[EM] why ANY pr disempowers minority voters.
fredgohlke at verizon.net
Sat Feb 6 08:52:12 PST 2016
Good Morning, Juho
re: "Or, one more way to see it, to select those whose
self-interest is to serve others and the whole society."
Which, as Dr. Mansbridge put it, is to select those whose gyroscopes are
aligned with those of the people. That is precisely what the PD process
accomplishes because it lets the people pick their own representatives.
re: "Maybe more in some well working democracies where people
want to have some clear alternatives to choose from."
I disagree. The people neither need nor want "clear alternatives to
choose from". They know what they need and they don't need
power-seekers to tell them what it is. They need and want to define the
re: "If we assume that in some society parties are somehow
corrupt, the solution could be either to get rid of the
parties or to fix the parties."
Well, we can't get rid of parties because, as I've said before,
partisanship is natural and healthy. Parties will occur because that's
the way ideas gain strength and acceptance.
That leaves 'fixing' them.
Parties can't be 'fixed' as long as they control the candidates for
public office. The only way to be sure parties can't control the
candidates for public office is to be sure the non-partisans have a
voice in naming the candidates for public office. The PD process
guarantees that everyone - partisans and non-partisans - participate in
the selection of candidates for public office.
re: "The first solution is more straight forward, but the
second one may be more tempting if one thinks that there
will be some hierarchical management structure anyway."
It is not clear what the first and second solutions are, but why do you
feel "some hierarchical management structure" is necessary?
re: "Starting from an existing management structure (with
its positive and negative features) may be easier than
trying to build the whole structure from scratch, ..."
John Dewey told us, almost 100 years ago:
"The old saying that the cure for the ills of democracy
is more democracy is not apt if it means that the evils
may be remedied by introducing more machinery of the
same kind as that which already exists, or by refining
and perfecting that machinery."
We need to "build the whole structure"; we need new machinery, and that
has be obvious for a long time. The easy way will not get us out of the
oligarchic hole we're in.
re: "... or letting the power hungry politicians build it
from scratch themselves without any agreed plans."
That's exactly what we've done!!!! It's time to climb down off the
fence and put our minds to devising a better political process. I've
suggested one. Help identify its flaws.
re: "Also bottom-up election oriented approaches do have
the risk of malicious management structure, since power
hungry people are guaranteed to implement some sort of
centralized management structure on top of the official
Are you suggesting that we cannot remove corruption from our political
systems because humans are corruptible? Why should we believe such a
canard? Are you not being misled by the high visibility of deceit and
corruption in our culture. The reason for this is that party politics
elevates unscrupulous people by design. Once these unprincipled people
achieve leadership they infect our society because morality is a
The vast majority of humans are decent people. They have to be, for
society could not exist otherwise. The idea that corruption is
inescapable leads to the self-defeating notion that trying to correct it
re: "It may be better to plan it rather than let those power
hungry self-interested people build it themselves."
Ah, yes, Juho. You took the words right out of my mouth. That is the
point of this discussion!!!
re: "In any of the proposed systems we have the problem that
we may not succeed in lifting the best people to the top
parts of the pyramid."
You may think so, and I may think so, but our opinions are but one each.
There are many others whose opinions may differ from ours, and it is
their opinion that matters - not ours. If we give them a way to do it,
they will lift "the best people to the top parts of the pyramid."
re: "... it may be that the most power hungry individuals
will be elected in the triads since they have the stamina
to keep convincing others until others will give up and
elect that person."
We can call them "the most power hungry individuals", but if they can't
persuade their peers - including individuals who are also "power hungry"
- that they are the best advocates of the interests of triad, they will
not advance. Furthermore, and even more important, as you point out,
the process will elect fresh faces. However "power hungry" they may be,
they can do nothing in our legislatures unless they can attract the
support of the other people's representatives.
re: "I'm a bit worried about the length of the
I'm not sure what's worrying you. In the example, a community of 25,000
people (which we arbitrarily stopped after 7 levels), each of the
selected people represents about 3,570 people. What part of that is
re: "In a hierarchical bottom-up system (e.g. triads) there
would be multiple such layers (with potential to tell
one story downwards and do other kind of actions upwards)."
How and why would they tell a 'story' downwards. The triads' only
purpose is to advance one of their members. Their attitudes are aligned
with the attitudes of those who advanced them. They don't need to look
More information about the Election-Methods