From: stevebosworth@hotmail.com To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com; fredgohlke@verizon.net Subject: RE: (2) Steve's 2nd dialogue with Fred Gohlke Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 20:29:19 +0000 > From: election-methods-request@lists.electorama.com > Subject: Election-Methods Digest, Vol 133, Issue 12 > To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 14:40:53 -0400 > From: Fred Gohlke <fredgohlke@verizon.net> > To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com > Subject: Re: [EM] Alexander Praetorius, regarding Frome, U.K. > Message-ID: <55A7FAB5.5060406@verizon.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Hi Fred, In your last paragraph in your most recent post, you write: > It is unfortunate that the many bright and thoughtful people who post on > this site do not think it worthwhile to help the Frome Town Council find > a way for every member of the community to help decide which of their > peers are the most attuned to the needs of the community and have the > qualities required to advocate the common good. > > Fred Gohlke >>S: However, I would ask you to consider how the following solution, i.e. it is a: 'Paper (or computer) ballot counting method which is most simply illustrated by the face to face way the following imaginary village elects the 7 Members of its Village Council: Imagine that you are a citizen of this village and 15 of your fellow citizens want to be elected. 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. If more than 7 candidates have such supporters, the one with the fewest is eliminated. Each of his or her supporters now moves to stand by their 2nd choice candidates. This process continues until only 7 candidates remain. These 7 are elected. Each of these 7 Members will have a ‘weighted vote’ in the Council equal to the number of citizens standing by them at the end of the count. No citizen’s vote is wasted. Each citizen’s vote will continue to count in every decision made by the Council. Each citizen has voted most positively. If you participated in this election, your concerns would be represented by the Member you trust most.2 Similarly with APR, each vote would continue to count quantitatively by being added to the weighted vote of the most favored representative each citizen had helped to elect, i.e. this weighted vote would be exactly equal to the number of electors who had rectly or indirectly ranked this representative'. >>S: This is introductory paragraph in the article which I offered to send you earlier. However, perhaps I neglected to send you my 2nd post to you as I had intended. This post would help you make sense of this proposal. Consequently, I have taken the liberty of adding the contents of that 2nd post to this 3rd post. I look forward to your replies. Steve2nd Post: Thank you for your reply. I'll tag my responses with S: F: re: "I would like to understand exactly what you mean by the difference > between 'internal and external proportionality'." > > External proportionality is the relatively static division of political > interests, as reflected by party representation in a legislature. > > Internal proportionality is the relatively dynamic division of political > interests as reflected by the range of thoughts and feelings about the > world around us that each of us carry within ourselves. S: Using your definitions, I see each person's somewhat different 'internal proportionality' as what would guide each citizen as how to participate or not in electing a rep, e.g. to choose which candidate(s) to rank. This 'proportionality' is what I sometimes refer to as a person's 'scale of values'. > F: re: "I see the proportionality that could be guaranteed by APR (as > mentioned) above my comments to James Gilmour) would offer what you seem > to want: 'to choose representatives that represent the entire community'." > > Although I've seen your comments about APR, I have no deep understanding > of the method. As far as I've been able to tell, it is a way to weigh > votes for party candidates. However, that is not what I'm concerned > about. I'm concerned about the way influence on the political process > is distributed throughout the community. I, and many others like me, > are not members of, and do not subscribe to the positions proclaimed by, > any party. Can you tell me how much influence APR will give us on the > choice of candidates for public office? …............ how does APR let non-partisans seek out the members of the community best suited to lead it? S: If APR already existed in your country, and you only wanted to rank (vote for) attractive candidates whose scale of values are closely matched with your own 'internal proportionality', you could do this without 'joining' any organization, face to face. You would do this as follows: During APR's primary election you would rank (1,2,3, etc.) all the voluntary, social organizations that had applied directly to elect their own rep(s) during the next general election, i.e applied to the central electoral commission to become and official electoral 'association'. These organization would presumably not only include all the existing geographically defined associations (electoral districts) and political parties, but also a number of nongeographically defined organizations (e.g. interest groups: economic, religious, social, environmental, etc.)You would rank these according to the degree to which each organization seemed to mirror your own. In any case, you would, as a result, become a registered vote for general election purposes through the surviving organization (i.e. association) that you had ranked most highly. You would expect that the candidates who later would run to represent this organization would also have similar aims and concerns to your own, and that at least one of them would represent you very well in the legislative assembly. For the general election itself, the central electoral commission would ensure that you would receive your official ballot at your most local polling station, i.e. even if your official association and ballot is different from the list of candidates for that local district. Each ballot paper originating from each association would also contain a Section B which would also allow a voter to rank as few or as many candidates seeking to represent associations other than the one in which she is registered. Consequently, you would rank as few or as many of the hundreds of candidate in the whole country during the general election as you might wish. As a result, you would be represented by the one elected candidate in the whole assembly you had ranked most highly. She would have a weighted vote in the assembly exactly equal to the number of citizens who had elected her. If none of the candidates you ranked received enough votes to be elected, APR's ballot allows you to require your first choice but eliminated candidate to transfer your vote to the weighted vote of the elected candidate she favors most, e.g. the elected candidate highest on her pre-declared list. In this way, I see APR as offering you 'the means to seek out and elect > those who have the particular blend of qualities needed to address and > resolve the issues that are of current concern'. > What do you think? I look forward to your feedback. P.S. If you wish, ask Steve to email you a copy of his more systematic explanation of APR. Steve stevebosworth@hotmail.com

THOSE WHO CONTROL THE OPTIONS, CONTROL THE OUTCOME!!!

Good Morning, Steve 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. 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." 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? 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? That is inadequate, as is demonstrated so clearly by the degradation of modern so-called democracies into oligarchies. I intended to continue these comments, but a personal matter has intervened. I will try to continue my remarks in a day or so, but, for the present, I will simply post what I've completed. I'm sorry. This was unexpected. 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. 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. Fred Gohlke