's not very
      stable."

I understand there are folks who preach anarchy, but I'm not one of 
them.  The nearest traffic light is all the evidence I need to recognize 
the need for government.


re: "That's not to say that there's no way to make the power
      dynamics inside the party less pernicious, though."

That may be, but finding an alternative to a system that puts parties in 
control of government strikes me as an imperative.


re: "As I envision PAL representation, the PR system I designed,
      parties would simply be a label that any candidate could
      self-apply. To keep out "wolves in sheeps clothing", any
      candidate would have the power to say, among the other
      candidates who share their chosen party label, which ones
      they do not consider to be allies. I think those dynamics -
      free to "join", no guarantee you won't be shunned by the
      people who already have "joined", but the binary shun-or-not
      choice should help prevent cliques of gradated power - would
      be relatively healthy.

Whoops!  I'm as bad as Casey.  I just struck out.  I've never seen a PAL 
pitch before.  I've read this several times and think I get a glimmer of 
an interesting concept, but ...

Fred