Re: [EM] why ANY pr disempowers minority voters.
On 18 Jan 2016, at 16:05, Fred Gohlke fredgohlke@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
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
Good Morning, Juho
re: "Parties and everyone should not make too
self-interested decisions."
'Parties and everyone' make self-interested decisions. That's the
reality. The pursuit of self-interest is a natural human trait. The
challenge, in politics, is to select the individuals whose self-interest
is aligned with the interests of the community, and raise them to
leadership positions.
re: "... in some other systems clearly defined political
parties could be a benefit."
Certainly. In oligarchies, for example.
re: "... 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."
Is that not precisely the circumstance in which we find ourselves?
re: "I see some risks also in the peer approach. There
will in any case be some high managers sitting on
top of the pyramid."
I'm not entirely clear on what a 'high manager' is, but I think you are
correct. Those who reach the top of the pyramid will have persuaded
others they have the qualities necessary to advance the community's
interests. We should note that, as we approach to top of the pyramid,
the competition will be intense. Each member of a triad wants to be
elevated and, therefore, will not be easy to convince. They will seek
out any flaw in their competitors, to improve their own chance of
advancement. That is not a risk, it is the purpose of the process.
re: "From their (the high managers) 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."
The voters discussing political issues with their peers are doing so to
select one of the members of the triad to advance, and become a
candidate for further advancement. The 'high managers' with "power
hungry plans" must first be advanced by their peers. In other words,
their peers are the people voting on their advancement, not once, but
multiple times, as they move toward the top of the pyramid. That gives
the people a repeating opportunity to detect - and avoid - their 'power
hungry plans'.
re: "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."
I will be posting the complete process in a day or so. In it, you will
see that it provides a way for those who do not advance to influence
those they have chosen to represent them.
re: "In order to use this power, the voters should have some
reasonable understanding on how the system works."
It would be difficult to misunderstand a system that lets you choose one
of your peers to represent your interests, or persuade your peers that
you represent their interests. Can any system be more elementary than
that? It is certainly easier to understand than casting a vote for a
person you know nothing about.
re: "... in a democracy it makes very much sense to try
to make all groupings of the society interested in
the future of the society."
You are correct. And the very first step in encouraging the people's
interest is a process where their views have meaning. When people are
able to discuss their concerns with their neighbors and select the best
advocate of their interests to represent them, most will be interested.
re: "I want the voters have two paths to influence (bottom-up
vie peers and top-down via direct elections)."
As we can see by looking around us, top-down systems do not allow
bottom-up influence.
I'll be interested in your comments on Frome.
Fred Gohlke
On 25 Jan 2016, at 15:05, Fred Gohlke fredgohlke@verizon.net wrote:
Good Morning, Juho
re: "Parties and everyone should not make too
self-interested decisions."
'Parties and everyone' make self-interested decisions. That's the reality. The pursuit of self-interest is a natural human trait. The challenge, in politics, is to select the individuals whose self-interest is aligned with the interests of the community, and raise them to leadership positions.
Yes. Or to select individuals who are well mannered enough to push their self-interest related targets aside and focus on those targets that they were hired for. Or, one more way to see it, to select those whose self-interest is to serve others and the whole society.
re: "... in some other systems clearly defined political
parties could be a benefit."
Certainly. In oligarchies, for example.
Maybe more in some well working democracies where people want to have some clear alternatives to choose from. Note that this refers to "clearly defined political parties", not to "internally oligarchic parties".
re: "... 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."
Is that not precisely the circumstance in which we find ourselves?
Yes, this is the world we live in. If we assume that in some society parties are somehow corrupt, the solution could be either to get rid of the parties or to fix the parties. The first solution is more straight forward, but the second one may be more tempting if one thinks that there will be some hierarchical management structure anyway. Starting from an existing management structure (with its positive and negative features) may be easier than trying to build the whole structure from scratch, or letting the power hungry politicians build it from scratch themselves without any agreed plans. Also bottom-up election oriented approaches do have the risk of malicious management structure, since power hungry people are guaranteed to implement some sort of centralized management structure on top of the official system anyway. It may be better to plan it rather than let those power hungry self-interested people build it themselves.
re: "I see some risks also in the peer approach. There
will in any case be some high managers sitting on
top of the pyramid."
I'm not entirely clear on what a 'high manager' is, but I think you are correct. Those who reach the top of the pyramid will have persuaded others they have the qualities necessary to advance the community's interests. We should note that, as we approach to top of the pyramid, the competition will be intense. Each member of a triad wants to be elevated and, therefore, will not be easy to convince. They will seek out any flaw in their competitors, to improve their own chance of advancement. That is not a risk, it is the purpose of the process.
In any of the proposed systems we have the problem that we may not succeed in lifting the best people to the top parts of the pyramid. Also the triads have this problem. For example it may be that the most power hungry individuals will be elected in the triads since they have the stamina to keep convincing others until others will give up and elect that person.
re: "From their (the high managers) 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."
The voters discussing political issues with their peers are doing so to select one of the members of the triad to advance, and become a candidate for further advancement. The 'high managers' with "power hungry plans" must first be advanced by their peers. In other words, their peers are the people voting on their advancement, not once, but multiple times, as they move toward the top of the pyramid. That gives the people a repeating opportunity to detect - and avoid - their 'power hungry plans'.
Yes, people do have the opportunity to detect and avoid the power hungry people. But I'm not convinced that they would do so. I mentioned one reason already above, the good stamina of the power hungry people that may lead to electing them anyway. Triads have thus both positive and negative tendencies.
I must note one positive property of the triads here. I guess they would lead to more random results than typical traditional elections do. Political leaders might therefore be elected only once and they would not have time to gain too much power. This would be both good (no permanent power positions) and bad (less experienced politicians).
re: "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."
I will be posting the complete process in a day or so. In it, you will see that it provides a way for those who do not advance to influence those they have chosen to represent them.
I'm a bit worried about the length of the influencing paths.
re: "In order to use this power, the voters should have some
reasonable understanding on how the system works."
It would be difficult to misunderstand a system that lets you choose one of your peers to represent your interests, or persuade your peers that you represent their interests. Can any system be more elementary than that? It is certainly easier to understand than casting a vote for a person you know nothing about.
Yes, that's simple and understandable. But the length of the paths can be a problem. In typical party based political systems I'm worried about the ability of the politicians to present nice stories to their voters, and at the same time make decisions that do not fully match those stories. In direct democracy people decide themselves. In a representative democracy people decide indirectly (by their representatives). In a hierarchical bottom-up system (e.g. triads) there would be multiple such layers (with potential to tell one story downwards and do other kind of actions upwards).
re: "... in a democracy it makes very much sense to try
to make all groupings of the society interested in
the future of the society."
You are correct. And the very first step in encouraging the people's interest is a process where their views have meaning. When people are able to discuss their concerns with their neighbors and select the best advocate of their interests to represent them, most will be interested.
Yes, ability to make direct decisions in triads may be a tempting opportunity to regular voters. On the other hand the long chains of influence may reduce that interest. Ability to vote directly some top level politicians and make the decision that way is also tempting. I think both approaches are good. Current democracies often have also some forms of local decision making (this field is too complex to open it up here).
re: "I want the voters have two paths to influence (bottom-up
vie peers and top-down via direct elections)."
As we can see by looking around us, top-down systems do not allow bottom-up influence.
There are some good existing bottom-up approaches. Autonomous democratic towns are one example. It is possible to allow those towns to have a say also in regional matters. I'm typically in favour of making decisions as locally as possible, instead of doing all of them top-down. The reasons are related to this discussion (short decision making paths, don't donate power too easily to distant power hungry cabinets).
Juho
I'll be interested in your comments on Frome.
Fred Gohlke
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Good Morning, Juho
re: "Or, one more way to see it, to select those whose
self-interest is to serve others and the whole society."
Which, as Dr. Mansbridge put it, is to select those whose gyroscopes are
aligned with those of the people. That is precisely what the PD process
accomplishes because it lets the people pick their own representatives.
re: "Maybe more in some well working democracies where people
want to have some clear alternatives to choose from."
I disagree. The people neither need nor want "clear alternatives to
choose from". They know what they need and they don't need
power-seekers to tell them what it is. They need and want to define the
alternatives themselves!!!!
re: "If we assume that in some society parties are somehow
corrupt, the solution could be either to get rid of the
parties or to fix the parties."
Well, we can't get rid of parties because, as I've said before,
partisanship is natural and healthy. Parties will occur because that's
the way ideas gain strength and acceptance.
That leaves 'fixing' them.
Parties can't be 'fixed' as long as they control the candidates for
public office. The only way to be sure parties can't control the
candidates for public office is to be sure the non-partisans have a
voice in naming the candidates for public office. The PD process
guarantees that everyone - partisans and non-partisans - participate in
the selection of candidates for public office.
re: "The first solution is more straight forward, but the
second one may be more tempting if one thinks that there
will be some hierarchical management structure anyway."
It is not clear what the first and second solutions are, but why do you
feel "some hierarchical management structure" is necessary?
re: "Starting from an existing management structure (with
its positive and negative features) may be easier than
trying to build the whole structure from scratch, ..."
John Dewey told us, almost 100 years ago:
"The old saying that the cure for the ills of democracy
is more democracy is not apt if it means that the evils
may be remedied by introducing more machinery of the
same kind as that which already exists, or by refining
and perfecting that machinery."
We need to "build the whole structure"; we need new machinery, and that
has be obvious for a long time. The easy way will not get us out of the
oligarchic hole we're in.
re: "... or letting the power hungry politicians build it
from scratch themselves without any agreed plans."
That's exactly what we've done!!!! It's time to climb down off the
fence and put our minds to devising a better political process. I've
suggested one. Help identify its flaws.
re: "Also bottom-up election oriented approaches do have
the risk of malicious management structure, since power
hungry people are guaranteed to implement some sort of
centralized management structure on top of the official
system anyway."
Are you suggesting that we cannot remove corruption from our political
systems because humans are corruptible? Why should we believe such a
canard? Are you not being misled by the high visibility of deceit and
corruption in our culture. The reason for this is that party politics
elevates unscrupulous people by design. Once these unprincipled people
achieve leadership they infect our society because morality is a
top-down phenomenon.
The vast majority of humans are decent people. They have to be, for
society could not exist otherwise. The idea that corruption is
inescapable leads to the self-defeating notion that trying to correct it
is futile.
re: "It may be better to plan it rather than let those power
hungry self-interested people build it themselves."
Ah, yes, Juho. You took the words right out of my mouth. That is the
point of this discussion!!!
re: "In any of the proposed systems we have the problem that
we may not succeed in lifting the best people to the top
parts of the pyramid."
You may think so, and I may think so, but our opinions are but one each.
There are many others whose opinions may differ from ours, and it is
their opinion that matters - not ours. If we give them a way to do it,
they will lift "the best people to the top parts of the pyramid."
re: "... it may be that the most power hungry individuals
will be elected in the triads since they have the stamina
to keep convincing others until others will give up and
elect that person."
We can call them "the most power hungry individuals", but if they can't
persuade their peers - including individuals who are also "power hungry"
- that they are the best advocates of the interests of triad, they will
not advance. Furthermore, and even more important, as you point out,
the process will elect fresh faces. However "power hungry" they may be,
they can do nothing in our legislatures unless they can attract the
support of the other people's representatives.
re: "I'm a bit worried about the length of the
influencing paths."
I'm not sure what's worrying you. In the example, a community of 25,000
people (which we arbitrarily stopped after 7 levels), each of the
selected people represents about 3,570 people. What part of that is
worrisome?
re: "In a hierarchical bottom-up system (e.g. triads) there
would be multiple such layers (with potential to tell
one story downwards and do other kind of actions upwards)."
How and why would they tell a 'story' downwards. The triads' only
purpose is to advance one of their members. Their attitudes are aligned
with the attitudes of those who advanced them. They don't need to look
back.
Fred Gohlke