Re: [EM] (4) Steve's 4th dialogue with Fred Gohlke
From:
Subject:
Election-Methods Digest, Vol 133, Issue 18
To:
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015
12:01:42 -0700
- Re: (2&3) Steve's 2nd and 3rd
dialogue with Fred Gohlke
(Fred Gohlke)
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:43:04 -0400
From: Fred Gohlke fredgohlke@verizon.net
To:
Subject: Re: [EM] (2&3)
Steve's 2nd and 3rd dialogue with Fred Gohlke
Message-ID:
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Fred
wrote:
F: Thank you for the description of the
method you suggest. It seems
straightforward.
You asked what I think. I hope you find my comments thoughtful and
worth your effort to consider.
You presuppose a
"Paper (or computer) ballot counting method". I take
issue with that presupposition and will explain why later in the
discussion.
re: "Imagine that you are
a citizen of this village and 15
of your fellow citizens want
to be elected."
That's reasonable.
What do I know about the people who seek public office? For any of
them
that I do not know personally, the only knowledge I
have is the stand
they profess and the fact that they seek
public office. From that, I
must try to figure out their
suitability for election. Here are a
couple of thoughts that
come to mind:
a) They see themselves as politicians.
I share the public perception
that politicians are deceitful
individuals. Anyone who, of their own
volition, casts
themselves as a politician raises a question in my mind
as
to their integrity. That fact, by itself, does not close the door on
them. It is simply one factor that must be considered.
b) They see themselves as worthy of public office. That may
be an
indication that their ego exceeds their intellect. It
raises the
question of whether they have the humility to
serve the public interest.
Without humility, public servants
will not learn from their peers.
c) They are
assertive. That's a double-edged sword: If their
assertiveness is exercised in the public interest it will be a good
thing. If it is exercised in pursuit of their personal
advantage, it
will be destructive.
S: Yes.
re: "To discover which 7 of the 15 are to be elected,
each
candidate initially stands at a different place in the
Village Hall surrounded by the citizens who most favor
him or
her."
R: How are we to decide which is the
best candidate? The description
implies that citizens must
make their decision based on where a
candidate stands. How
does the fact that a candidate takes a stance
help me
determine the candidate's character?
S: In the
Village, you might already know a lot about the candidates. In APR
for electing your nation's legislative assembly, you might already
know a lot about some the candidates seeking to represent the
'associations' that you already have had many dealings even before
APR's primary. However, all each citizen can and should do is also
to spend as much additional time as they can to research the
abilities, history, and scale of values of as many of all the
candidates as they can so as to be able to rank as many as possible
during the general election on the basis of evidence.
F:
It doesn't, and a candidate's character is infinitely more important
than where he or she stands.
Does the
process you suggest expect citizens to take candidates'
character on faith?
S: No
That is inadequate, as
is demonstrated so clearly
by the degradation of modern
so-called democracies into oligarchies.
[….]
I said I would have additional comments on a "Paper (or
computer) ballot
counting method". This, too, must be
brief. I just want to point out
that there are many ways for
people to vote. Casting a ballot is the
least democratic of
them.
S: Please both
explain what you see as the most democratic 'way' and try to give me
your definition of 'democracy'.
F: The way
we currently elect politicians to public office is why modern
governments are undemocratic. In the party-based political systems
that
dominate modern governments, the right to vote is not
evidence of
democracy, it shows that the people are subjects
of the parties that
decide the options available to the
voters. This subjugates the people
because:
THOSE WHO CONTROL THE OPTIONS, CONTROL THE OUTCOME!!!
If we are ever to achieve democracy, we must devise a political
process
that lets the people select the candidates and
choose the issues on
which they must decide.
S: When you
have the time, I hope you let me know the extent to which APR's
concept of 'democracy' matches yours. So far, I see APR as an
essential part of the 'political process
that [would let]
the people select the candidates and choose the issues on
which they must decide.' It would maximally help to solve the
problems you have mentioned.
I look forward to your
feedback.
Steve
Fred Gohlke
Good Afternoon, Steve
You asked: "Please both explain what you see as the most
democratic 'way' and try to give me your
definition of 'democracy'."
I cannot improve on Lincoln's definition of democracy as "government of
the people, by the people, for the people".
Democracy is not a team sport. It is a bottom-up process where
political power is vested in the people and rises, by their choice, to
the officials they choose to represent them in their government. There
is no shortage of talented, principled individuals for them to choose
because the vast majority of their peers are trustworthy and law-abiding
people - they have to be, for society could not exist otherwise.
To choose their political leaders, the people must have a mechanism that
lets them sift through the electorate to find those with the wisdom to
accept the best parts of competing opinions, the ability to integrate
them into productive proposals, and the persuasiveness to motivate
others to adopt solutions that benefit the community.
The Town Council in Frome, U.K., which is committed to party-free
govenment, is uniquely suited to give the people of Frome a way to seek
out and elevate those individuals in the community who are the best
advocates of the people's interests. I seek others with the wit and
wisdom to help devise the method.
Fred Gohlke