[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics

[Juho]

On Mar 8, 2008, at 22:35 , Fred Gohlke wrote:

> 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.

Some people can be both convincing and persuasive at the same time.

> 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.

Some rules always exist. And (formal) groups need rules to operate. I  
think also in groups of three (just like in mid size and large  
groups) some good and some bad properties of humans will surface.  
There is home violence and there are wars. Good planning (and  
sometimes rules, written laws and unwritten practices) is needed to  
adjust different mechanisms so that they will work well enough.

> 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.

I also think that those who are only "willing" may be as efficient or  
more efficient in running the joint matters than those who focus  
mostly on guaranteeing their own success in the political game. One  
problem is that those who are in power do believe that they are in  
power because they are the best (the most competent from all points  
of view).

(One viewpoint that has been presented is to categorize people in 1)  
those who feel that one should respect one's principles and follow  
and demonstrate them even if others and the majority would have  
different thoughts and 2) those who think that in order to achieve  
something one must follow the pack/majority and try to influence the  
system from inside (since being in opposition and outside of the  
mainstream would mean not being able to influence at all). In this  
set-up one may assume that some of those people who seem like power  
and position seeking political animals may actually sometimes work  
also for the benefit of the society with good intentions, i.e. not  
only for themselves. This is quite rough exaggeration since people  
have many kind of drivers. The point is just that although I assume  
that the "willing" people might be more responsible and as efficient  
leaders as the "seeking" ones also the seeking ones may in some cases  
work quite well.)

> ... 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.

One could say that people want to synchronize their thinking models  
with the environment and the world (either based on direct  
observations or based on what others say about the world).

> This is a group phenomenon; it's particularly noticeable among  
> groups of
> people who share a common ideology.

Continuing from above, we are in a way social animals with a need to  
synchronize with our own flock/environment/tribe/party.

> 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?

Yes. Unfortunately the system often drives people thinking so that  
the "known experts" (or incumbent leaders) have the wisdom. In some  
complex areas it is true that one needs to be an expert to  
understand. But on the other hand the very basic assumption and  
requirement of "democracy" is that the voters/people ("demos") must  
understand the system well enough to know how to vote and thereby  
rule ("kratia").

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