[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Morning, Juho

re: "But citizens may also feel that some of the elected representatives 
got through without any wide support, just based on their capability to 
explain their way through and having good luck in getting appropriate 
competitors/supporters when the election tree was constructed."

As described in the outline, "As the levels advance, the participants 
need more time to evaluate those they are grouped with."  I didn't 
specify a length of time because that's an implementation factor. 
However, when considering the timing for the process, I estimated group 
life would range from 5 days at the lowest level to 26 days at the 
highest level, with time at the upper levels divided between formal and 
informal activities.  The formal sessions allow participants to discuss 
specific matters, such as ordinances and the budget appropriate to the 
group.  The informal sessions allow participants to evaluate each other 
in a relaxed atmosphere.

When an individual, who has advanced through several levels and wishes 
to advance to the next, spends an extended period of time with two other 
individuals in like circumstances, it would be counter-intuitive to 
imagine and any one of them will let another just "get through".

I really don't think "getting appropriate competitors/supporters when 
the election tree was constructed" is a valid concern.  The tree is not 
constructed in advance; each level generates the next level.  Given the 
vagaries of human nature, it is impossible to predict which of the three 
people will advance.  The only thing you can say with certainty is that, 
as the levels advance, the people selected seek continued advancement.

Having said that, I think we must acknowledge the possibility that a 
glib individual will advance solely on that talent.  While I believe 
such instances can occur, I think they will be rare.  The people who 
reach the upper levels will be intelligent as well as persuasive. 
Hoodwinking them will not be easy; they, too, want to advance.


re:  "Btw, what do you think of a somewhat related method of arranging a 
lottery among the citizens. Maybe e.g. so that the elected citizens 
could name someone else if they do not feel like being a representative 
themselves."

Dr. Lyn Carson at the University of Sydney, Australia is working on that 
concept and has some interesting case studies.  You can find information 
on her work at:

http://www.activedemocracy.net/

(Note:  When I started to outline an election process, I chose the term 
"Active Democracy".  I was unaware that Dr. Carson was already using 
that term.  Dr. Carson's usage has primacy but I haven't changed my own 
use of the term because I haven't been able to think of a suitably 
descriptive replacement term.)

Insofar as my opinion of the method is concerned, I think it has merit 
for special projects like those in Dr. Carson's study.  I do not think 
it is a good basis for a national political process or to select 
political leaders.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, our interest in government waxes and 
wanes throughout our lives.  In some elections we may eagerly wish to 
participate.  In others, we may not.  It is our right to make such 
decisions for ourselves rather than having the decision made for us at 
random.

The idea that randomly selected citizens "could name someone else if 
they do not feel like being a representative themselves" is appallingly 
bad.  Vested interests would buy the votes of the selected citizens 
before the ink was dry on the enabling legislation.  The system we have 
is bad; a system that allowed transferring votes to proxies would be 
atrocious.  If a lottery system is ever entertained, it will have to 
allow opting out before the selections are made, but it can never allow 
the naming of a proxy by a selected individual.


re: "Why is "partisans controlling government" a bad thing?"

We need look no further than National Socialism and Communism to 
understand why partisans controlling government is a bad thing.  Both 
had features that attracted broad public support throughout a national 
expanse and both degenerated into destructive forces because their 
partisans gained control of their governments.

Actually, we need look no further than the events of 2002 to understand 
why partisans controlling government is a fearful thing.  I find it 
disconcerting and a bit frightening that so many people are able to 
ignore the lesson of that period.  The flood of manipulative news, 
distorted propaganda and witless hyperbole that engulfed my homeland 
before the invasion of Iraq was so outrageous I was moved to post this 
message on August 13th, 2002, on an internet site I frequent:

***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***

                         AM I ALONE?

I read that we (Americans) are preparing to invade Iraq. I see it 
referred to on these boards.  But nowhere do I see a sign of outrage 
that our "leaders" would undertake such a horribly aggressive, 
destructive act.

Do people really believe this nonsense about fighting terrorism?  I fear 
we are living proof of Adolf Hitler's assertion in Mein Kampf that "The 
great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie 
than to a small one." or, as Isaac Singer said in "Yentl, the Yeshiva 
Boy", "It is a general rule that when the grain of truth cannot be 
found, men will swallow great helpings of falsehood."

The event of September 11th, 2001 was one of the worst that has occurred 
during my lifetime.  It ranks right up there with the fire bombing of 
Hamburg, the obliteration of Nagasaki, the tragedy of the Munich Games, 
the car bombings in London, the firestorm in Tokyo, the bus bombings in 
Israel, the terror in Northern Ireland.  Do you imagine that horror and 
death are less painful if they occur outside the U. S.?

The planned invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism. It is an 
effort to gain control of a major source of oil. It is a commercial 
enterprise; it has nothing to do with "right" or "justice". The use of 
9/11 as a pretext to put troops in position in Afghanistan, and to 
justify attacking Iraq, illustrates the terrible cynicism of those who 
have taken control of our nation.

I fear my view is not commonly shared, and I'm sure it will bring a 
boatload of invective down on me. That's too bad. I've been a proud 
American for a long time. I learned of our country's virtues in a 
one-room schoolhouse. It sickens me to see them trampled like this.

***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***

It turned out I was alone.  The only supportive comment was made by a 
European whose response was so vulgar it was deleted.

Somehow, some way, we must learn to put our faith in the humans among us 
rather than relinquishing our right to govern ourselves to unknown 
people who proclaim themselves our agents.

Fred