[EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process

[Michael Allan]

Fred Gohlke said:
> Good Morning, Michael
> 
> I'm glad to see you.  I hoped this topic would attract thoughtful 
> comment.  I may have misunderstood your point, though.
> 
> I think you are suggesting that party primaries be open to the
> public?  Is that your intent? ...

Yes, as a thought experiment.  So even the members of competing
parties may vote in the primary.  Let's call this the assumption of
"universality".

> ... If so, would the attending non-partisans have to vote for one of
> the party's candidates?

Let's assume not.  Let's assume instead a purely democratic process in
which all choices (including the initial nominations) are decided by
voting.  Call this the assumption of "equality".  (Later I'll explain
why I think these assumptions are valid.)

> I'm anxious to examine your ideas, but want to be sure my
> understanding is correct.

So what would be the effect on parties?  Clearly they could no longer
be parties by the following definition, since (c) is now eliminated.

 (a) a *primary* electoral system
 (b) one that sponsors candidates for *public* office
 (c) where voting is restricted to *private* members

But maybe that's just a formality.  What would be the *actual* effect
of eliminating (c)?

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
http://zelea.com/


> > (brief comments and a question)
> > 
> > Fred Gohlke said:
> > > re: "Sponsoring is a separate topic."  ... Absolutely not!!!! ...
> > > Sponsorship is the heart of party power.  Their ability to choose
> > > and sponsor the candidates we are allowed to vote for gives them
> > > control of the entire political process. ...
> > 
> > I agree.  Maybe we could define the party as:
> > 
> >   (a) a *primary* electoral system
> >   (b) one that sponsors candidates for *public* office
> >   (c) where voting is restricted to *private* members
> > 
> > > We have the tools and the ability to conceive a non-partisan
> > > electoral method.  Let's start.
> >  
> > Juho Laatu said:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > Imagine waving a wand and eliminating (c), the restriction of primary
> > voting to private members.  What effect would it have on the parties?
> > What effect on the official elections?