[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Afternoon, Juho

re: "Only on the (country independent) technical properties of the 
"groups of three" method."

"(If there are e.g. two parties, one small and one large, the 
probability of getting two small party supporters (that would elect one 
of them to the next higher level) in a group of three is so small that 
in the next higher level the number of small party supporters is 
probably lower than at this level.)"

The significant word in the cited passage is the gigantic 'IF' that 
opens it.  'IF' one assumes the entire electorate is divisible into two 
parties, and 'IF' those two parties can be shown to embrace all the 
interests of the people, it is easy to show that the parties will 
achieve power in proportion to their distribution in the electorate.

But, to say that is to say nothing, for the assumption is faulty.

It fails to recognize that, among the people, there are an agglomeration 
of parties ... so many they defy enumeration. Therefore, it is facile to 
suggest the technical properties of the 'groups of three' method will 
grant dominance to one party, unless one acknowledges that the party is 
society itself, in which case, it is (or, at least, ought to be) the 
goal of a democratic electoral process.

It seems fairly common among those with a professional or passing 
interest in politics to base their assumptions and arguments on 
artificial delineations of human attitudes and to ignore the fictitious 
lines they've introduced, in spite of accumulated knowledge that shows 
such boundaries do not exist.  It has long been known that people vote 
on the basis of bread-and-butter issues.  They vote on the basis of what 
matters to them.

What matters to the people comprises a long list and the components of 
the list are in a constant state of flux, depending on circumstances. 
The rank of partisanship (or ideology) in that list varies in inverse 
proportion to the intensity of the people's needs and desires.  It is 
rarely, if ever, the foremost concern of the majority of people.

We are surrounded by evidence of the declining influence of party 
politics on the electorate, not least of which is found in the reams 
written about declining voter turnout.  In an essay about the voter 
turnout problem in Great Britain, a Jennie Bristow, writing on 14 April 
2005, made these cogent points:

"The recent, in-depth discussion of the turnout crisis recognises that 
politics has changed - if the explanations for this change are somewhat 
garbled.  It understands that people have real reasons for voting or not 
voting, and that their unwillingness to vote is a consequence, not of 
laziness or stupidity, but a more profound process of disengagement from 
formal politics.  It accepts that tweaking parliamentary systems and 
voting processes is not going to make a fundamental difference."

and

"... until it can be established that people can make a difference to 
society, rather than simply exercising a narrow consumer choice, it 
doesn't really matter whether they vote or not."

Ms. Bristow's essay is well worth reading.  She offers an unusually keen 
insight into proposals for dealing with political problems (some of 
which are discussed on this site).  You can find her essay at:

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA9A1.htm

If government is to be by the people, it must, by definition, come from 
the people.  That does not mean telling the people what they want.  It 
means asking them.  Any electoral process that is not designed to let 
the people make their own decisions is not a democratic process.

Having said all this, and recognizing your preference for party-based 
solutions, I wonder if we have reached the point where we will be best 
served by acknowledging that we have irreconcilable differences.  I have 
genuinely enjoyed our exchanges and the challenges you have posed, but 
I've no wish to harangue you with the repetitious assertion of views 
inimical to your beliefs.

Fred