[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics

[Juho]

On May 11, 2008, at 23:29 , Fred Gohlke wrote:

> 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.

The two parties were given just as an example case (an extreme one).  
If we assume that typically similar minded people elect similar  
minded people in the groups of three, the method gives some benefit  
to groups that are large and tightly bound, whatever kind the space  
of opinions is (with or without formal parties).

(The parties also do not achieve power in proportion to their  
distribution in the electorate but the bigger party gets more power  
than what its proportional share would suggest.)

> 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."

The analysis part seems quite accurate to me, describing the  
situation in many democracies. The conclusions are a bit more  
confusing. I think that "tweaking parliamentary systems and voting  
processes" may well be one of the tools when trying to recover from  
the disengagement. I think all systems have the tendency to corrupt  
in time (people are good at finding such paths) and one needs to be  
awake and continuously monitor the health of the system, and "tweak"  
it when needed. Not an easy task, but the alternative is to go down  
with the system when it slowly deteriorates.

I believe I agree with Jennie Bristow in that politicians may easily  
end up treating the symptoms rather than the disease when trying to  
seek a cure for the low turnout.

> Any electoral process that is not designed to let the people make  
> their own decisions is not a democratic process.

I think most democratic processes have been designed with the help of  
some level of idealism and good intentions. It is another question  
how working and future proof the results were and what has happened  
to the system over time.

> recognizing your preference for party-based solutions

I have no such general preference. My comments on how the proposed  
system behaves with respect to groupings of different size and  
strength are just technical observations on the properties of the  
proposed method.

People tend to form groupings (and they may be well established or  
temporary) and they sometimes make harm and sometimes good things  
too, but I have no agenda to promote either strong parties nor  
individualism or anarchy. A working set-up is what is typically  
needed (one that keeps the discussions at suitable level and makes it  
possible to make progress in the wanted direction) (and to avoid the  
disillusionment and disengagement), and this may mean different  
things in different environments, and there may be many alternative  
working ways to achieve this.

Juho




		
___________________________________________________________ 
The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html