[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics

[Dave Ketchum]

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:42:17 +0200 Juho wrote:
> On Mar 14, 2008, at 5:34 , Fred Gohlke wrote:
> 
> 
>>In the U. S., our major political parties are quasi-official entities
>>that control the selection of candidates for public office.  They  
>>raise
>>the immense amounts of money needed to get their candidates elected by
>>selling the votes of their candidates to vested interests.  They meet
>>their commitment to the donors by picking politicians who can be  
>>relied
>>upon to enact the laws and implement the policies the donors' desire.
>>In other words, political parties are nothing but conduits for  
>>corruption.
> 
> 
> Ok, it seems that the border line that you consider harmful is where  
> the political parties break out from their simple role as groups of  
> similar minded people and start exercising power outside of the role  
> originally planned for them.
> 
I suspect "break out" is not the right phrase.  What the parties do is 
more a response to the structure of government and the responsibilities of 
voters.

Take a look at the Electoral College.  What would fit with what the 
Constitution SAYS fits with the legislatures appointing electors who, 
after studying such candidates as become visible to them, do their voting.

Fred and Abd are each into amending structure.  Perhaps their thoughts can 
move us toward a structure that gives citizens more actual control while 
minimizing responsibilities which are both beyond their abilities and an 
inspiration to what parties have become.
> 
>>re: "... where I end up in the same room with a drug dealer that wants
>>to expand his influence in the city.  Should I vote against him if he
>>seems to be determined to get that position and tells me that I should
>>understand that we should elect him."
>>
>>Doesn't that depend on whether you know the person is a drug  
>>dealer?  If
>>not, you will have an extended period of time to evaluate him (or  
>>her).
>>  All you can base your decision on is what you hear and observe, the
>>information you are able to glean from your examination of the person,
>>and your evaluation of material supplied by others, if there is any.
>>For example, wouldn't you be likely to ask the people in your group
>>where they work and try to assess the forthrightness of their  
>>response?
>>
>>Furthermore, you are not alone in the process.  Others, too, will
>>evaluate this person.  If you misjudge, others may not.  There is  
>>always
>>the possibility that a scoundrel will run the gauntlet  
>>successfully, but
>>the odds against it are infinitely better than we endure now, with
>>political parties selecting our candidates.
> 
> 
> My concern is that the person himself may make it known that he is no  
> ordinary person since he knows that it will have an effect on the  
> other persons in the room. Maybe there are rumours that last year  
> some voter that stopped him on his way upwards disappeared  
> mysteriously. The problem thus is that since the votes in practice  
> are not secret bad mannered people like this drug dealer could make  
> use of that.
> 
> (In lesser scale this problem will be present also when other people  
> in the room include one's boss, friend, tax official, a person that  
> might be hurt if not elected, a person known to tell everyone whom  
> you supported etc. Maybe the results of the groups of three will be  
> published, and in that case everyone can guess everyone else's  
> opinions => better vote party x if you plan career in a x minded  
> company.)
> 
> 
>>So far,
>>we've barely scratched the surface of an extremely complex topic.
>>Ideas, to have value, must be challenged.
> 
> 
> As you can see my concerns and possible improvements that I'd like to  
> study are mainly in the areas of privacy of the votes and in  
> proportional representation. In USA proportional representation is  
> not a tradition (except to some extent between the two parties of the  
> two-party system) so it may not be seen to be that critical. Don't  
> know about privacy since people anyway do register as supporters of  
> one party. The new set-up brings new challenges in the area of  
> privacy though (like the drug dealers).

I see Fred's groups of 3 as too small for practicality.

I also vote against what I see for pr.  Let citizens choose and back 
members of the legislature's territory as legislators.

Assuming a legislature would fit for each member to represent about 75 
citizens.  Then, according to backing:
      Right to vote based on quantity of backers, but getting an excess 
does not give more voting rights than 100.
      Right to speak depends on having at least 50 backers.
      Legislators at lower level legislatures act as citizens in next 
level legislature, with their strength based on quantity of real citizens 
they represent.

Secrecy as to who backs a legislator is sticky.  Knowing the quantity of 
backing is essential, but difficult to do without knowing who.  If enough 
citizens in a state would like to back a legislator they agree on, this 
should be possible.

When secrecy is important for a vote, let the standard be what can be done 
in a room by a private society with members voting with black and white 
balls.  Note:
      A unanimous vote means they all agreed, so getting a few to change 
should not affect result.
      Far from unanimity makes it impossible to be sure how a particular 
voter voted.
> 
> Juho
-- 
  davek at clarityconnect.com    people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
  Dave Ketchum   108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708   607-687-5026
            Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                  If you want peace, work for justice.