HOW TO SAVE MODERN CIVILIZATION---or, a Modest Proposal for electoral reform

'
HOW TO SAVE MODERN CIVILIZATION---or, a Modest Proposal for electoral reform

I want to bulld up a social order which can moderate the coming world-wide social catastrophe, and, I hope, provide structures for a new order of society which can grow in the wreckage of what is to come. I consider that it is not enough that these changes to the constitutional order be good: first and foremost they must be possible! They must glide as seamlessly as possible into the ACTUAL mechanisms of global society [not the phony window-dressing which is so-called "democracy"], and at the same time result in a radical re-structuring of the relations of power in the society.

Next, I agree with Socrates and Plato that only those who know something about a matter should be making decisions about it. The corollary to this is that those who do not know anything about a matter should not be making decisions about it. At one stroke we cut through the flummery about "the people" governing. As someone said, "Applause, mingled with boos and hisses, is about all that the average voter is able or willing to contribute to public life."

As I was growing up, I was bemused by the fact that Americans are conditioned by modern education and the mass media to be as ignorant as possible, and yet are convinced that they should have a strong opinion about every topic under the sun. Oh, the relief when you go to a foreign country and you can actually hear people say, when they are asked a question about a complex topic, "Gee, I really don't know enough about that matter to have an intelligent opinion."

The fact is, in the modern world, problems are often so complex and subtle that there is not a hope in heaven that non-experts can even begin to understand what is involved. Moreover, experts in one field are often incredibly ignorant about fields beyond their competence, often even more ignorant than a reasonably well-informed ordinary person. This is also a problem that can have and, over and over, does have disastrous consequences---as we see all around us today.

So, people should know what they are doing; and they shouldn't muck about in affairs they don't understand. Yet common humanity demands that people should have some say in what happens to them, and they should be able to express their concerns, even if they do not understand all the factors that may be in play in a situation.

We are supposed to be living in "democracies", yet it is all just a sham; the real powers behind the throne are the lobbies, funded by special interests, controlled by small groups of individuals who are rich and powerful, and who, of all the elements of society, are often the ones who are most insane and disconnected from reality.

Lastly, we want a system of voting which eliminates the problems inherent in ARROW'S IMPOSSIBILITY THEOREM, a well-known mathematical proof that demonstrates clearly that no system of voting based upon ranked preferences can possibly meet certain simple criteria which we desire to be present in a system of voting. [If this is new to you, you can find a basic exposition here:]

Arrow's Impossibility Theorem

So let us put everything together; we want a system:

1---which is not based on abstract principles which are too rigid.

2---which provides some hope for the future.

3---which is possible.

4---which permits sensible people to make sensible decisions.

5---which allows people to express the degree of concern they have about matters.

6---which escapes the restrictions of Arrow's Theorem.

Does this seem an impossible task? Like most great ideas it is fundamentally simple---but it requires having an open mind.
.

'
One great idea is the direct election of lobbies. At one stroke vast amounts of corruption are eliminated---and the vast mass of the people wind up with more power, not less---yet it is a power far less susceptible to being exploited by the sinister forces in our society.
A kindergarten model of the system would be to register every society, or group of people who had an interest in participating in government.

Every voter would be given, say, one hundred votes which he or she would apportion at will amongst the registered lobbying groups: five votes going to one group, twenty votes going to another, one vote going here, zero votes going there. The number of votes each lobby would have in parliament would be proportional to the number of votes they received in the election. The passage of legislation would depend upon dickering between the various lobby groups---precisely as it does today. This system, known as fractional voting, not only permits the masses to express their desires about the direction of political change, but also their degree of concern about these matters.

Pause for a moment---let the fundamental grandeur of this conception sink into the your consciousness.

No doubt the percipient reader has been struck dumb by awe that such an elegantly simple, yet profoundly subtle, solution can exist to all our political, social, and economic problems. In my mind's eye I see my respected reader sitting motionless before his or her monitor, thunderstruck that the privilege has befallen them to be the witness of a conception so vast and noble that it seems to be an emanation from the mind of a deity.

But perhaps there are those whose mind's are wont to run on a narrower track. Could it be that there are poor souls in this world whose reaction to this glorious revolution in thinking would be to say, "So what?"?

Let me attempt to conceive the inconceivable. Let me suppose an interlocutor to say, "You call this practical? You call this possible? Do you imagine that the power structures of the world would permit a change in governance so disadvantageous to themselves? Do you imagine that a transition to this system could be managed without enormous disruption to institutions and procedures which are deeply entrenched and tenaciously defended? Do you imagine that the people would give their consent to such a radical change and one which is so untried?"

I reply that I have answers to the first two objections, but that this exposition will proceed in a more orderly manner if I defer their discussion to a later stage in the argument. To the third objection I reply that it is not a radical change, and it is not untried. I repeat, it is a purification and a rationalization of the system which presently exists: government by lobbies.

The procedure of making decisions by fractional voting---it goes by a number of names---is quite common in business, advertising, and economics. Fractional voting is one of those many, many advantages which our rulers use to their own benefit but deny to the rest of us. It is a method usually classified under social choice theory. There is at least one mathematical proof---which I have examined---that it is not affected by Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. The proof is not well-known. It is by an Indian mathematician---a sound chap, a good mathematician; his name is: K. K. Nambiar; his proof and a brief discussion of its consequences are in the fractional voting link.
.

'
A layman should be able to have an intuitive understanding that this system escapes the problems of Arrow's Theorem by noting that, obviously, it is exempt from the primary restriction of being a system of preferential ranking of a list of candidates that results in clear and immediate winners and losers. Virtually all systems of voting which today are used and studied are vertically organized, hierarchical systems. They are a barbaric legacy of the past---when robber-kings and feudal despots ruled, and the common people grovelled before them. Some candidates are given the privileges of power, other candidates are excluded from those privileges.

The system which I am beginning to outline here is a horizontally organized system--- no group of any significance is ever excluded from power; all groups are always in power; no group is ever out of power. Elections determine only one thing: the degree of power an individual group shall enjoy during a particular administration. Each lobby group would be elected and given its power by those members of the community who were most concerned and involved with the lobby and its programs---in terms of money, power, or amenity of life---just as is the case today. The lobby groups, of course would have to be financed---a question I will take up later. A lobby group which became corrupt, or incompetent, or otherwise failed to fulfill the program to which its supporters were committed would find its power and finances sharply curtailed when its supporters transferred their votes to competing lobbies at the next election---not all that different from what happens today. This competitive factor would be a strong incentive for the lobby groups to design and deliver successful programs which would, as much as possible, satisfy as many electors as possible.

This is definitely not similar to the situation which exists today. Each lobby group would need to have trained administrators---just as today; each would employ trained researchers and experts with specialized knowledge---which all too often is not the case today, though it is true of worthwhile and effective lobbies. Lobbies would require skilled negotiators and effective propagandists---and here would be a niche where our present-day politicians could find employment; they would be denied their present opportunities for graft, corruption and bilking the public.

Because there would be so much pressure on the lobbies to satisfy the electors, the lobby groups would, in general, be more efficient and effective than present lobbies, and to be effective they would need a high esprit-de-corps. This factor could be manipulated to increase yet further their honesty and efficiency. An "honors system," employed both within a social group and emanating from the wider society without, is used in Britain with considerable effect.

Our present political system may be likened to a Punch-and-Judy show, where puppets pretend to fight each other. They are manipulated by a vast, shadowy puppeteer which we may call the military-government-industrial-media-entertainment-consumerproduct conglomerate. This quasi-fascist totalitarian entity employs innumerable minions to go out and pick the pockets of the audience while that audience [that is, the public] is gawking at the show.

In the new system, parliament would consist of the sum total of all the lobbies; each lobby would, in effect, be a party; and parliament would be a throng of many, many parties. The Punch-and-Judy show would be over, the curtain rung down. The various parties would watch each other jealously---ever watchful for corruption, inefficiency, hypocrisy. There would be too many, being too watchful, for a massive, totalitarian conspiracy to rule us---as is the case today. Some may think that this happy state of affairs cannot be guaranteed, and they are right. But cabals would be difficult to form and they would be, by the nature of the system, unstable. It would be so likely that one of the conspiring parties could gain an advantage by betraying it. Furthermore, there are other elements of my proposed new system, which I have not yet even begun to go into, that would provide yet more safeguards to the stability and effectiveness of the system.

One commentator remarked about this system:

"Astonishing! You have just described a Rights Based, Free Market System!"

With my usual modesty, I replied:

"Amazing, isn't it !" --- :redface:
.

'
As if from a distance, I hear a voice [it is an American voice] full of the certainty that it has found an objection which is unanswerable: "You have mentioned that combinations would be unstable; wouldn't they be too unstable; with so many cooks in the kitchen, would it not be impossible to get any work done? How could such a parliament have enough unity to run a government? In your system you have parties dedicated to everything under the sun; look at the present situation; with just two parties, the Democrats and Republicans, Congress can barely function!"

Now, what is the error in this objection? The key, of course, is in the sentence, "With just two parties, the Democrats and Republicans, Congress can barely function." Yes, that is true! And it is precisely that which demonstrates the inferiority of the present system of American misrule!

I know what a horribly wrenching experience it is for Americans to tear their gaze away from the rapt contemplation of their own sublimely beautiful countenance, even for a moment! But gather your courage! Echo, if only faintly, the stern character of your pioneer forebears, turn away from the mirrored reflection of your ceaseless self-congratulation, go to the window--- look! ---there is a world out there! That's it, clutch the window-sill, the dizziness and disorientation will pass in a moment !

You will see, all over the world, parliamentary systems of government, multi-party governments, which demonstrably function more efficiently and deliver to the people greater amenities than the antiquated, deeply corrupt system of American oligarchy. There are many examples in Europe; there is much that we could learn to our profit in Japan; even right next door, in Canada, there is an efficient parliamentary government of considerable sophistication functioning in the midst of complex federal tensions. Even Israel, with its kaleidoscope of jostling, bickering parties has successfully dealt with a state of constant war for over fifty years !

Why is it that, since the middle of the nineteenth century, all advanced nations in the world has adopted a parliamentary system of government, rather than one constructed after the American model? Is it because, as the former tenant of the White House said, "They hate us because we are so good"? No, my friends, it is because anyone with the intelligence of a high-grade moron can see that the parliamentary system is better than the American system. For one thing, governments will fall when they have lost the confidence of the governed, and new elections will be called. I remember well the Nixon débâcle; the helicopter of the victory-signing presidential madman had scarcely left Washington when a television reporter appeared on the screen of the boob-tube and intoned, with all the vigor of one newly risen from the grave, that Nixon's resignation "shows that the System works." Well, I have news for you, folks, that multi-year political nightmare proved just the opposite; and the present domestic political nightmare proves and will prove, yet again, that the American political system does not work.

So, parliamentary systems, as a matter of brute historical fact, work better than the American system; and they allow for rapid political change when the need arises, unlike the American system. What are some other characteristics of a parliamentary system? Well, the executive, the cabinet, is chosen by the members of parliament rather than by the whim of the ignorant multitude. That the American voters, brainwashed as they are by the tricks of monopoly media, could have come even close to electing George W. Bush or Donald Trump as their president, shows how lacking in political acumen they are at present [The political changes which I am proposing here will train the people to be more politically mature; but I will deal with that aspect presently].

So, competent, trained people will be chosen for cabinet and chief executive by parliament, which can hire and fire them at will. How modern and efficient compared to the inflexible, royalist attitudes embodied in the present antiquated, 18th century American constitutional arrangements.
'

'
As superior as present-day parliamentary systems are in comparison with the American Constitution, the political system which I am proposing here advances by giant strides beyond all existing parliamentary governments. Reflect again upon the twin pillars whereon this majestic structure rests. You cannot spend too much time in the contemplation of the subtle and ingenious threads of political wisdom which radiate out into a transformed and transforming society.

To repeat, those twin pillars are, first, the direct election of lobbies by the citizenry as a whole. This utterly wondrous procedure eliminates, at a single stroke, both the theoretical deficiencies embodied in Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, and the grave practical deficiencies represented by the multitude of corrupt middle-men who, at present, stand between the nation and the expression of its will. Instead of legislation being in the hands of individuals of questionable character, ignorant of almost everything except legal trickery, over-worked, and ceaselessly harried by concerns about their re-elections---legislation would be studied and crafted by groups of people, always in contact with their constituents, constantly under scrutiny and public supervision---people who are skilled in all aspects of political life and well-trained in their own areas of expertise.

As to the second pillar of a re-born social contract, fractional voting, my remarks will be somewhat more tentative. I can conceive of many possible bells-and-whistles which could be added to the basic plan of the system, but here my purpose is to paint in broad strokes the general outlines of a new social order. Also, it is only for the ease of exposition that I am treating this new order as if it were a monolithic whole; The prudent social engineer would never do so. No!---one would depart from the totalitarian mind-set of the present-day inhabitants of our Orwellian world and act as any sensible business-man would: set up study-groups, do market studies, set up local test-models of the system to ferret out bugs and short-comings, and, in short, employ all those non-totalitarian techniques which are already well-known and used in business and economics, and which are so sadly missing in our political systems, and lamentably lacking in our corrupted intellectual climate.
.

'
I will say little here about the civil service of the government, except to note that in parliamentary systems, the civil service is the fly-wheel of government, and keeps the system going, whatever may be the temporary vagaries of the elected representatives. The key element in a good civil service is esprit de corps---an element notably lacking in American governance and, indeed, in American life in general. The American military and parts of the American business and economic conspiracy often flatter themselves with the delusion that they have enfused much esprit de corps into their respective organizations, but, in fact, the only area of American life wherein you see a notable degree of this spirit is within sporting teams.

In societies which are more civilized than that of America and whose civil services rise above the sorry, slovenly American example, honors play an important part in creating and maintaining a high level of esprit de corps within the civil service---and, indeed, within many other social institutions. We need to make a serious study of the use of honors and non-monetary perquisites to stabilize the morale of governance and society.

One last and all-important reform is vital in order to create a human society that has any reasonable prospect for long-lasting survival. Long ago, decades ago, long before it became fashionable to decry global warming, I was warning those around me about the fundamental weakness, which overshadowed all others, of modern technological society: I coined the phrase trigger-effect to apply to this key danger. Simply, it refers to the truth that as technical expertise increases it takes a smaller, less expensive, more easily obtainable trigger to set off a series of catastrophic repercussions. I expect the first major event of the sort in this new century to be biological in character. I expect someone in a small laboratory, set up in the equivalent of a back-yard garage, to concoct a mutant virus or microbe which would wipe out a considerable fraction of the human race. I still expect that to happen, but a few years in the future. We have still a few years to endure supposedly conscious human beings pontificating about oil supplies and the control of postage-stamp-sized bits of desert wasteland. Mercifully, this childish prattle will soon be stilled.

9/11 is a tongue-tip taste of what I mean by the term, "trigger effect." Conceived of as fiction, as a story from a television series of cheap science-fiction, it would be a memorable example of the trigger-effect: a small group of extremists using box-cutters ( ! ) as weapons, unleash a step-wise avalanche of ever-increasing catastrophe, ending in economic collapse, war, dictatorship, environmental devastation, moral failure, death, agony and hopelessness. What a story! (Too bad it is so unbelievable)

Well, whatever the future holds, it is important to form social institutions which will, no matter what happens, act as seeds for positive reconstruction---otherwise all we have to look forward to is a blend of "Mad Max" and Aldous Huxley's Ape and Essence.
.