Re: APR complements Practical Democracy (PD) best (Steve Bosworth)
[EM] Re: APR complements Practical
Democracy (PD) best (Steve Bosworth)
Subject: Election-Methods Digest, Vol 139, Issue 23
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 06:54:49 -0800
[….]
- Re: Practical Democracy (Frank Martinez)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 09:54:46 -0500
From: Frank Martinez frankdmartinez@gmail.com
To: Fred Gohlke fredgohlke@verizon.net
Subject: Re: [EM] Practical Democrach
[….]
From
Steve to Fred and everyone:
M:
On Monday, January 25, 2016, Fred Gohlke fredgohlke@verizon.net
wrote:
PRACTICAL DEMOCRACY
Abstract
When we speak of government by the people, 'the people' is not an
amorphous mass. It is an abundance of individuals: some brilliant,
some
dull; some good, some bad; some with integrity, some deceitful. To
achieve
government by the people, we must sift through this diversity to find
the
individuals with the qualities needed to address and resolve
contemporary
public concerns.
In a truly democratic political process, the entire electorate will
participate in defining the issues the government must address and
selecting the individuals best equipped to resolve those issues. The
size
of the electorate and the varying level of interest in public affairs
among
the populace make the matter of including everyone a challenge.
S:
Fred, I see your voluntary Practical Democracy’s (PD’s) triadic and multi-leveled
process as very valuable. It wisely
suggests how as many of the citizens of a country as are willing could agree to
work together to improve their political knowledge, skills and opportunities.
It would help give them as much influence as possible on the binding
decisions-made formally by a state’s legislative assembly and government (or
any level of jurisdiction within that state). The more citizens who participated, the more
democratic and wise are these decisions likely to be.
At
the same time, I want to argue that the formal electoral system which would
maximize the likelihood of PD being successful in making these decisions fully
democratic is Associational Proportional Representation (APR). For example,
APR’s primary election allows
all citizens directly to decide which
applicant organizations will be the electoral “associations” through which all
candidates will be selected to run during the later general election, and
APR’s general election allows each
citizen to guarantee that her one vote will be added to the “weighted vote” of
the one elected candidate in the legislative assembly whom she trusts to
represent her own values and concerns. I am emailing the article to you
separately which systematically explains how APR works: “Equal Voting Sustained”. I will also email it to anyone else who
requests it (stevebosworth@hotmail.com).
Please
let me know whether or not you also find APR to be the electoral system that
would complement PD best.
Below,
are listed some of the phrases from your own ABSTRACT which most strikingly
suggest to me that PD and APR would entirely complement each other:
…. to identify the individuals
most motivated and best qualified to address and resolve the people's concerns;
When the people are only
allowed to choose from party-chosen options, the
ability to vote for one of them is neither free nor democratic.
In spite of the dangers
inherent in partisanship, we must recognize that
it is a vital part of society. People differ, and it is essential
that
they should, because we advance our common interest by examining
conceivable options. Differing people seek out and align themselves
with
others who share their views. In the process of doing so, they hone
their
views to help form a consensus. That is the way they give breadth,
depth
and volume to their voice.
…. open inquiry
Intelligent decisions require
discourse; assertions must be examined, not
in the sterile environment of a televised debate, but in depth. The
electorate must be able to examine candidates and discuss matters of
public
concern, and, with the knowledge so gained, make decisions.
New machinery to support a democratic political process
must enable and encourage dialogue and deliberation on
political issues among the electorate.
What choices are available to
the voters when the only names on the ballot
are those chosen by the parties? When the dominant party repeatedly
chooses the same candidate and the opposing candidate is an
unacceptable
alternative, the people have no way to bring new minds to their
government. Systems that let organized groups decide who can be a
candidate for public office are profoundly undemocratic.
Dynamic systems require fresh
minds. The current and emerging problems
facing the electorate change constantly. The inability to select new
representatives equipped to resolve contemporary issues injures the
entire
community. In addition, rot thrives in a closed environment. Just
like
with apples in barrels, corruption flourishes when incumbents are
repeatedly returned to office.
New machinery to support a
democratic political process
must include a way for the people to change their
representatives, as they deem appropriate.
The challenge of democracy is to find the best advocates of the common
interest and raise them to positions of leadership. To meet that
challenge, given the range of public issues and the way each
individual's
interest in political matters varies over time, an effective
electoral
process must examine the entire electorate during each electoral
cycle,
seeking the people's best advocates.
Machinery that gives the entire electorate a voice in the political
process must accommodate the fact that the desire to participate in
political affairs varies from one individual to the next. Some have
no
desire to participate, some will participate for altruistic reasons,
some
will participate to advance their self-interest, and some will be
indifferent. To reconcile this diversity, a democratic process must
be
open to all, without coercion.
We cannot know what treasures of political ability will be unearthed
when
people are invited to deliberate on their common concerns - with a
purpose. Some, who start out unsure of their ability, will, as they
learn
they can persuade others of the value of their perspective, gain
confidence
in their ability to influence the political process. In doing so, the
people gain the internal goods that can only be attained through the
practice of politics.
-
New machinery to support a democratic
political process
must be inclusive. It must be a bottom-up arrangement
that lets every member of the community influence political
decisions to the full extent of each individual's desire and
ability.
Political systems are always an embodiment of human nature. Since we
cannot divorce our political institutions from our own nature, the
new
machinery to support a democratic political process must harness our
nature. It must make the qualities needed to represent the common interest
desirable attributes in those who seek political advancement.
Given the wide range of desire and ability among the members of
society,
an inclusive environment must be arranged to encourage the greatest
participation.
Pogrebinschi
found that "... policies for minority groups deliberated in the
national
conferences tend to be crosscutting as to their content. The policies
tend
to favor more than one group simultaneously..."[8]
If we are to create an environment for effective political dialogue,
we
must create a framework in which all citizens are encouraged to
discuss
their political concerns with their peers. Such inclusiveness can be
achieved by arranging the voters in small groups where people with
differing views discuss issues that concern them.
Since public issues are inseparable from the people who resolve them,
the
groups must identify the individuals in their group who best
represent
their interests. The people so chosen can deliberate with the choices
of
other groups to identify the community's most pressing issues and the
individuals best suited to address them.
The purpose of the process is to advance the best advocates of each
group's perspective on contemporary problems, in a pyramidal fashion,
to
deliberate with the selections of other groups.
-
Viewed this way, we can say that when
selecting representatives of the
public interest, a system that encourages dialogue is preferable to
one
that relies on a monologue [….]
People that do
not declare group membership are automatically assigned to
a set of people with no affiliation. Triads will be
created from members of the same interest group [same “electoral
association”], as long as more than two members of the group exist.
The final phase of the Practical Democracy (PD) process, electing
candidates to specific public offices, is omitted from this outline
because
that task is implementation-dependent. [Steve claims that the optimal
“final phase” would be the use of APR to elect the legislative assembly.
The PD process lets particular interests attract supporters to
their cause and elevate their most effective advocates during each
electoral cycle. Advocates of those interests can proclaim their
ideas and
encourage discussion of their concepts. Some will be accepted, in
whole or
in part, as they are shown to be in the common interest of the
community.
Most people expect their elected officials to represent their interests.
The difficulty is that communities are made up of diverse interests
and the
relations between those interests can be contentious. Constructive
resolution of political issues requires, first of all, lawmakers with
the
ability to recognize the value in the various points of view, from
the
people's perspective. That is impossible for legislators elected to
represent partisan interests.
PD focuses on selecting representatives who will resolve adversarial
encounters to the advantage of the commonweal. During the process,
participants necessarily consider both common and conflicting
interests,
and, because PD is intrinsically bidirectional, it gives advocates of
conflicting interests a continuing voice. At the same time, it
encourages
the absorption of diverse interests, reducing them to their essential
element: their effect on the participants in the electoral process.
PD is a bottom-up process
that lets every member of the community
participate to the full extent of each individual's desire and
ability,
1--> it incorporates partisanship without letting partisans
control the process;
3--> it enables and encourages dialogue and deliberation on
political issues among the electorate;
4--> it includes a way for the people to change their
representatives as they deem appropriate; and
5--> it is a bottom-up arrangement that lets every member of
the community influence political decisions to the full
extent of each individual's desire and ability.
That is the essence of a democratic political process.
S: I look forward to any replies, comments,
criticisms, questions, or counter arguments.
Steve
Good Morning, Steve Bosworth
Thank you for your supportive thoughts on the PD concept (although, if
you can forgive me for saying so, editing the file to make it legible
was a major chore).
It may be that we can merge our efforts, but I think we should proceed
slowly. We need to find out if we agree on some basic issues. For
example, I'm very concerned about the manipulative influence of the
media on people with little or no interest in politics but who make up
an important part of the electorate. May I ask how APR minimizes the
adverse effects of this phenomenon?
Fred Gohlke