[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Morning, Juho

You may have noticed that I digest ideas, particularly those involving 
technical terms and usages, slowly.  The process is delayed when I 
suffer a misunderstanding.  I would apologize if I didn't believe it 
more a compliment than an insult, for careful consideration is surely 
preferable to glibness.  Since clarity in written exchanges is illusive, 
lack of understanding can only be a vice when one is unwilling to 
correct it.


re: "Political proportionality is the one that people most often discuss 
since the election methods/systems typically provide regional 
proportional automatically (e.g. in the form of single seat districts 
and forcing all voters to vote at their home region, without asking 
about the opinion of the voter)."

Should I infer that there is a basis for opposing regional 
proportionality?  I ask because it never occurred to me to question the 
wisdom of "forcing all voters to vote at their home region".  Indeed, 
even the idea of "force" never occurred to me.  I am of the opinion that 
voting is a right and that one's home region is the most logical place 
to exercise that right.


re: "The groups can also be hierarchical in the sense that e.g. left 
wing may consist of smaller groupings, Christians may consist of 
Catholics and Protestants etc.  All affiliations at any level may thus 
support other members of the groupings."

This is certainly true.  The issue is less whether this condition exists 
among humans (as it unquestionably does) than a question of the extent 
to which it influences the actions of individuals.

Since our discussion centers on electoral methods, the question must be 
how these smaller groupings can attain representation.  How can they, 
ultimately, attain their ends.  That is something of a prickly fruit, 
for attaining its sweetness runs the risk of pricking one's finger on a 
basic tenet of democracy; majority rule.

I urge consideration of the idea that seeking representation is a poor 
approach to resolving the imperative of pursuing minority interests.

In our electoral system, those who control the government are partisan. 
  The primary purpose of their governmental acts is to preserve their 
primacy.  They seek always to prevent the ascension of, and their own 
replacement by, other partisans.  To accomplish their end, they delude 
the public with misdirection, deception, secrecy and obfuscation.

In such circumstances, minorities are reduced to beggary.  Their only 
hope of attaining the ends of their supporters is to make deals to help 
more dominant groups achieve and retain power ('Politics makes strange 
bedfellows').  More often than not, the result is sacrifice of the 
minority group's goals and ideals ('Broken Campaign Promises').

The tragedy is that this situation obtains without consideration of the 
validity of the minority group's goals, some of which may be beneficial 
for society.

Progressive movements always start as a minority (when embraced by the 
majority they are no longer 'progressive').  Partisan political 
structures retard the advance of progressive ideas.  They are inherently 
backward-looking.  They provide an excellent platform for inspiring 
passion but no incentive for applying reason to contemporary situations.

The electoral method I've outlined addresses this by foregoing 
partisanship in the search for intellect, talent and integrity.  It is 
not about issues, it is about the qualities of the candidates.  It is 
about finding people with the willingness and ability to apply reason to 
existing circumstances and to consider new ideas rationally; in short, 
to judge issues on their merits rather than their ideology.  It replaces 
the question of 'sides' with an evaluation of individual ability.  It 
seeks people who will hear a minority view and give it careful 
consideration, knowing the road to the future traverses unknown territory.

That the process does not advance the interest of minorities is a given. 
  Neither is it beholden to the interest of majorities.  Instead, it 
creates an atmosphere in which competing views are sought and heard, 
BEFORE a decision is reached.  Unless and until we are able to select 
the best of ourselves to perform this function, there can be no audience 
for those with the wit to question the received wisdom.

I fear, though, it will be a long time before the advantages of looking 
forward can supplant the penchant for looking backward.

Fred