[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics + a method proposal

[Fred Gohlke]

Hi, Juho

re: "Yes, the new method has some properties that support this (i.e., 
replacing emotion with reason, flg).  It is however not guaranteed that 
feelings, parties and other differentiating factors will not find their 
way in and play some role also in that method."

You are correct.  We can not guarantee the future.  All we can do is use 
our best efforts (1) to insure there IS a future, and (2) accept the 
lessons of the past as we build toward that future.

It is important to recognize that parties will not be dead.  Once 
elected, representatives selected by the method I've outlined will form 
alliances to advance their ideas.  That will happen because partisanship 
is natural for humans.  We seek out and align ourselves with others who 
share our views.  Through them, we hone our ideas and gain courage from 
the knowledge that we are not alone in our beliefs.  Partisanship gives 
breadth, depth and volume to our voice.  In and of itself, partisanship 
is not only inevitable, it is healthy.

As a very good friend wrote me recently about what would happen if 
members of parliament in his country were selected by such a method ...

"When people in parliament form cliques, they (would be) building 
majority opinions on specific issues.  They (would not be) bound by 
manifesto or indebtedness to backers.  I would expect different cliques 
(to) form, in response to each issue raised. ... Before election, 
cliques are formed to get power, not to solve problems."

When considering the problems of society, honest people will differ.  It 
is essential that they should.  We advance our common interest by 
examining conceivable options.  The important thing is to ensure that 
the consideration is done by 'honest people'.  The best way to find 
'honest people' is to subject candidates to rigorous examination by 
other candidates who seek the same positions.

An important factor bearing on the matter of inhibiting adverse factors 
is the dynamism of the method.  As you said back in March, "One 
interesting property of the proposed system is that current top level 
representatives, even if very popular, have a high risk of not being 
re-elected."  That flows, not only from the filtering effect of the 
method, but from the fact that the concerns of the electorate can change 
considerably between elections.  This method always reacts to current 
circumstances.

Of course, as you pointed out, that implies a relatively high turnover 
of elected officials at each election.  So, while that makes the system 
very dynamic and makes it difficult for rot to find a sticking place, it 
also makes it difficult for those who take time out of their lives to 
serve in public office, for they have no career guarantees.  Such people 
must be afforded salary continuation and something similar to the G. I. 
Bill of Rights ... advanced education, career training, small business 
loans, and so forth ... to ease their transition back to private life.


re: "... or if some single person simply dominates the process and makes 
the method reflect his/her personal visions (while expecting and 
reacting to comments from others)."

That states my case pretty well.  I'm not entirely happy with it, for I 
really don't want to 'dominate'.  I'm much more interested in helping. 
No one person has the wit and wisdom to understand and accommodate the 
immense variety of human society.  Building a solid political foundation 
must, necessarily, be the work of all of us.

Even so, I've learned a great deal from the interaction on this site and 
hope to learn more.  I will, I happily admit, express my views with all 
the force at my command, but I treasure those who can identify, point 
out and explain weaknesses in my reasoning.  I use those events to 
expand my views.

Fred