[From Rick Marken (2000.12.09.1200)]
December 9, 2000, the day the US Supreme Court ended
democracy in America.
Eh, it wasn't working anyway.
Best
Rick
---
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com
[From Bruce Gregory (2000.1209.1601)]
Rick Marken (2000.12.09.1200)
December 9, 2000, the day the US Supreme Court ended
democracy in America.Eh, it wasn't working anyway.
Talk about "high crimes and misdemeanors." The notion that the Supreme
Court is not political is a late twentieth century fantasy. It seems
unlikely to survive into the twenty-first century. If Bush is crowned by
the Supreme Court, care to bet on how many of his nominations to the Court
are approved by the Senate?
BG
[From Shannon Williams (2000.12.09.1800)]
Here is a petition to the Supreme court. I am #1791.
To the US Supreme Court: We, the People, will never accept a
President who is chosen by an incomplete count. The eyes of
the Nation and the World are on you. Count Every Vote.
Sign our petition and spread the word!
http://www.petitiononline.com/ddc10/petition.html
Rick Marken wrote:
[From Rick Marken (2000.12.09.1200)]
December 9, 2000, the day the US Supreme Court ended
democracy in America.Eh, it wasn't working anyway.
Best
Rick
---Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com
[From Rick Marken (2000.12.10.0820)]
isaac says:
Could people please post their polical agendas somewhere else?
I think what is happening in the US now goes beyond political
agendas to basic questions about the shared principles and system
concepts that define those of us who call ourselves American
citizens. For example, is the system concept "American citizen"
based on, among others, the principle of "democracy". If so, what
_is_ the principle of democracy? Is it citizens choosing leaders
by their vote? If so, what is a vote? Is it an intended result
of voter action or a result that trips a switch in a machine?
Perhaps you can see from this that control theory actually does
(as usual) have relevance to the current election conflict in the
US. I think a control theory analysis of this conflict might be
partcularly illuminating in terms of "win win" negotiation.
As I recall, one principle of "win win" negotiation is to get
the other party to the negotiation to go "up a level". It seems
to me that Gore tried this strategy early in the negotiation.
The Bush camp was (and still is) claiming that this is a
dispute over rules (program level); the legislature makes the
rules and you can't change them during an election. There is
obviously considerable disagreement, at the rule level itself,
about whether the rules were actually changed after the election
(the rules were not clear, they conflicted with each other, etc).
So Gore tried to take the conflict up to the principle (democracy)
and even system concept level (I think he said something like
"Hey, this is _America_, for crissakes"). I submit that this "up
a level" effort on Gore's part has been manifestly unsuccessful.
The Bush camp did not take Gore's early offer (to hand count all
the uncounted ballots statewide -- the very solution finally
offered two days ago by the Florida Supreme Court -- and live by
the result) as an opportunity to solve the negotiation by
controlling for the same principle ("democracy") as Gore. In fact,
the Bush camp has remained steadfastly at the rule level and is
apparently willing to stick at that level even if doing so means
violating the principle of democracy (which will happen if the
Florida legislature appoints the electors).
My point isn't that Republican zealots are anti-democratic hacks
(many Democrats have made un-democratic efforts to deprive people
of their votes as well). My point is that the way the election
"negotiation" has played out seems to confirm my prediction that
getting the other party to a negotiation to go "up a level" will
not necessarily lead to a "win- win" solution to that negotiation.
I believe that negotiation leads to win-win solutions only when
both parties to a negotiation go up a level simultaneously _on
their own_. If the Bush team had been willing (or able?) to
go up a level, they would have seen that they and the Gore team
would have been winners (as defenders of the American principle
of democracy) regardless of who actually won the election. As it
sits now, both candidates will lose; Bush will lose as a defender
of democracy and Gore will lose the election. And, of course,
all of us who are American citizens lose in the eyes of the
world. I'd love to hear what the European papers are saying
about the fact that that US Supreme Court has stopped a vote
count because the result of that count might harm one of the
candidates by causing him to lose the election!!!!
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com
[From Bruce Gregory (2000.1210.1133)]
Rick Marken (2000.12.10.0820)
The Bush camp did not take Gore's early offer (to hand count all
the uncounted ballots statewide -- the very solution finally
offered two days ago by the Florida Supreme Court -- and live by
the result) as an opportunity to solve the negotiation by
controlling for the same principle ("democracy") as Gore. In fact,
the Bush camp has remained steadfastly at the rule level and is
apparently willing to stick at that level even if doing so means
violating the principle of democracy (which will happen if the
Florida legislature appoints the electors).
Needless to say it is almost impossible to disagree with so reasonable
position. Nevertheless, I want to suggest that the Bush camp is not at the
rule level. They are controlling at the principle level and their principle
is simply to do anything that will get Bush elected. As far as they are
concerned there is no higher level to go up to. (Relax Isaac, we know how
you Texans feel.)
BG
[From Bill Powers (2000.12.10.0936 MSY)]
Rick Marken (2000.12.10.0820)--
As I recall, one principle of "win win" negotiation is to get
the other party to the negotiation to go "up a level".
As I understand it, "getting the other party to go up a level" isn't the
point; it's for both parties _actually_ to go up a level (or as many as
required). People don't go up a level just because you try to get them to
do it. If they don't want to or don't kinow what you're talking about, they
won't.
It seems
to me that Gore tried this strategy early in the negotiation.
The Bush camp was (and still is) claiming that this is a
dispute over rules (program level); the legislature makes the
rules and you can't change them during an election.
That's a principle, isn't it?
I submit that this "up
a level" effort on Gore's part has been manifestly unsuccessful.
If that's what it was. And if it was unsuccessful, there can't be any
"win-win" result. I don't think elections are set up to permit "win-win"
solutions, anyway. If A wins, B loses.
The Bush camp did not take Gore's early offer... as an opportunity to
solve >the negotiation by controlling for the same principle ("democracy")
as Gore.
Democrats, as I understand them, support something called a democracy.
Republicans support something called a republic, which is definitely not
the same system concept as a democracy. The principle of "one man, one
vote" is not a principle of a republic, as I understand it. Ask any
Republican if this country is supposed to be a democracy.
I have always thought it would be interesting to try to spell out exactly
what system concepts and principles are upheld by adherents of these two
political parties. Or are there really any differences, except that My Guy
is not Your Guy? Another system-concept dichotomy is Liberal vs.
Conservative. It seems to me that liberal means nice, agreeable, generous,
helpful, unselfish, compassionate, and so on, while conservative means
nasty, selfish, greedy, unsympathetic, power-hungry, and the like. But I
don't suppose a conservative would necessarily agree with me.
Maybe it's hard to verbalize such system-concept differences, but it ought
to be worth a try.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Bruce Gregory (2000.1210.1317)]
Shannon Williams (2000.1210.1148)
> [From Bruce Gregory (2000.1210.1133)]
> (Relax Isaac, we know how you Texans feel.)Hey! Over 40% of Texans voted for Gore, and
it would have been more if several of the
Democratic Mayors had not endorsed Bush.
They are now regretting their endorsements.
Mayors like Ron Kirk of Dallas had been
persuaded that a Bush win was a certainity,
and it was in the best interests of Dallas
to give the endorsement.
I stand corrected. Glad to know that all Texans are not entirely beyond
hope. (Excluding Isaac, needless to say.)
BG
[From Shannon Williams (2000.1210.1148)]
[From Bruce Gregory (2000.1210.1133)]
(Relax Isaac, we know how you Texans feel.)
Hey! Over 40% of Texans voted for Gore, and
it would have been more if several of the
Democratic Mayors had not endorsed Bush.
They are now regretting their endorsements.
Mayors like Ron Kirk of Dallas had been
persuaded that a Bush win was a certainity,
and it was in the best interests of Dallas
to give the endorsement.
[From Rick Marken (2000.12.10.1020)]
David Wolsk
A view from abroad may be useful .......
Wonderful! Thanks David.
Me:
As I recall, one principle of "win win" negotiation is to get
the other party to the negotiation to go "up a level".
Bill Powers (2000.12.10.0936 MSY) --
As I understand it, "getting the other party to go up a level"
isn't the point; it's for both parties _actually_ to go up a
level (or as many as required). People don't go up a level just
because you try to get them to do it. If they don't want to or
don't kinow what you're talking about, they won't.
This was precisely my point in the discussion of win-win
negotiation. But I was told that I was wrong. In the examples
given the advocates of "win win" negotiation said that one party
had managed to "get the other party" to go up a level. I argued
that, in reality, if one party doesn't want to go "up to the
level", they won't. I said what uoi say here: there is no way to
make a win win solutions happen by some kind of negotiation scheme.
Win win solutions happen only when both parties go up a level all
on their own.
I don't think elections are set up to permit "win-win"
solutions, anyway. If A wins, B loses.
Of course not. But it could have been win win at the
principle level -- if both were willing to control for
the same principle: democracy. But you and Bruce Gregory
may be right; they may simply be controlling for different
priciples.
Democrats, as I understand them, support something called a
democracy. Republicans support something called a republic,
which is definitely not the same system concept as a democracy.
The principle of "one man, one vote" is not a principle of a
republic, as I understand it.
I think of a republic as a representative democracy; so "one man-
one vote" is a principle in my view of a republic.
Ask any Republican if this country is supposed to be a democracy.
I will.
By the way, I want to make it clear that my preferred winner
in this election is democracy as I understand it, not Bush or
Gore. Indeed, I have a slight preference for Bush. Gore is not
nearly progressive enough for my taste and neither candidate
will be able to get anything useful done anyway. I prefer Bush
as a test of my economic model and for the pure comedy potential.
I have always thought it would be interesting to try to spell
out exactly what system concepts and principles are upheld by
adherents of these two political parties.
Yes. That would be fascinating. But they change considerably
over time. The Republicans, remember, came about as the party
of Federal government; I believe they even fought a war to
preserve the power of the central government. In the last 2
decades the Republicans became the party of states rights while
the Democrats, thanks to FDR, took over the central government
mantle. I think it's rather charming that this election has
returned the Republicans to their roots, with the Federal
Government (US Supreme Court) telling a state the way its going
to be, election-wise.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com
i.kurtzer (2000.1210.1600)
I am quite able to hit a delete button. Rather, I feel this forum is not
for politics and that its introduction is simply not appropriate.
[From Bruce Gregory (2000.1209.2207)]
>i mean and meant "political"..
Just hit the delete button Isaac. You do have a delete button don't you?
BG
[From Bryan Thalhammer (2000.1211.0706)]
Isaac, this is quite a relevant PCT discussion. First of all, the
socio-political environment contains disturbances to our program, principle
and system image perceptions, *such as* the wrong words (Republican), the
wrong principles being upheld (hold the recount to retain the current voter
picture in Florida regardless of the national picture) and the wrong system
image (no, as a Democrat I am not whiner, sore loser, etc., etc., and the
person(s) I identify with are not threats to the government). Sheesh.
With this kind of pattern of disturbances (and I guess there must be others
on this topic, Ralph), I can affect my environment by speaking up, engaging
in discussion groups, and even by attending to those TV programs, newpaper
articles, radio programs, or e-mail messages that present fewer
disturbances to the preferred state of the perceptions I am minding. I can
even join in on these discussions so that part of the environment now
reflects my less disturbing inputs. Well, of course, I might not be able to
affect the larger environment, but I can sure determine my *local*
environment.
However, the matter for many (the bare majority of US voters) may still be
in vain, since the only action output they could have made that really
counted was the vote they cast last November. It may be possible to make
an effect to carry a sign out in front of the Supreme Court, take part in a
rally, give money for the legal battle, or even engage in flaming. Most of
this will only make the local environment less disturbing to the
perceptions that matter for a few fleeting moments.
Other perceptions may be less in error and varied behavior less in evidence
of maintaining those social interaction principles, since many committed
partisans may have deferred maintaining principles of social interaction
such as deference, politeness, integrity, and fairness, in favor of win,
win, win...
It may be a matter of going up a level, to see (honestly I might add) how
we appear when we carry "Sore Loserman" signs around. But, there may be
principle or program perceptions so in error that the system image is "too
busy" with those to be concerned with the ones we learned at school (I
think...).
But then it's a statistical heat...! And so I guess we need to let
Braveheart characters stand in for the candidates, and throw boulders and
stones at each other. Ain't it fun?
So there, Isaac, it IS a PCT discussion. More than 50% of the concepts I
have addressed have received my popular attention, and now I wait for the
PCT Electoral College to assemble on this text.
BT
[From Shannon Williams (2000.1210.1148)]
[From Bruce Gregory (2000.1210.1133)]
(Relax Isaac, we know how you Texans feel.)Hey! Over 40% of Texans voted for Gore, and
it would have been more if several of the
Democratic Mayors had not endorsed Bush.
They are now regretting their endorsements.
Mayors like Ron Kirk of Dallas had been
persuaded that a Bush win was a certainity,
and it was in the best interests of Dallas
to give the endorsement.
[From Rick Marken (2000.12.11.1000)]
Bryan Thalhammer (2000.1211.0706)--
Isaac, this is quite a relevant PCT discussion.
Of course it is! Nice post Bryan.
Perhaps the best thing I have gotten out of this election brouhaha
is the discovery of David Boise, the clearest thinker and the most
decent individual to come out of Illinois since Abe Lincoln and
W. T. Powers.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com
[From Bruce Abbott (2000.12.12.0630 EST)]
Rick Marken (2000.12.11.1000) --
Perhaps the best thing I have gotten out of this election brouhaha
is the discovery of David Boise, the clearest thinker and the most
decent individual to come out of Illinois since Abe Lincoln and
W. T. Powers.
And me, of course (I was born in Illinois).
Steph has been following David Boies's appearances with extra interest since
learning that he's a distant cousin of hers. Both of their family lines go
back to another David Boies, who emigrated to America from near Londonderry
in Northern Ireland to Massachusetts in the 18th century. His ancestors had
been French Huguenots who had left France for England to escape religious
oppression and settled briefly in Scotland before moving to Ireland. The
family name was originally DuBoies.
Bruce A.