[EM] why ANY pr disempowers minority voters.

[Juho Laatu]

> On 18 Jan 2016, at 16:05, Fred Gohlke <fredgohlke at verizon.net> wrote:
> 
> Good Morning, Juho
> 
> re: "I agree that parties can cause problems. But on the other
>     hand they may also be needed to give voters some clear
>     alternatives to vote for."
> 
> Is this not an assumption that the only proper political infrastructure requires that the people 'vote' for choices made by self-interested groups called parties?  Should a discussion of Electoral Methods not include methods that empower the people to choose their leaders from among themselves, by discussing the issues with their peers?

Parties and everyone should not make too self-interested decisions. This risk is present in all administrational systems and organisations. The party structure can both increase and decrease this risk. If it is not the parties, then there are other interested entities with interest to make self-interested decisions.

I agree that your approach of making the peers discuss with themselves is a good one, and it can be used to improve the system. In some systems one could even get rid of the political parties (or whatever formal groupings). But still, in some other systems clearly defined political parties could be a benefit.

> 
> 
> re: "... a system with no parties at all would have its own
>     problems."
> 
> There is no reason to eliminate parties, even if it were possible.  As I've explained before (and will again, if you wish), partisanship and parties are natural for humans and healthy for society.  The danger is not in parties, it is letting parties to control the political machinery.

Yes. I tend to think that all organisations with some power have the risk of some central individuals or groupings grabbing more of that power to themselves than would be beneficial to the society. There is a need to fight continuously against this kind of developments. If you stop fighting, the power will quite inevitably drift slowly towards such "inner circles". Democracies thus need to be defended. Letting power go too far from the voters may lead to a situation where you can't get it back any more.

> 
> 
> re: "... it is easier for many voters (especially those who are
>     not very knowledgeable or interested in politics) to vote
>     for ideology x than to study politics herself."
> 
> And it is easier, still, for a voter's peers to decide the value of a voter's views.  Whether or not they are knowledgeable is a question that can only be decided by their peers.  We have no shortage of people who are interested in the conduct of public affairs.  They provide all the energy and diversity needed for a democratic process.  Voters who are not interested need not participate.

I see some risks also in the peer approach. There will in any case be some high managers sitting on top of the pyramid. From their point of view a group of voters discussing with their peers might be less harmful form the point of view of interfering with their power hungry plans, than voters that would directly vote one of the competing parties in the next election would have. I thus see a need to have some very direct channels that make it possible for each voter (without any intermediate small managers / representatives) to influence the system. In order to use this power, the voters should have some reasonable understanding on how the system works. The (often simplifying) explanations of well known parties typically give voters this kind of rough understanding on what the situation is like and how it should be improved. I would thus say that both bottom level ("peer") and direct ("named ideologies") influencing are needed in a well working democracy.

If some voters are not interested at all, they need not participate. But in a democracy it makes very much sense to try to make all groupings of the society interested in the future of the society. It would be bad if some specific group would not be interested, or would feel that they can not influence. Uninterested individuals (that are evenly distributed) are not a problem.

> 
> 
> re: "... I'm looking for a compromise where the problems and
>     benefits of different extreme solutions would be in a good
>     balance."
> 
> That's a stance I heartily applaud, although I'd say a process rather than a compromise.  Of course, any process is likely to be the result of multiple compromises.  In any event, I seek alternatives other than "extreme solutions".  Indeed, I fear extreme solutions.  They are rarely carefully reasoned.
> 
> 
> re: "I agree that the top down nature of parties may often give
>     too much power to some few individuals, lobbying and
>     agreements behind the screens."
> 
> Then I suggest we consider bottom-up possibilities.

I support both, for the reasons that I listed above. I want to avoid concentrating power to the people at the top tiers, but I want the voters have two paths to influence (bottom-up vie peers and top-down via direct elections).

> 
> 
> re: "Parties might seek the goals of the voters (to an acceptable
>     degree) if the political system is good enough. And on the
>     other hand, representatives with no ties to any parties
>     could seek their own goals."
> 
> The pursuit of self-interest is a driving force for all of us, we all seek our own goals.  In politics, it is essential that we make sure a candidate's gyroscopic orientation (as outlined by Dr. Jane Mansbridge in her keynote address to the Austrian Political Science Association, December 10, 2004) is aligned with our own - before we elect them to public office.
> 
> 
> re: "I agree that most countries have problems with stagnated,
>     corrupted, unresponsive or whatever kind of parties. But
>     I'm not sure that these problems could be cured by simply
>     getting rid of the party structure."
> 
> Have you considered the situation in Frome, UK, as reported in The Guardian:

I will read that one.

Juho



> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/22/flatpack-democracy-peoples-republic-of-frome?CMP=share_btn_fb
> 
> They have taken the first step toward the elimination of parties.  I'd be interested in your perspective on that case.  I'd like to offer a critique on the subject, but will await your comments.
> 
> Fred Gohlke
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info