[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics + a method proposal

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Afternoon, Juho

re: "Yes, many minority representatives may be highly motivated. (But 
they may also feel weaker, being against the majority opinion and less 
interested than the majority representatives.)"

That statement begs analysis:

We agreed that, when a person in a minority (a 'black' person), "sees 
himself (and those like him) as at a disadvantage, there is an excellent 
chance he will be more highly motivated than his counterparts to seek a 
position from which he can improve his (and their) lot."  There is no 
justification for saying such a person would "feel weaker, being against 
the majority opinion".  On the contrary, motivated people gain strength 
of purpose when they are challenged.  Furthermore, saying the highly 
motivated individual is "less interested than the majority 
representatives" is a contradiction in terms.

It would be more proper to say that, in some groups, the minority 
individual will encounter highly motivated representatives of the 
majority attitude.  While that is true, since we have already decided 
the people holding the majority view are less motivated than those 
seeking recognition of a minority view, such instances will occur in a 
relatively small number of groups.

In my state, the first level would comprise more than 1,800,000 
three-person groups and the second level more than 600,000 such groups. 
  The attitudes of these groups embrace the attitudes of the entire 
electorate.  There will be groups with three members holding, to a 
greater or lesser degree, the combination of views you consider the 
majority view, three holding one or more minority views (and some 
combination of the majority views, as well), two of one and one of the 
other on both sides, and an incalculable mixture of people whose views 
can not be considered as supporting either side.  In all cases, strong 
proponents of the minority views have the advantage of increased 
motivation because they are in the minority.

Among thoughtful people, the challenge the minority individual faces is 
not antagonism but inertia.  The majority opinion is established.  It's 
proponents are secure in their own rectitude. They must be prodded to 
see that the minority view has merit.



re: "Yes, he can influence, but if the other two are 'white' he may have 
to satisfy with a 'half white' solution anyway."

Is that not the essence of compromise?  There are trade-offs in all 
decisions.  Compromise is the essence of problem solution.  Failure to 
recognize there are views other than one's own is a form of idiocy 
called fanaticism.  Fanatics are not the kind of people we wish to 
entrust with our government.



re: "Also a majority representative in a group with two minority 
representatives might decide that since he was unlucky and ended 
"unfairly against all probabilities" in a group with two minority 
representatives it is fair enough not to vote at all."

That is certainly true ... and it says more about the individual than it 
does about the system.  For my part, I am delighted that a person so 
easily overwhelmed will not advance.  I want our electoral process to 
raise strong people who have the courage of their convictions and the 
ability to present and support them.



re: "(I was also not happy with the idea that those who want to advance 
do advance. Often it would be wise to elect people that would be happy 
to serve as the representatives of others but who do not have any 
unusually strong interest to take the power. Some people may also 
dislike politics since they expect those people to be 
corrupt/greedy/power hungry etc. Of course most political systems have 
this problem.)"

It may surprise you to know I felt that way, too.  The way I expressed 
my concern was:

"Not everyone who wants to achieve public office should.  In fact, those 
who desire public office are often the least fit to serve the public 
interest.  In this instance, willingness is a better criterium than desire."

I was dissuaded from this point of view by a gentleman in India. 
Unfortunately, I no longer have access to his explanation of my error, 
but you may be interested in my retraction:

"Good Morning, --------

Just a quick note to tell you I've been thinking more about people who 
want to achieve public office. I've decided my assertion that "... 
willingness is a better criterium than desire." is ... WRONG!!!

I've spent so many years watching those who want public office sell 
their souls to our corrupt political system to achieve success, I've 
fallen victim to the very thing I warn others about.  As I've said 
elsewhere:

"Some believe we cannot remove corruption from our political systems 
because humans are corruptible. Why should we believe such a canard?

"We are misled by the high visibility of deceit and corruption in our 
culture. The idea that it is inescapable leads to the self-defeating 
notion that trying to correct it is futile.

"The reality is that the vast majority of humans are honorable, 
law-abiding people. They have to be, for society could not exist otherwise."

You are correct. We do need people who want to lead.  We need people 
with the courage and vision to help us regain control of our government. 
  Our challenge is to ensure that we select the best of them for public 
office so they can improve our society.

Thank you for helping me reach a better understanding of this important 
point.

Fred"



re: "The technical problem is that any small bias will accumulate in the 
chained process. The voters thus need not hate the minority but just 
have some bias (to cause a bias to the proportionality)."

It may be a misunderstanding on my part, but that assertion seems to 
contradict your main point:  that minorities have no chance of survival 
in chained process (assuming the method I've outlined is a 'chained 
process').



re: "Here's one example. Two voters want less X, one voter wants more X. 
If the minority representative (who wants to advance) waits first to 
hear the opinions of the other two and then says "I also think less X 
might be better" or "both opinions have some justification" he may have 
better chances to proceed to the next level when compared to a situation 
where he is fully honest. It may thus pay off to hide one's true 
feelings and just be nice towards the others."

and

"(One could say that the rules of politics typically favour people that 
are politicians by nature. This is good in some sense but bad in 
another. You should know what "politicians" are like and what kind of 
people typically climb the ladders to the political elite :-).)"

This broaches an important point.  I thought of mentioning it in my 
previous post, but opted against it because that post was already too 
long.  It is particularly good for you and I to examine it because we 
(seem to) bring opposing viewpoints to the discussion.  You counter my 
optimistic view of human nature with a more pessimistic (or skeptical) one.

I have absolutely no doubt that, as you say, participants will alter 
their views as they try to gain acceptance and elevation by their group. 
  I heartily approve of this because, as I've said before, we (or, at 
least, I) learn more from those who disagree with us than from those who 
share our views.  I've little doubt that's a universal truth that 
differs only in the willingness of people to acknowledge it.

You feel those who listen to someone's view and alter their own to 
accommodate it are dishonest, that they betray their true feelings.  I 
believe that's the way people learn.  I feel one advantage of the Active 
Democracy method is the broadening effect of the repetitive groupings on 
the participants.  They foster discussion and decisions on topics 
important to our society but seldom discussed in our work-a-day lives. 
Over a series of election cycles, those who wish to have a greater 
effect will gain a better insight into the views of others.

I have said we can't guarantee a charlatan won't advance but I believe 
they will be the exception rather than the rule.  I also think our 
ability to identify such people will improve.  Judgment strengthens with 
use.  In our present atmosphere of media-centric misdirection, 
obfuscation and deceit, we have no opportunity to exercise or apply our 
judgment.  We would do well to adopt an electoral method that puts a 
premium on judgment.



re: "(political parties) certainly are not perfect and in my opinion 
they also have many characteristics that could be improved."

Parties take on a life of their own.  It is unwise to think they can be 
improved in any way that will benefit the people.  They are an 
embodiment of human nature; they pursue their own interest at the 
expense of the public interest.  They function precisely as a thoughtful 
person would expect them to function.  Failure to grasp that elementary 
fact will retard any effort to improve our electoral process.



re: "I think people are indeed both capable and incapable of governing 
themselves. Just look e.g. at the amount of violence the humans exercise 
against each others (i.e. within the same species, not only against 
other species and pray animals) at this planet at the moment.  Is that 
sensible behaviour of a species that thinks it represents the best 
values of the universe? Maybe we are "out of jungle" but maybe not very 
far out yet :-)."

No!  I do not think it is sensible behavior, but I don't find it 
surprising in a society where 'power' dictates relationships. 
Throughout recorded history ... and what little we can guess about 
prehistory ... force, whether physical or emotional, has ruled society.

Since Guttenberg, we are experiencing the birth and painstakingly slow 
development of intellect as a countervailing force.  It will triumph, 
but not before we stop seeking ways to impose our will on others and 
start seeking ways to impose the rule of reason.

Sooner or later, someone will ask why real estate investment trusts 
control the most desirable property on the planet.  When they find there 
is no single city, no one nation, they can bomb to stop it, they will 
start to realize such a blight can not be controlled unless the humans 
among us apply reason to our predicament.



re:  "Or a good crook. (Btw, I assumed above that you don't like the 
politicians that have populated the party offices today that much. Do 
you want to offer them ladders where they can compete with their 
climbing skills, maybe a more random style of election, or something else.)"

I would not deny the right to compete to anyone.  I have faith that, 
given a few weeks in their company, my fellow citizens can discern the 
difference between a mountebank and a person of character.



re: "Yes, minorities tend to disappear, large majorities tend to 
advance.  In binary questions like yes/no or more/less the bigger side 
tends to advance."

In my opinion, thinking of politics in black/white, yes/no, either/or 
terms is a grave error.  It's a misdirection ploy.  It focuses attention 
on simple issues, diverting our awareness from serious matters.  While 
such nonsense occupied our attention, how many of us in the U. S. 
realized our bankruptcy law was changed ... just before the bubble 
caused by improperly secured loans (and their gimmicky packaging) burst? 
  How many understand that our representatives in government have now 
burdened the people with the immense losses the financial institutions 
incurred by their greed and improvidence?



re: "Strategically it does not make sense to reveal that one belongs to 
an ideological minority. Better to talk about matters that are common to 
most people.  Instead of saying "I'm a Communist" it might make more 
sense to start the discussion by saying 'the current policy of President 
Bush might be slightly too right wing oriented since it has not received 
the support of all the citizens'."

If you lack the conviction that communism is good and should be adopted 
by your government, you might choose to hide your belief, but that's not 
the way to gain acceptance for your views.  If you believe your -ism is 
superior to the -ism that dominates your society, you owe it to yourself 
and to your compatriots to describe the error of their belief for them. 
  (Of course, if you adhere to a discredited concept, you are doomed to 
sleep alone.)



re: "The risk (of bribery) may be higher at the top levels. If there are 
some experienced politicians/negotiators left they could end up doing 
some horse trading (not necessarily direct bribes but maybe "some 
rewards to show good spirit" or "political agreements")."

The risk is, indeed, higher when the candidates are selected and/or 
elected to government office.  There is a solution ... but do we have 
the stomach to demand it?

Our elected representatives are in service for the length of their term 
... just like members of our armed forces ... and like members of our 
armed forces, they should be kept at a government installation.  When I 
went in the service, I reported to a military installation and that 
became my home.  The arrangements for our elected officials should be 
similar.

The facilities at the installation should be as palatial as need be, 
with golf courses, marinas, and all forms of educational and 
entertainment facilities, but access to our representatives should be 
restricted.  Those wishing to affect pending legislation should present 
their arguments, publicly, in the hearing rooms provided for the purpose 
... and that should be the absolute limit of their interaction with our 
elected representatives.

But, do we have the stomach for such a solution?


I see I'm behind by several posts.  I will try to catch up but I'm 
peddling as fast as I can.

Fred