[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics

[Juho]

On Mar 29, 2008, at 5:05 , Fred Gohlke wrote:

> Good Morning, Juho
>
> Very well said.  I hope you're right.  I hope we can improve our
> political systems in less than 200 years.  But, as you point out, "...
> the current establishment always has clear reasons to oppose any
> changes."  That will make the process slow, and, possibly, painful.
>
> You mention the growth of corruption as a possible alternative to the
> attainment of a more democratic government.  There is little doubt of
> the cyclical nature of human interaction; "a tide in the affairs of  
> man"
> as Shakespeare put it.  Society constantly moves between states of  
> high
> principle and abject baseness  We can never know precisely where we  
> are
> in that cycle.
>
> In fact, even though we are all a part of it, people's perception  
> of the
> cycle differs.  Not many young people can see the change from the
> human-oriented society of my youth to the corporate-dominated  
> society we
> endure today.  For most of them, "It is what it is".  They attach  
> little
> importance to the obscure and arcane legislation that enabled the
> transition and are even less inclined to seek an understanding of how
> and why it happened.

Yes, I think this is a valid description of one segment of one cycle.  
(There may be many overlapping cyclic processes going on at the same  
time and that makes them always a bit vague, and allows different  
interpretations too.)

>   Is it hopeless to think we will ever look inside
> ourselves and learn to harness our own natures to the task of  
> improving
> society?

One viewpoint to the world is to see it as processes at different  
layers. It is possible to make advancements also at the "higher  
layers" (of understanding, of modelling) and thereby make it easier  
to avoid repeating some mistakes at the "lower layers".

One small example might be democracy. Before that concept gained  
popularity many people surely felt that any thoughts of people taking  
control and guiding the direction the society were just high hopes  
that would never materialise since the powerful people would always  
find their way to control other people. But once getting the idea  
through in some places (well, maybe there have been many trials and  
stable democratic systems in history but now I'm talking only about  
how our current history books describe the evolution of democracy) it  
happened that the idea was viable enough to be persistent and spread  
around. And it can be considered to be one way of "harnessing our own  
natures to the task of improving society". I'm sure that is not the  
last meaningful step in the evolution of political systems.

>
>
> re: "... change will come when ... the citizens have some basic reason
> (dissatisfaction) to change the current system."
>
> One of our challenges is to prepare well-reasoned alternatives before
> any change occurs.  There is a risk that dissatisfaction will lead to
> violence, and violence thrives on emotion at the expense of  
> reason.  We
> would do well to forestall that eventuality.
>
>
> Since our political institutions reflect our nature, do you think I
> should be surprised that so few seem willing to look at how our  
> systems
> evolved?  Are we so proud of our tendency toward partisanship that  
> we're
> unwilling to look at how easily it is used to exploit us?  Are we so
> anxious to say "I'm right. You're wrong." that we won't consider
> alternatives?

I'd compare the situation to a situation (extreme one) where there is  
a fire in a dance hall. Some people try to shout good advices. Some  
people think that it is best to just get quickly out as soon as one can.

People have many needs in real life. Maybe the biggest power is at  
the level of making practical decisions on a daily basis. Politicians  
have some interest in reaching good positions, or getting elected in  
the next elections. And if they believe that they are the best  
persons to guide the society, stepping over some of the competitors  
and collaborators on the way may well feel like the right choice.

People also have the need to base their actions on good principles,  
and to believe that their current principles (and resulting  
practices) are the right ones. They will fight against models that  
some other people may consider superior.

In summary, one needs to adapt to a situation where the main  
decisions and most powerful streams and even highest respect in the  
society will occur at a suboptimal level.

>   It is unfortunate that those who have written to me
> privately on this topic have not added their expertise to our public
> discussion.
>
> I'm deeply grateful for your participation which helps me see the  
> issues
> more clearly.  Your comments on secret voting led me to examine the
> voting process in greater detail than I had before.  There are any
> number of other subtleties worthy of deeper thought.  For example in a
> dynamic system of the type we've been discussing, some folks who are
> elected to public office will not be re-elected.  In our House of
> Representatives in the U. S., we would be asking people to take two
> years out of their life for public service with no guarantee that they
> will not be out of a job after two years.  Shouldn't our political
> system provide the means and the money for their transition to  
> private life?

It makes sense to guarantee all the safety to this small group of  
members of the society to make it possible for them to fully  
concentrate in acting for the best of the society (with limited  
number of other worries). Also setting some limitations on their life  
may be sensible for the same reason.

Juho


>
> Fred
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for  
> list info


		
___________________________________________________________ 
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com