On May 11, 2008, at 23:29 , Fred Gohlke wrote:
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.
The two parties were given just as an example case (an extreme one).
If we assume that typically similar minded people elect similar
minded people in the groups of three, the method gives some benefit
to groups that are large and tightly bound, whatever kind the space
of opinions is (with or without formal parties).
(The parties also do not achieve power in proportion to their
distribution in the electorate but the bigger party gets more power
than what its proportional share would suggest.)
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."
The analysis part seems quite accurate to me, describing the
situation in many democracies. The conclusions are a bit more
confusing. I think that "tweaking parliamentary systems and voting
processes" may well be one of the tools when trying to recover from
the disengagement. I think all systems have the tendency to corrupt
in time (people are good at finding such paths) and one needs to be
awake and continuously monitor the health of the system, and "tweak"
it when needed. Not an easy task, but the alternative is to go down
with the system when it slowly deteriorates.
I believe I agree with Jennie Bristow in that politicians may easily
end up treating the symptoms rather than the disease when trying to
seek a cure for the low turnout.
Any electoral process that is not designed to let the people make
their own decisions is not a democratic process.
I think most democratic processes have been designed with the help of
some level of idealism and good intentions. It is another question
how working and future proof the results were and what has happened
to the system over time.
recognizing your preference for party-based solutions
I have no such general preference. My comments on how the proposed
system behaves with respect to groupings of different size and
strength are just technical observations on the properties of the
proposed method.
People tend to form groupings (and they may be well established or
temporary) and they sometimes make harm and sometimes good things
too, but I have no agenda to promote either strong parties nor
individualism or anarchy. A working set-up is what is typically
needed (one that keeps the discussions at suitable level and makes it
possible to make progress in the wanted direction) (and to avoid the
disillusionment and disengagement), and this may mean different
things in different environments, and there may be many alternative
working ways to achieve this.
Juho
___________________________________________________________
The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
