Yes, agreed.
In addition to having some targets on improving the society
politicians (and any human beings) are often interested (to a varying
degree) also in power, money and fame. Politics can offer all this to
them. Another problem is that all aging "systems" have the risk of
stagnation and gradual corruption. You mentioned also the problem of
people believing that their own and dear system is already the best
possible. And (as you also noted) the incumbents in good positions in
the current system have no interest in changing the system (since
that system was the one that gave them their current position).
Improving such a system is always an uphill battle.
I note that the financing of the campaigns may be a serious problem.
One could try to do something with that also without the proposed
method (e.g. by setting some limits on TV time and/or newspaper rows
and/or number of phone calls and/or letters).
Fraud is also a serious problem. In this case I do believe that also
the current systems can be made practically fraud free, if there is
just some political will to do so. (One just needs to make the
ballots and process clear and count the results locally in the
presence of representatives from multiple interest groups and then
make the results public.)
Few notes on the "Selecting Leaders From The People" method.
The first possible theoretical problem is the fact that electing one
candidate from each group to some extent favours large groups. I make
a simplifying assumption that also in the new system there are two
parties with 55% and 45% support. I also assume that a group that has
two or three representatives from one party always elects a a
candidate from that party. As a result the probability of electing a
candidate from the bigger party is higher than 55%. And when one
repeats this procedure multiple times hierarchically, eventually
almost all representatives would be from the bigger party. My
assumptions simplified the set-up a lot, but the trend of favouring
large groupings is there. I don't know if this is ok to you or not.
The basic idea that representatives at one layer will be elected by
representatives at one step lower layer makes the gap between voters
and representatives smaller than what it typically is today, and
thereby makes the relationship stronger (this has many good
implications). One can achieve these effects also with larger groups
and fewer layers. One extreme is the electoral college in US that
reduces the number of steps in two (I don't claim that it would have
the same properties though).
Another slightly different approach would be to elect not one but
several representatives at each layer. This would reduce the problem
of favouring large groupings. A similar tree style hierarchy could be
constructed e.g. from groups of 1000 voters electing 50
representatives for the next higher layer. Also this hierarchy still
favours large groupings but to a lesser degree. (This method would be
in style more like a multi-winner multi-party method.)
I wonder if the groups of three (or more) always represent some
specific region. I guess this was the intention. I.e. if the process
starts at the backyard will it also continue to electing the
representatives of neighbourhoods, towns etc. If so, that would
probably make the ties between the representatives and their voters
tighter. If the relationship is tight and will be about the same also
in the next elections that would make the representatives one step
more responsible towards their voters (=> leads to some sort of a
"village chief/representative" system).
One problem is that even if the process, when started from a
backyard, has no party influence at the beginning, it is possible
that the party influence will infiltrate the system from top down (in
good and bad). I.e. if there are some groupings/parties at the top
level, the candidates at one level below could make their
affiliations clear, and their voters might request them to do so. And
that could then continue downwards in chain.
The long chain in decision making is likely to lead also to
complaints that the highest level decision makers do not listen to
the lowest level voters any more, and that thers is some sort of
corruption "in the chain". Maybe the chain should not be too long.
And in some elections (or part of them) voters might also like to
elect their representative directly. (For example how should one
elect a president of a mayor? Maybe direct voting would be used in
some cases instead of the chained voting model.)
The practical problem of making the politicians adopt this proposal
is of course huge. But one must start somewhere. Making people aware
of the problems and offering them also good solutions to the problems
may some day lead to small steps forward.
Juho
On Mar 4, 2008, at 23:54 , Fred Gohlke wrote:
Good Afternoon, Juho
When you say, about changing the political system, that "... the party
behaviour and rules of behaviour should be improved.", I agree. The
difficulty is, in America, the parties write the rules for their own
behavior. Throughout my 79 years on this earth, the people have
sought
reform innumerable times. A little over a year ago, in my state, the
legislature passed a bill to prevent a certain type of corruption.
Within a month, someone found (and published) a memo written by one of
the lawyers who drafted the law. It described the loopholes in the
law
and how our politicians could take advantage of them. As long as
those
with political power write the rules for their own behaviour,
change is
unlikely.
re: "Parties need not be tyrants and nests of evil but just free
groupings of people with similar opinions."
I agree. As I said earlier, "Partisanship is a vital part of society
... provided it is always a voice and never a power. The danger is
not
in partisanship, it is in allowing partisans to control government."
Your citation of party-controlled representatives is "Right On!".
It's
true that all systems are targets for corruption, but the ease with
which it can be done varies considerably. While static systems are
relatively easy to corrupt (it's the apples in the barrel that
rot), it
is much more difficult to corrupt dynamic systems where candidates are
subject to careful examination during each election cycle. I
addressed
the problems you mentioned in "Selecting Leaders From The People" on
February 4th. That outline does exactly what you suggest: It lets
the
voters seek the problems ... and the solutions for them.
Like you, Thomas Jefferson warned us "The price of freedom is eternal
vigilance." But, as we've seen over the past 200-odd years, vigilance
without the means to forestall abuses is futile. It is only by
carefully examining every candidate during every election that we can
detect and eliminate unprincipled people.
re: "We have taken many steps from the pure 'laws of jungle' model but
certainly also further improving steps are possible."
You're right. But it is more difficult than it appears. We've been
told so many times through so many years that our political system is
the best in the world, some of us can't admit it is a cesspool of
corruption, funded by special interests that buy the laws we
endure. If
we are to improve it, we must study the disease while we do our
best to
alleviate the symptoms.
re: "Thorough understanding of the dynamics of the political system is
needed to make its operation better."
That is precisely the point I sought to make in my comments. They are
the background which led to, "Selecting Leaders From The People". Can
we pursue this line of inquiry?
Fred
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
list info
___________________________________________________________
Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use" The Wall Street Journal
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
