[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics + a method proposal

[Juho]

On Jun 30, 2008, at 22:56 , Fred Gohlke wrote:

> re: "I see also some benefits in being "bound by manifesto and  
> indebtedness" and having related 'cliques' already before the  
> election."
>
> Then you must be happy with the status quo and all the deceit,  
> obfuscation and corruption that dominate our present political  
> process.

I'm only saying that taking a system where all candidates represent  
just their personal views also loses something (a clear structure)  
and adds complexity (makes evaluation of the numerous candidates more  
difficult to the voters).  I don't want status quo in most electoral  
systems of today.

It is possible to have methods that allow groupings that could be  
more fine grained than today.  It is also possible to have methods  
that allow voters to express opinions that deviate from the given  
party/subgroup structure.

> re: "If there are plenty of candidates it is very useful to know  
> what each candidate stands for (and is morally bound to)."
>
> Thinking one knows "what each candidate stands for (and is morally  
> bound to)." in a partisan system is the height of folly.  To cite  
> the most obvious case, those who 'knew' that the present President  
> Bush was a fiscal conservative have learned, to their unending  
> anguish, that they 'knew' nothing at all.  The tragedy is that they  
> attribute their error to the man rather than the system that  
> produced him ... in spite of the fact that the same deception  
> follows every election in every jurisdiction.
>
> The only way you can get any idea what a candidate really stands  
> for is to examine him ... carefully.  You won't always be right,  
> but you'll be right more frequently than you will be when you form  
> your judgment by listening to him (or her) tell you why you should  
> vote for her (or him).

I also want to avoid the situation where the candidate tells to each  
voter group different stories on what he/she represents.  For poor  
people he/she would tell that he/she will promote their interests,  
and to riche people he/she would tell something else.  This is where  
clear statements on groupings might help the poor voters to  
understand, and would make the candidates be more open on what they  
intend to do.

One example.  If both Republicans and Democrats would have clear  
internal factions "against war" and "pro war" then the results of the  
election could tell clearly what the voters want.  If there is no  
such clear distinction the actual policy after the election could  
easily be anything.  And the voters, even if they would have made  
detailed analysis of the individual candidates, would not know how  
much others agreed with their opinion.

> re: "(This need not mean a traditional flat party structure (and  
> large parties) but can also be e.g. a tree like structure that  
> makes it possible to identify the 'green republicans' and to  
> support some of those candidates or that whole block.)"
>
> I'm unable to visualize such a tree-like structure, or how it would  
> work.

The political space could consist of "left wing" and "right wing".  
The right wing could consist of the conservative party and another  
more extreme right wing party. The conservative party could have a  
"against war" wing and/or a green wing.  These groupings could still  
be divided in smaller fragments.  Probably the system (multi-winner  
elections) would be based on multi seat districts (not single seat  
districts). It is easiest to think the tree based methods as  
extensions of the open list based methods.

> More to the point, and what those who choose their representatives  
> by labels rather than substance

I'd expect voters to vote based on substance and analysis of  
individuals. "Labels" / identified groups could help them in this task.

> re: "Maybe the key idea is to avoid situations where the parties  
> start dominating the political life, candidate nominations, their  
> opinions etc. more than what is ideal for the society (and thereby  
> making the society more stagnant and causing citizens to lose trust  
> and interest in governing the future of their own society).
>
> Is that not a precise description of our present political  
> existence? How, exactly, can we avoid it.  Who is to determine what  
> is ideal for the society other than the society itself?

I think it is included in the laws of nature that systems often tend  
to stagnate, leading persons tend to grab more power than what is  
beneficial for the society etc. We just need to work continuously to  
keep the system healthy and dynamic and responsive.

>   I've outlined a method that lets the people select candidates  
> from among themselves and, in the process, define the ideals of  
> their society.  It avoids the problems you describe.  Would that I  
> could make it attractive to you.

Finding a good balance is not easy, different societies have  
different needs, it is easy to jump to new systems since grass often  
seems greener there. In short, lots of discussions and multiple  
opinions and proposals and variants needed to find the best methods  
for each society and each need.

> 1) "When we have made the changes MacIntyre wants to see, politics  
> will no longer be civil war by other means: 'the politics of such  
> communities is not a politics of competing interests in the way in  
> which the politics of the modern state is'.  It is instead a shared  
> project, and one that is shared by all adults, rather than being  
> limited to a few elites who have gained power through manipulation  
> and use that power to gain the goods of effectiveness for themselves."

I think the "company culture" or "spirit of the society" may differ a  
lot in different societies. Traditions play a strong role here. In  
some societies people think they are fighting against each others. In  
some other societies they may think they are working together for  
similar goals. Also the morale / allowed rules are very different in  
different societies (controlled mostly by the members of the society  
themselves). In some places kids are stolen, in some places not.  
Improving corrupt societies is a very slow process and maintaining a  
good direction is not easy.

> 2) "When the community deliberates collectively about its best way  
> of life it is choosing a telos, or final end.  And that final end  
> will be one which reflects the needs of all the citizens, including  
> the need to have and use the virtues, which are part of our nature  
> as dependent rational animals."

It is good to state the ideal targets openly.

Juho




	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine 
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html