[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Evening, Juho

re: "You say that partisanship is healthy but on the other hand you say 
that partisans should not be allowed in power."

Exactly!

That's what makes it so difficult to improve a political system. We can 
recognize the dangers of party politics but we can't (and shouldn't try 
to) outlaw political parties.  Instead, we must devise a system that is 
not controlled by them.


re: "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."

That is not quite what I mean.

In the U. S., our major political parties are quasi-official entities 
that control the selection of candidates for public office.  They raise 
the immense amounts of money needed to get their candidates elected by 
selling the votes of their candidates to vested interests.  They meet 
their commitment to the donors by picking politicians who can be relied 
upon to enact the laws and implement the policies the donors' desire. 
In other words, political parties are nothing but conduits for corruption.

None of this has anything to do with liberalism or conservatism or any 
of the other nonsense with which the media floods our senses.  It is 
cold, hard cynicism ... and it trades on our natural inclination toward 
partisanship.


re: "... 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."

Doesn't that depend on whether you know the person is a drug dealer?  If 
not, you will have an extended period of time to evaluate him (or her). 
  All you can base your decision on is what you hear and observe, the 
information you are able to glean from your examination of the person, 
and your evaluation of material supplied by others, if there is any. 
For example, wouldn't you be likely to ask the people in your group 
where they work and try to assess the forthrightness of their response?

Furthermore, you are not alone in the process.  Others, too, will 
evaluate this person.  If you misjudge, others may not.  There is always 
the possibility that a scoundrel will run the gauntlet successfully, but 
the odds against it are infinitely better than we endure now, with 
political parties selecting our candidates.


re: "Two minority opinion holders in a room may not even recognize each 
others and will yield to the assumed majority opinion proudly presented 
by the third member."

If the "third member" presents convincing evidence that he (or she) best 
represents the interests of the "two minority opinion holders", they can 
and should select the third member.  It is not a matter of whether those 
who share "a minority opinion" can recognize each other.  It is a matter 
of which participant is the best representative of the other two.

Let me state that another way:  It does not matter what label you attach 
to a person.  One of the participants in a triad may be a Tory or a 
Democrat or a Communist or a Vegetarian or a Royalist or a Libertarian. 
  That is not what you are concerned about.  What you want to know is 
the person's stand on the ordinances and the budget appropriate to your 
group.  If the person thinks your community should build a new school 
and you agree, that may be enough to attract your support.  If you 
disagree, that may be enough to prevent your support.  The person may 
periodically dance for the Rain God, but your concern is (or, at least, 
should be) with the person's stand on the public questions that concern you.


re: "Consider me as random noise that may be useful ..."

You have been vitally important, and I hope we can continue.  So far, 
we've barely scratched the surface of an extremely complex topic. 
Ideas, to have value, must be challenged.  Your challenges have 
encouraged me to think carefully about some of the issues we've raised. 
  Perhaps others will join our quest for knowledge.  I just hope they 
won't wait too long before they challenge us because I'm already 79 
years old.

Fred