[EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process

[Michael Ossipoff]

Fred:


On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Fred Gohlke <fredgohlke at verizon.net>wrote:

> Good Morning, Mike Ossipoff
>
> It appears I've inadvertently confused you.


No, you just inadvertently didn't specify which Michael you were replying
to. No big deal. Don't worry about it. Since you didn't yet know that the
posting from Michael Ossipoff was a reply to you, you can't be blamed for
not specifying which Michael you were replying to.

You said:

You began by categorizing my assertion that ...

>
>
>  "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."
>
> ... as nonsense and justified your opinion by saying ...
>
>
>  "Referring to the old Eastern-Bloc, and to Nazism, Fred is
>  referring to two specific systems which weren't democracies,
>  even in pretense."
>
> My comment was not referring to democracies, it was referring to parties
>
>
>
[endquote]

...including ones whose proposals and procedures are democratic.   ...but
which you feel are somehow like Stalin and Hitler.




> - and it is accurate.  Whether Liberal or Conservative,  Democrat or
> Republican, Whig or Tory, Communist or Nazi, all seek power - for the
> purpose of imposing their views on those who don't share them.


[endquote]

Ok, here's a different suggestion then: Let's say that all of a country's
laws can be ignored by anyone who doesn't agree with them :-)

Sorry, but I've never heard of any country that doesn't impose its "views",
in the form of laws, on people who don't share those views about what they
should and shouldn't do.

But feel free to advocate such a system.

When a party platform, or an independent's policy platform, specifies that
there shall be certain laws, it's understood that the laws referred to
apply even to those who don't "share those views" on which the laws are
based.

You need to understand that even independents, propose laws of that type.
It isn't something peculiar to parties.


You continued:

 The entire point of joining a party is to empower the party supported - to
impose one's will.

[endquote]

That's what government does. Government is coercive. I won't criticize you
if you're an anarchist, but you need to understand and admit that what you
really are opposed to is government itself.

If the govt is a dictatorship, then it _is_ one person's will that is
imposed. But if it's a democracy, a genuine one, then it's the collective
majority will of the public that is imposed on individuals who would
violate that majority's agreed-upon wishes, in the form of specified
requirements.


The excesses of the -isms are a natural extension of that purpose.

[endquote]

Which are you you referring to:  pacifism or humanitarianism?

You said:

It is dangerous not to recognize this fundamental reality.

[endquote]

You need to be a lot more specific about exactly what reality you're
asserting. And you need to support your claims.


I'd said:

   "Your ideology can be a democratic one, you know."

You replied:



> Mine is!  I do, indeed, seek to empower the people.


Yeah, that's what the Democrats say too  :-)   And the Republicans too.

You said:


> I believe we can find a way to achieve government "by the people" through
> a representative democracy.
>
>
>
[endquote]


Government by the people is what democracy is.




> My purpose is to find an electoral method that seeks out our best advocates


It isn't the job of the electoral method to choose who will run, or to seek
out candidates. We ourselves, the public, the voters, should be the ones to
decide who our best advocates are. How do you decide that? Ask yourself
which candidate, actual or potential, speaks for you the best, and
advocates the policies that you prefer. Encourage him/her to run for
office. Support that candidacy. Even ("gasp!") if it requires contacting
and working with other people who agree with your views and proposals (a
party).

And then your next job is to support him/her when you mark your ballot in
the election.

That is how we seek out out best advocates.

You continued:

of the common interest and raises them to public office.

[endquote]

That's pretty much the purpose of the voting systems proposed here at EM.

You said:

It is clear that this cannot be accomplished by a system that pits
self-interest against self-interest as epitomized by party-based systems.

[endquote]

Self-interests often are already contrary to and opposed to eachother, and
don't need to be "pitted" against eachother. So now parties are also
responsible for the instances in which self-interests oppose eachother? :-)

Check the platform proposals of an independent candidate some time. Find
out if s/he proposes policies that oppose someone else's self-interest. I
suspect that you'll find that s/he does.

You said:

However, given our natural tendency for partisanship, the question is:  How
can we empower the people without vesting power in oligarchical political
parties?

[endquote]

By not supporting any candidate who belongs to, supports, endorses, or
mentions an oligarchical party.

I already said that. (Oh that's right, that was one of the things that you
said that you aren't answering).


You keep referring to empowering the people. Of course the Democrats and
Republicans say that they want to do that too.  Just as you say it. What is
different about your saying that, as opposed to their saying it?

You said:

re: "If you don't like parties, then most or all democracies,

>
>     actual and proposed, will let you vote for an independent."
>
> Which is, under present circumstances, the height of futility.
>

[endquote]

Fine. If you don't want to support an independent, then support a party
candidate, or no one at all.

But, speaking of the futility of voting for what you actually prefer--That
futility is actually a property and artifact of Plurality. That's why we
all, here, want a better voting system.

You see, with Approval, supporting, on your ballot, someone whom you prefer
would no longer be the height of futility.  And yes, that could be an
independent candidate unaffiliated with any party.

But, even with Plurality, you know what "the height of futility" really is?
It's voting for someone you don't like because you think that the
candidates chosen by two unliked parties are the only ones who are
"viable". Voting for a "lesser-evil".

Someone said that insanity is expecting to get a different result by doing
the same thing.

We keep voting for the same two parties, and expecting things to get
better.

I'll give the two quotes that I often post:

If you vote for a lesser-of-2-evils, you get an evil.

It's better to vote for what you want and not get it, than to vote for what
you don't want and get it.

So why don't you just vote for someone you like, or someone whose policy
proposals you like, instead of whining about parties.

And yes, that person you vote for can be an independent. And no, voting for
what you like isn't futile, as is voting for a lesser-evil.

if, just once, everyone voted for what they like, then we'd find out which
candidate-categories have support and are "viable". But I admit that, with
Plurality, it would still be difficult to organize which candidate of the
winnable category should be the one that the preferrers of that category
combine their votes on.

But honest voting would be a start, wouldn't it. Try it. You might like it.

So, I seem to have provided the answer that you were looking for


 You said:


>
> re: "But perhaps you want to take away others' freedom of
>     association."
>
> Has anything I've written given you a valid basis for such a statement?
>

Yes. A party is a voluntary association of people who agree about some
policy proposals, and work together to publicize those proposals and
campaign for candidates who would work to enact those proposals. You seem
to be implying that you want to get rid of those voluntary associations, to
ban them.

My suggestion was: So just don't vote for them. If a party's candidates
don't get votes, then that party won't be able to impose its sinister
agenda upon you.

Mike Ossipoff
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120630/12ca7d58/attachment-0004.htm>