[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics

[Juho Laatu]

On Mar 13, 2008, at 1:57 , Fred Gohlke wrote:

> As to any specific group, one may question the wisdom of their
> selection.  To doubt the wisdom of all the groups is to doubt the  
> wisdom
> of humanity.

I think humans are wise but not flawless. They tend to need some  
support, e.g. in the form of good rules of behaviour, to reach the  
best possible results.

> As I've said before, partisanship is
> healthy.  The danger is in allowing partisans to gain power.  We have
> far too much experience with the excesses of partisans in power to not
> recognize the danger.  If you feel that politics should be based on
> partisanship, you should be happy with the systems extant.  I  
> don't, and
> I'm not.

You say that partisanship is healthy but on the other hand you say  
that partisans should not be allowed in power. I interpret this so  
that you are mainly like "low layer partisanship" in the discussions  
of small groups but do not like some individual partisans gaining  
power and e.g. use "mass manipulation of the media" to distribute  
their partisan viewpoints to others. This I can understand and also  
agree to in the sense that partisanship can be seen as a rich source  
of ideas and viewpoints when it is not forced on anyone, but that it  
may be a more destructive force when applied by someone over the  
others (e.g. in a dictatorship or in a dominant party or by strong  
individuals).

> I'm not sure why you resist the concept
> of a political system that allows people to consider issues,
> individually, rather than having answers, which they personally  
> believe
> to be wrong, provided for them by mass marketing techniques.

Of course I don't. I'm only addressing some potential problems in the  
proposed model.

As I already said I do recognise the benefits of discussions in small  
groups. But small groups have also their problems.

One potential problem is that the privacy of the opinions is  
partially lost. People may tend to have opinions in line with what  
they are expected to have (thanks to mass marketing or society and  
strong figures around them) if their opinions and vote will be  
revealed in the small group discussions. Two minority opinion holders  
in a room may not even recognise each others and will yield to the  
assumed majority opinion proudly presented by the third member.

Another problematic scenario is one 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.

I think one should try to seek a balance between the problems of  
centralized power, mass marketing, privacy, mathematical properties  
of different election methods etc.

> Perhaps you'd like to look my "Partisan Politics" post of Sunday,  
> March
> 2nd.  You may feel what it says is not commonly approved.  I will  
> agree
> ... as soon as someone rationally explains the flaws in the reasoning
> offered in that post.

I think I already posted some comments. I also proposed that people  
need a good model to follow. I appreciate that you make a serious  
attempt to do so. As you say the models need to gradually evolve. I  
think the target is that people will eventually adapt something  
useful as a general guideline that is worth following. Consider me as  
random noise that may be useful in fine-tuning the message so that  
eventually it is in a form that all can relate to.

Juho