Good Afternoon, Juho
re: "Only on the (country independent) technical properties of the
"groups of three" method."
"(If there are e.g. two parties, one small and one large, the
probability of getting two small party supporters (that would elect one
of them to the next higher level) in a group of three is so small that
in the next higher level the number of small party supporters is
probably lower than at this level.)"
The significant word in the cited passage is the gigantic 'IF' that
opens it. 'IF' one assumes the entire electorate is divisible into two
parties, and 'IF' those two parties can be shown to embrace all the
interests of the people, it is easy to show that the parties will
achieve power in proportion to their distribution in the electorate.
But, to say that is to say nothing, for the assumption is faulty.
It fails to recognize that, among the people, there are an agglomeration
of parties ... so many they defy enumeration. Therefore, it is facile to
suggest the technical properties of the 'groups of three' method will
grant dominance to one party, unless one acknowledges that the party is
society itself, in which case, it is (or, at least, ought to be) the
goal of a democratic electoral process.
It seems fairly common among those with a professional or passing
interest in politics to base their assumptions and arguments on
artificial delineations of human attitudes and to ignore the fictitious
lines they've introduced, in spite of accumulated knowledge that shows
such boundaries do not exist. It has long been known that people vote
on the basis of bread-and-butter issues. They vote on the basis of what
matters to them.
What matters to the people comprises a long list and the components of
the list are in a constant state of flux, depending on circumstances.
The rank of partisanship (or ideology) in that list varies in inverse
proportion to the intensity of the people's needs and desires. It is
rarely, if ever, the foremost concern of the majority of people.
We are surrounded by evidence of the declining influence of party
politics on the electorate, not least of which is found in the reams
written about declining voter turnout. In an essay about the voter
turnout problem in Great Britain, a Jennie Bristow, writing on 14 April
2005, made these cogent points:
"The recent, in-depth discussion of the turnout crisis recognises that
politics has changed - if the explanations for this change are somewhat
garbled. It understands that people have real reasons for voting or not
voting, and that their unwillingness to vote is a consequence, not of
laziness or stupidity, but a more profound process of disengagement from
formal politics. It accepts that tweaking parliamentary systems and
voting processes is not going to make a fundamental difference."
and
"... until it can be established that people can make a difference to
society, rather than simply exercising a narrow consumer choice, it
doesn't really matter whether they vote or not."
Ms. Bristow's essay is well worth reading. She offers an unusually keen
insight into proposals for dealing with political problems (some of
which are discussed on this site). You can find her essay at:
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA9A1.htm
If government is to be by the people, it must, by definition, come from
the people. That does not mean telling the people what they want. It
means asking them. Any electoral process that is not designed to let
the people make their own decisions is not a democratic process.
Having said all this, and recognizing your preference for party-based
solutions, I wonder if we have reached the point where we will be best
served by acknowledging that we have irreconcilable differences. I have
genuinely enjoyed our exchanges and the challenges you have posed, but
I've no wish to harangue you with the repetitious assertion of views
inimical to your beliefs.
Fred
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
