<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">S:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This means, you want geographical areas to be
represented “irrespective” of how the citizens vote living in a given area, and
each district should send a number of representatives to the assembly roughly
in proportion to the number of citizens who live there. This is what you mean
by “geographic proportionality”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Each
rep would have only one vote in the assembly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>If some of these citizens would prefer their vote instead to help elect
representatives for other districts or for any non-geographically defined “association”,
your preferred system would ignore this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Please correct me if I am mistaken.</span></p></span></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, typically voting systems give each region representatives in proportion to its number of citizens (= georaphical/regional proportionality). A geographically proportional system could use either same weight or varying weight representatives. A citizen that wants to elect representatives from some other district than his own should (typically) register in some other district in order to increase the number of representatives there and to be able to influence on which candidtes will be elected there (this may or may not require moving there officially).</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">
J: <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Existing systems typically use some
form of geographic proportionality when they want to guarantee some level of
representation of the "remote areas". I believe that without any such
mechanisms APR would lead to weaker representation of those areas than typical
current systems. The fact that APR makes it possible to elect representatives
from remote areas does not mean that it would do so.<o:p></o:p></span></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">S:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“Weaker” because some resident citizens would
prefer to vote for candidate for other districts or association?<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;"></span></p></span></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes. It would be typical that people of remote areas would vote for (usually better known and on average more visible) candidates of central cities more often than citizens of central cities would vote for candidates of remote areas. This typically leads to weak representation of remote areas.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">
<o:p></o:p></span></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">
J:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It has some interesting properties
that can be the best solution in some cases. As I already said, I think there
are many needs and many solutions. I don't believe that one system would be
somehow superior. Or maybe, if we name some single ideal [please see “criteria”
discussion below] environment with some ideal needs, there could be one system
that would be my absolute favourite. But I mentioned also some potential
problems of the proposed system. So it is impossible to me to say that the
presented definition would be somehow "the best". There is a big gap
between saying that some of its components are interesting, good and worth
testing in real life experiments, and saying that it is "the best
electoral system".<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;">
<o:p></o:p></span></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">S: Yes, but
that is why I asked you to focus on one concrete system for your
recommendations, e.g. your own county’s.</span></p></span></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I could say exactly the same thing about that system. It is not ideal either. And different systems are good for different needs, so it is not even possible to judge the preference of a pair of systems by comparin them component by component. I think it is easier to analyze one system at a time, and compare it to the given targets (possibly separately to the targets of the person who asks, and to one's own targets). Comparison to other systems is possible too, but just to add some useful viewpoints or to find possible candidate systems.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">S:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>According to what criteria, if any, to you
want to judge any electoral system as “high” or “ideal”?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Are you willing to discuss the more detailed
reasons I have previously given for making the above claims and to explain
exactly how they “overstate” the case when compared and contrasted to your
preferred system according to such criteria?<br></span></p></span></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm happy to discuss any (interesting) claims. The overstatements are something like jumping right away to saying "the best" (and asking for a confirmation to that) of a complex system that clearly has both positive and negative points from the points of view of most readers.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">
J:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The alternative approach is not to
have any primary but to have similar rules that restrict the participation of
"associations" in the actual election. One typical restricting rule
is to require certain number of supporter names to be collected before allowing
some association to take part in the election.<o:p></o:p></span></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">S:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In this event, what exactly would permission
to “participate” in the “actual election” involve, different from the roles envisioned
by APR?
</span></p></span></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The key difference in my description above was that there would be no primary. The right of a grouping to participate would be decided by other means.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">J: <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I'm used to an open list based proportional
multiparty system that is also geographically proportional (that is far from
ideal, and I'm far from being "completely happy" with it). From APR I
could use the idea of ranked votes. That could be used in traditional list
based systems e.g. to make party internal proportionality and geographical
proportionality more exact. I could use also the idea of representatives with
different weights. I would however keep the weight differences between
representatives smaller (partly because of the tradition)…….<o:p></o:p></span></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">S: <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I accept that the current APR limit of 10% is
somewhat arbitrary but do you have a reason for wanting it to be small?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What percent? Why is “tradition” important to
you here?</span></p></span></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Tradition is important because it is an important political factor because it is important to many others. I thus recognize the fact that small changes are easier than radical changes.</div><div><br></div><div>If I would use a high limit like 10%, I would probably tweak the system also in some other ways, somehow balancing the system, for example by giving the top representatives more assistants or more speaking time. My preference would be to start from lower figures in the first (experimental real life) systems. Maybe I could prove the benefits of the new system better that way.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">J: …..
Having different weights would be an interesting alternative, not necessarily
an improvement. I'd like to strengthen geographic proportionality, not decrease
it like in APR. I'd skip the primary since I think I can get those enhancements
that I want also without it.<o:p></o:p></span></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">S:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Which “enhancements” do you value and how are
you going to get them without APR?</span></p></span></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Better political and geographical proprtionality can be achieved in many ways, with or without APR. For example by allowing also small groupings to win seats (seats allocated at national instead of regional level, and no cutoffs in some countries), and to improve political propotionality within the parties using ranked votes (in STV style).</div> <br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">S:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why do you want to “strengthen geographic
proportionality”?</span></p></span></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Geographic proportionality may be quite exact at district level, but if those districts are large (as typical in multiparty countries), geographic proportionality within those large districts may be poor. Geographic proportionality is typically considered good because it supports local representatives that are close to the voters and represent the values of those voters better that representatives that have no connection to that area.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">S: Given
my previous explains of exactly how an APR citizen’s general election vote is
completely “secret”</span></p></span></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I understood that it is possible to hide one's preferences but that generally that is not the case ( some opinions will be revealed). I believe the systems also gives those voters that reveal their preferences somewhat easier or more efficient ways to influence the outcome.</div><div><br></div><div>In countries that support full voter privacy, any steps in that direction would probably be quite unacceptable. Countries where party preferences are public today are of course much more flexible with this. I'm used to a system where the system intentionally makes it impossible to the voters even to prove (to outsiders) how they voted. This is related to the risks of vote buying, coercion (= violent husband telling his wife "how the family will vote"), risk of revealing one's hidden opinions, risk of group pressure against minorities etc.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">S:</span><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">Do you not see that APR’s Primary would make
it easier for new additional parties “associations” also to field candidates
and that this would allow them and their electors to benefit more, both
qualitatively and from the exact proportionality offered by APR?</span></p></span></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think this can be achieved also without a primary. APR may have some nice ideas on how this process could work, but it is possible to achieve similar kind of results also with much simpler arrangements.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">> >
S: Do you also see APR as essential to the maximization of such
?responsiveness??<br>
> <br>
J:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not essential to the maximization.
Other methods can achieve similar results.<o:p></o:p></span></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">S:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Please explain these “other methods”.<br></span></p></span></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Responsiveness is a very wide topic and a question that addresses all the aspects of a demcratic system. I can't give a generic answer to this. Many methods have many positive properties.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">
<o:p></o:p></span></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">S:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What is it in your “environment” or system that
makes “wasting some votes … acceptable … and … maybe best”? </span></p></span></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>All systems have some problems, rounding errors and there may be tradeoffs when trying to meet many different requirements at the same time. It is very much ok to trade between all different requirements so that the overall quality of the system (taking also into account practical limitations like the political environment) will be maximized.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">
<o:p></o:p></span></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">However,
you imply that APR would ignore “society and its needs” and “the practical work
and working methods of the representative body”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If this is your view, please explain.</span></p></span></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I don't think that APR would ignore society and its needs. I'm not convinced that it would meet the needs of all societies. It could thus be good for some needs (although it could maybe be improved too).<div><br></div><div>Working methods could certainly be improved also in APR, since I guess it is still pretty much a draft method.<br><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">S:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why do you say “probably” given the
explanations of how APR’s associations should help to reduce the power of the
rich, celebrity, and the mass media?</span></p></span></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think it is very probable that a system with no geographic proportionality (APR) would not give perfect geographic proportionality.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">S:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course, you are correct that not all citizens
may in practice be sufficiently rational to take full advantage of the fact
that APR does “enable” them to remove any bias "to the degree that they
desire". <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, those who are rational
in this sense would help to achieve this benefit, not in some other “opinion
survey [about]… equal geographical representation” but both through APR’s open Primary
and its secret general election rankings:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>each citizen is equally enabled to help determine the exact degree to
which each geographically defined “association” (district) will be represented
in the assembly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If all citizens take
full advantage of this option, each “district’s” reps will together have a “weighted
vote” in the assembly equal to all the votes they have received from all the
citizens in the country.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Perhaps this
clarifies the misunderstanding brought to light by the next 2 paragraphs. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Please ask me to explain this more fully if
necessary.<br></span></p></span></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>In my terminology, I think you are saying that APR's political proportionality could approximate the results of geographic proportionality (fully or to some extent) if the voters so wish. That is different from implementing geographic proportionality (that guarantees each region its proportional share of the seats).</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">
J: <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If "taste" means only
choice between orange and pink ballot paper, then I guess it will not have very
big weight in any society. But often "taste" means e.g. choice
between a two-party system and a multiparty system. Then it should have big
weight. Evidence and rational thought are hard to measure in a political
environment since all politicians think that they represent those values in the
best possible way.<o:p></o:p></span></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">S:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Do you mean it “does” or “should” have a big weight?</span></p></span></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If we are to decide what the future political system will be like, then all factots that influence the outcome heavily should have big weight in the discussions. Such factors can be both hard technical choices and questions of preference/taste at the same time.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Yes, many people, including “politicians
think that they represent those values”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>What about you? Do you not think that reason and evidence can be
objective? e .g. in “science” or in “philosophy”?<br></span></p></span></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Scientific method can be used in a very rational way. Same with any logical and sensible discussions. Political and social discussions often do not pay much attention to respecting such rigid practices.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">
While “evidence” sometimes includes “measurement”, not all evidence does.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In any case, I see all arguments and evidence
as capable of being examined and assessed by any person using “reason”, which I
want to define as follows: </span><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; line-height: 12pt; tab-stops: -36.0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">“</span><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Shruti;" lang="EN-US">REASON <o:p></o:p></span></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; line-height: 12pt; tab-stops: -36.0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Shruti;" lang="EN-US">Reasoning is the
conscious thought process that searches for true answers to any significant
questions about any element of reality (sensory, social or self-conscious),
i.e. about what reality was, is, will be, or ought to be.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A person does this with the help of other
people whenever possible by,<o:p></o:p></span></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 36pt; text-align: left;" class="indent5" align="left"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Shruti;" lang="EN-US">1) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">comparing</i> all of the different answers
proposed. She compares them with respect to,<o:p></o:p></span></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 36pt; text-align: left;" class="indent5" align="left"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Shruti;" lang="EN-US">2)
their abilities to describe and explain the sensory, social or spiritual<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> experience</i> being asked about,<o:p></o:p></span></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 36pt; text-align: left;" class="indent5" align="left"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Shruti;" lang="EN-US">3)
their avoidance of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">logical</i>
self-contradictions, and<o:p></o:p></span></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 36pt; text-align: left;" class="indent5" align="left"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Shruti;" lang="EN-US">4)
the way they do or do not fit in well with all of the answers to the many other
questions with which she is currently satisfied, i.e. comparing them with
regard to the current extent to which each answer seems to be an integral part
of the seemingly true and most <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">comprehensive</i>
theory of all reality. <o:p></o:p></span></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormalIndent"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Shruti;" lang="EN-US">The answer that
best satisfies these four interrelated points would be seen by those using
reason to be the most rational answer for the time being.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The previous sentence appropriately indicates
that a rationalist recognizes that any answer or conclusion that she comes to,
may have to be changed in the light of new evidence or arguments, i.e. reason
recognizes that any conclusion may later prove to be false (or not yet
complete) and thus that each answer or conclusion must be assumed to be
tentative (conditional or provisional).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Such an answer would also be objective provided only that it did not
depend on some experience that is currently capable only of being private to
the thinker concerned.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormalIndent"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: Shruti;" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">S:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What do you think?<o:p></o:p></span></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font> </span></div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>The scientific method and Wikipedia are good examples of areas where people have been able to expand such rational practices also to discussions of a group. Political discussions may include some individuals with rational thinking and argumentation, but as a whole political debates are something else. The best strategy in political discussions (if one's target is to win the debate in question) usually is not that of rational argumentation.</div><div><br></div><div>Juho</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></div></div></body></html>