[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics

[Juho]

On Mar 9, 2008, at 16:55 , Fred Gohlke wrote:

> "As the levels advance, the participants
> need more time to evaluate those they are grouped with."

I don't trust that groups of three would always make good decisions  
even if given time.

> 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.

Also I referred to the unpredictability of the tree construction.

> 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.

The elected ones are of course likely to be "masters of three party  
negotiations".

> 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.

Yes, there are problems if vote buying is allowed. One approach would  
be to name the representatives before selecting the voters. And the  
transfer ballots could be anonymous. "Willing" candidates could be  
known beforehand. This method is more or less a random ballot method.  
So, instead of a chain of groups of three one would just bypass the  
chain and let one vote do the job. One could limit the range of  
possible candidates to local "willing" people if one wants to avoid  
electing "the national superstars" every time.

> 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:

All countries including stable democracies are to some extent  
vulnerable to ending up on a path to catastrophes. The whole  
political system can be changed (e.g. democracy ended) if people with  
that intent have sufficient support at some point in time.

I still find it problematic to say that partisans should be blamed  
since they can do both good an bad things. One single ideology or  
group of people (r.g. party offices) gaining more power than the  
citizens would be willing to give them is a problem. Still I see  
"good" and "bad" partisans. We need to try to make the atmosphere and  
rules such that the good part gets more power and the risk of the  
system escalating to strange paths is small.

>                          AM I ALONE?

I also dislike some phenomena in politics like using war as a tool in  
internal politics (or personal career), non-defensive use of military  
force, projection of problems to external (typically distant, poorly  
known and "different") enemies (so easy to think that one's current  
problems are someone else's fault), black and white colouring.

> It turned out I was alone.

I'm sure there were people that felt something similar. Many people  
don't open their mouth if they see the mainstream appearing to go in  
some other direction that what they would take.

> 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.

I do trust on better understanding and good models of thinking also  
here.

I think we are to some extent missing a commonly approved theory that  
would explain such phenomena where the current leaders may not take  
us into the right direction (applies also to business life, families  
etc. in addition to politics). We have some old ones like "The  
Emperor's New Clothes" by Hans Christian Andersen, but maybe we need  
also new ones.

Once understood people are less likely to make the same mistakes  
again. If people do not get the picture same mistakes could be  
repeated any number of times.
Juho







		
___________________________________________________________ 
Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use" – The Wall Street Journal 
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html