[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Afternoon, Juho

re:  "I tend to think that often the understanding is also the most 
crucial step. I mean that after such understanding and model is found 
that it covers all aspects and players and can be accepted by all, then 
people tend to think that actually it is obvious and it is natural to 
follow the model. The practical implementation of the model is then just 
straight forward work."

I agree, and we are in the early stages of that process.  As our 
understanding grows, the breadth of our grasp expands to include aspects 
that were formerly obscure.  Because politics and human relations are 
very complex and we each have our blindfolds, we must, from time to 
time, adjust our ideas to integrate well-reasoned objections raised by 
others.  Over time, the model appears, as you say, more and more natural 
... indeed, almost inevitable ... to those who consider it.


re: "Note that also the current two-party system of the USA has similar 
characteristics. The society will be run by the representatives of the 
largest faction."

In a sense, that's true.  The parties adjust their platforms to attract 
voters.  They pay lip service to various opinions in order to achieve 
power.  But, as we all know to our sorrow, campaign promises are among 
the biggest jokes in our country.  There is an enormous gap between the 
hopes and desires of the American people and the actions of our elected 
representatives.

It is important to recognize that party interest and the people's 
interest are not synonymous.  The party, through its obligation to its 
donors, has interests far beyond the interest or even the knowledge of 
the people.  Parties advocate positions on stem-cell research, digital 
rights management, tort reform, bankruptcy proceedings, and intellectual 
property rights (to name just a few of the most obvious such interests), 
not because their position is good for the people of the United States 
but because the party has been paid to support those positions by the 
vendors who profit from them.


re: "Small groups may also have problems like strong individuals simply 
running over the less aggressive and less confident ones."

This will surely happen at the lower levels because humans are 
characterized by varying degrees of aggressiveness.  Since passive 
people are unlikely to advance, the more aggressive will.  However, 
undue aggressiveness will quickly become a liability.  As the levels 
advance, all members of each group will have some degree of 
aggressiveness.  Those who combine other qualities ... knowledge, 
eloquence, forthrightness and judgment among them ... will shun those 
whose greatest claim to fame is aggressiveness.


re: "It is also possible to try to improve the behaviour of the 
(potentially larger) groups (to avoid monologues and other strong 
individual related problems) by setting some clear rules and procedures 
for them."

I disagree.  We have no shortage of rules and procedures in politics. 
Rules seek to identify and inhibit perverse actions rather than 
rendering the actions unproductive.  The essence of the Active Democracy 
concept is that it harnesses our natural pursuit of our own interest by 
penalizing negative traits (excessive aggressiveness, for example) and 
rewarding positive ones (like intellect and integrity).

However, having said that, I agree that the "Search of optimal 
parameters should continue."  Perhaps someone with expertise in the 
group dynamics field can contribute ideas of value.


re: This next one, which really tickled me ...

"One general comment. It is typical that people of category 3 ("seeking 
selection") are overrepresented in a political system (representatives 
and civil servants). I tend to think that a political system that would 
favour more category 2 candidates ("willing to be selected") would be a 
happier one."

... because I made a similar assertion to an acquaintance in India, when 
I said ...

"Not everyone who wants to achieve public office should.  In fact, those 
who desire public office are often the least fit to serve the public 
interest.  In this instance, willingness is a better criterium than desire."

He responded by pointing out (approximately) that reforms are carried 
out by people who believe they have a better idea and seek office in 
order to make it reality.  It's a good point.

I think what you and I mean is that those who seek public office for the 
prestige and power it brings are poor choices ... and we have too many 
of them, already.


re: "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."

You are correct and it is an important consideration.  A person may very 
well rise to hold public office and never be elected again.  Those who 
serve in public office are taking time out of their lives with 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: "The need to categorize the representatives is still there and some 
new kind of party structure may well be established."

I'm not sure the public needs to categorize their representatives beyond 
"Good" or "Bad".  Even so, we can anticipate that, once elected, 
representatives will align themselves with others of similar interests. 
  The difference is they have no obligation to a party.  They achieved 
election on their own merits, and their associations will be healthy, 
free-will arrangements.


re: "You define fund raising as a form of corruption."

Absolutely.  Many of the most important laws in our country are so 
obscure and arcane (by design or otherwise) it is difficult for the 
public to grasp their significance.  That's one of the reasons it is so 
easy for vested interests to buy the laws they desire.  It is trivial to 
foist them on an unwitting public.

After an earlier administration vigorously prosecuted Microsoft for its 
monopolistic practices and had them convicted, the next administration 
abandoned the case.  Now, only the Europeans have the will and the means 
to limit the excesses of that behemoth.  Meanwhile, our legislature 
expanded the intellectual property laws ... laws that were strong enough 
to make us the greatest nation on earth ... to shield that monopoly. 
Those laws have became a perpetual tax on each and every one of us.

The laws passed in the 1930's to prevent excesses of the financial 
industry were gutted and discarded by our legislators at the behest of 
the industry.  That's why our country is in a precarious financial 
situation again ... and why we, the people, will pay for it with raging 
inflation.


re: "Even though the election in the small groups is quite random the 
statistical effect of general marketing must despite of this be 
significant."

That's true enough.  Mass manipulation through the media will not stop. 
  Nor should it.  Information ... including mass marketing information 
... is and should be free.  But we should not blind ourselves to the 
power of marketing and the way it works.

It works because we humans are blessed (or cursed, depending on your 
perspective) with a will-to-believe what we are told about matters 
beyond our personal knowledge or expertise.  It is a powerful force.  It 
is not only powerful, it is strange.  It tends to be accompanied by an 
absolute certainty that which we believe is also true.  We start 
exercising our will-to-believe to fill the gap formed by our lack of 
knowledge, and then leap directly from ignorance to absolute certainty.

This is a group phenomenon; it's particularly noticeable among groups of 
people who share a common ideology.  Such people tend to accept ideas 
presented by their leaders, often seeking confirmation in books, 
newspapers, on television, and among their friends, acquaintances and 
fellow partisans.  At the same time, they usually reject, without 
careful consideration, material that does not support their 
externally-induced bias.

Individuals, on the other hand, are more apt to react as if they had a 
will-NOT-to-believe.  Dr. Jane Mansbridge of Harvard University touched 
on this phenomenon when she said:

"An early and famous psychological experiment, the Asch experiment, 
showed that people were likely even to doubt the evidence of their own 
senses (their correct perception that one line in a group of several 
vertical lines was shorter than the rest) when confronted with a 
unanimous group of other people saying that what they perceived was 
wrong (saying that the lines were the same height).  Most people in 
these experiments went along with the others and reported incorrectly 
that the lines were all the same height.  But even one other person 
saying that the lines were of different heights made it almost certain 
that the potential dissenter would report what he or she actually saw. 
It made no difference how many others said the lines were the same 
height; if just one other confirmed the subject's perception, the 
subject almost always reported the truth as he or she saw it."

http://www.archonfung.net/papers/FungDeliberationDarkNCR04.pdf

So, while we are all affected by mass marketing, there is an enormous 
difference between our susceptibility to ideas spread by that technique 
when we act as a large group and our ability to evaluate the same ideas 
rationally when we are called upon to consider them, individually.

This aspect of our nature is important because current political systems 
are campaign-based.  Candidates are not individually-challenged. 
Instead, they deal with the public en masse with mass marketing 
techniques.  It is relatively easy to sway masses of partisans because 
they share a will-to-believe.  A political process that subjects 
candidates to individual challenge would reduce the sheep-like 
tendencies sometimes attributed to the public.


re: "Is the system expected to allow any representative to be changed at 
any time?"

That is an implementation detail.  I feel recall is an absolute right of 
the people.  In Active Democracy, the means of recall are certainly 
available.  Since each representative sits atop a pyramid of known 
electors, it would not be difficult to establish a procedure for recall.


Further, on the same topic: "Being a "pawn" at the bottom of the pyramid 
may not give the voter a very good position to change his/her candidate 
at the top."

Wouldn't that depend on the implementation?  In any case, I don't, 
personally, favor thinking of those who don't advance beyond the lowest 
levels as "pawns".  For all of us, our interest in government waxes and 
wanes throughout our lives.  One of the most powerful aspects of this 
approach is that we can begin our participation with any election cycle, 
and advance as far as our talent allows.  We are not pawns in any sense 
of the word.  The extent to which we make our presence felt is a 
function of our own desire and ability.

We do not know at which desk, behind which wheel, before which stove, 
down which street are the people who will impress us with their 
unexpected wit and wisdom, with their persuasiveness, with their 
knowledge and understanding, with their pride, with their desire to make 
a mark for themselves?  Who are the individuals who will thrive and 
blossom when their reason is consulted, when they are invited to discuss 
current and prospective concerns, when they learn they can persuade 
their peers of the wisdom of their own ideas?  We have no way of 
knowing.  We know (or, at least, I'm willing to infer) they are out 
there, our problem is to find them and elevate them.

Fred