Chapter 47: Getting ‘Preferential’ Politics to Work
Abstract: politics tends to attract the less desirable candidates and this chapter presents a general method of using ‘preferential’ voting to secure the ‘best’ candidates, to get them elected and/or express the electorate’s concern over community matters, publicise that method to voters and candidates, as well as indicate some ‘rorts’ that have been allowed to flourish and to present practical solutions to them. A method is suggested that provides more information and a clearer, less biased picture of the community’s wants.
From the last chapter, the closing paragraph set up certain attractors that need to be included in an examination of a solution to the Armageddon that awaits the world if we continue in the way that we are going. To restate it: This “ape plague” has worsened over the last two thousand years and using the COMPLETE Mathematics of the Mind we can use logic and the forward operator (reality) to solve the problems of the world before they become uncontrollable. The specialized incomplete use by mathematics has produced technology, which has created the problem and, at the same time (and perhaps a just-in-time means of effecting a solution) the internet/TV/radio allows world-wide communication, which along with the world-wide ‘religion/reality’ of government and the justice system allows all humans to ‘pledge’ or agree on a solution, as outlined in this book and prevent a catastrophe from occurring.
The ‘religion/reality’ was discussed in Chapter 37: ‘Hark, the Herald Angels Sing’ and I was surprised that the government and justice system satisfied the operator ‘reality’, but I shouldn’t have been surprised because humans are part of the Rule of Life and their organizations have evolved to be logically as ‘simple’ as possible, and have evolved that way over time. Notice that this process does not include the established Religions that ‘anchor’ themselves to writings and events. It is a measure of the usefulness that people find in government and the justice system that it operates universally around the world and is thus a basis of an opportunity for global participation at the personal level as a voter.
It is looking very good that a worldwide organization exists that we can use, but the world would not be in the precarious position that it is, if everything was working well. The Mathematics of the Mind is now available, but, even if people used it, is the current system adequate to enable it to operate as it should? To examine a system we need to perturb it, or stress it and see what happens.
It so happens that I have been stressed and perturbed by the political system and the public servants at this present time and my problem indicates that there is a need, for me, to discuss the matter, particularly the quality and motivation of our politicians. No one seems to have a good word to say about politicians, and some of the New South Wales political parties have had very bad press recently concerning corruption. So, given that I have a problem, and am annoyed that there is little that I can do about it because of the lack of affordable redress, a wider look at the efficiency of politics might be in order.
So, a simple statement of the problem that I encountered might be a convenient place to start and it is simply put as in the following:
………………….
Why Our Tourist Industry is a Disaster!
I thought that it might be nice to invite a friend from the Philippines to visit on a three month Tourist Visa, so I sent off the paperwork including a statuary declaration saying that I would be responsible for any debts incurred by that person including if they overstayed. The visa was refused (cost $130 and three trips of 10 hours each to the Australian Embassy by my friend), so I explained that a mistake must have occurred, and I was told by email to contact the Migration Review Tribunal and found after completing the online form that the cost was $1604! To demand so much money to investigate such a simple matter is unconscionable! It takes away my right of appeal!
I thought that my application was adequate considering that the common practice is to require a bank letter showing that this person, at some particular time, has $2000 in the bank. Why should I give a friend $2000 to put into their bank account? Can someone suggest an answer to this problem that is an affront to me personally and abuses my citizenship rights?
………………….
Now, I have been a Liberal Party voter for a very long time because I have been successful in business etc., so I contacted my local Member of Parliament (the electorate abuts Canberra) by email asking him to help with this problem and received a computer generated acknowledgement. A few days later, I sent a copy to the Minister for Immigration and Border Security and I have heard from neither after two weeks! Needless to say, I am not happy!
The purpose of a perturbation is to test the system and in this case my problem could be considered a perturbation and nothing has happened! This indicates a problem and even worse it is a problem that affects me, personally. I have always considered that the elected representative is there to help me when I have a problem, and I am horrified that I have been voting for the Liberal Party for many years under the impression that my elected member would help me when I needed it. Alternatively, perhaps the Abbott government has lost the support of its own members, as is possible, considering the in-fighting that has been going on, but that scenario accentuates the problem that needs fixing.
The problems in the political system are deep-seated because, as we have seen previously, the voting system to elect politicians is so flawed that people who receive pensions and other benefits are allowed to vote (Chapter 22: Magic, Proverbs, Politics and the Voting System) This state of affairs has worsened over the last century but politicians have allowed it to continue. For politicians to allow, what is one solution of the Mathematics of the Mind, to be flouted is a gross effrontery to the voter’s rights. So, what would a deeper analysis of the voting system turn up?
Politicians tend to be ‘talkers’, lawyers and ‘snake-oil’ salesmen, in my opinion and do not appear interested in making the system fairer or more workable. They appear to have an agenda that is determined by party politics and the question is, is it what we, the voters, need? I have said that I have been a Liberal Party voter, but this problem that I am having has caused me to reconsider my allegiance to a party that ignores me, so I am going to ask ‘what is the best way to vote?’.
In a world in crisis, we have to pull together and the policies of major parties are divisive and not helpful because they are looking after a segment of the population to which they owe allegiance. It is well known that the Liberals support business, Labour the trade unions, the Nationals the farmers and the Greens are just, in my opinion, ‘potty’. There is an opportunity for the Greens to embrace what I am trying to achieve, and in that case, I may change my opinion.
The Independents are at least unaligned (or at least minimally aligned) and can put some sense of the general public’s views into the Parliament. It would be sensible if more qualified people were elected or at least consulted, that are not professional ‘talkers’, as lawyers do seem to be over-represented in the political system. So, who should be running the country? If I have a problem, I suggest that the wrong people are running the country and I feel that it is not a party failing, so much as a problem of design of the voting system. While the voting system is ‘fair’ to all parties, that does not mean that it is not being manipulated, and there is good cause to believe that it is. The manipulation is, I believe, one of knowledge on the part of the major parties and lack of knowledge on the part of the Independents and voters, in general, and the solution is to formulate a general solution and publicise it. Knowledge is power to someone, unless everyone knows that knowledge, and there are laws to that effect in the stock market, but not politics! Thus, there is the need for this chapter.
So, what will I do? Firstly if the Liberals (and by association, the Nationals) don’t want to help with my problem, I won’t vote for them. If they allow such a stupid system, they do not deserve my vote, so I will put them last on the voting ticket. Labour, in my opinion, is minimally competent to manage the country because they have little appreciation of debt and tend to over-spend, so I would put them next to last. The Greens would seem to be a logical choice, but I disagree with many of their policies and they tend to side with Labour so I will put them third to last.
The Independents will get my vote in the future because there is no other option. The parties have agendas of their own and are saying to us that their agenda is our agenda, so why not give them your vote? This is not exactly buying your vote, they want it for free and use subterfuge and marketing to get it. They are successful and have been ‘looking after’ your vote for a long time and do nicely out of it. Careers have been made and huge superannuation payouts have been voted for themselves, by themselves. This is a rort that I mentioned previously where the person who has a vote, votes for themselves for their benefit.
We have to go to the polling booth and vote, otherwise we will be fined. To vote informally, or to submit a blank paper has the same effect as being incapable of voting, and that course of action is moronic. We have set up attractors for the parties and found that they are aligned to certain groups that have an agenda. What agenda does the ‘unaligned’ voter have? I can only speak for myself and I want: my personal problem fixed, the political voting system fixed (chapter 22), a local representative that replies to my emails, a government that addresses my major concern (global warming, over population etc.), a government that can run the country responsibly. That’s enough for the moment!
The ‘swinging’ voter is, by definition, searching, simply because that voter is not committed to the major parties and their policies. He/she is looking for someone to represent them, but they won’t find someone in the major parties because the existing parties are aligned. What should the ‘swinging’ voter do? Clearly, they should start their own party that looks after their interests, and the only people left in the election are the Independents.
So, the ‘swinging’ voter votes for the Independents, in the order of the voter’s preference of those Independents and according to the blurb on the how-to-vote-cards. Clearly, the order of voting is according to the voter’s choice of competence of the Independent and that should be clear from the handout. After assigning 1, 2, 3 etc. to the Independents, the major parties are listed in the voter’s order of preference in the last positions. Someone has to win the seat and if the Independents don’t get enough votes to win the seat, the major parties fight it out. In other words, Independents preference Independents for as long as they are comfortable with their standing before assigning their preference to a major party.
There are two forces at play here. Firstly, the Independent’s how-to-vote card shows the preferences according to the Independent, if you want to vote the ‘ticket’ and secondly, gives a ‘thumbnail’ description of the attainments of the Independent candidates so that voters can make their own choice of order. This is necessary because it is the only time that the voter gains some knowledge of the Independents’ achievements because only the established parties can afford electorate-wide letterbox ‘drops’, advertising etc. The expense of an election is a waste of huge amounts of money by all candidates and this system reduces the need to spend, and targets the message to the decision time.
Political spending is not necessary unless something is being bought and clearly someone is gaining from having a certain candidate in power. Political donations are, to some extent, a ‘corruption’ and restrictions are made that property developers cannot make ‘donations’ to political parties and this is presumably to stop the worst of the problem. So, the question remains that large amounts of donated money are being spent to publicise the candidates of the major parties, to what end, and that end smacks of some sort of ‘influence’. Whilst some people may enjoy the mechanism of politics, it is adding a ‘distortion’ to the simple act of voting and it is crucial that sufficient information be made available at the polling booth for the voter to make an informed choice. This basic right of the voter, to know a little about the candidates is not being done by all candidates at present.
The Australian Electoral Commission allows how-to-vote cards to be handed out, after they have been scrutinized, but not within six metres of the entrance, and at the last election one party included a ‘thumbnail’ description of the party and candidates. Handing out information, or making it available is the responsibility of the AEC and is necessary to ensure a ‘level playing field’ by allowing Independents cost-free distribution of material. This cannot be a bad practice, and the cost is negligible compared with the election.
I also urge the commission to look at the idea of ‘one person, one vote’ because it is logically unsound when those same people are voting to receive money for themselves. In fact, it is plain wrong! Chapter 22 shows how the Mathematics of the Mind can be numericalized to produce a mathematical model and finally one number that signifies the value of the vote to simplify the discussion.
A simple description of the counting system shows how the preferential system works. A vote is valid if a number, consecutive, starting from 1 (i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4, …….) for the most favoured candidate is placed next to each candidate’s name. On counting, a pile of votes is made for each candidate according to the 1 on the paper. The pile with the fewest votes is broken up and the papers are placed on the other piles according to the number 2. This is repeated until there are two piles left and the pile with the most votes is the winner.
This shows why the voter should vote for Independents that support their ideals and concern in the community. If there is not enough concern for aircraft noise, ventilation stacks in the neighbourhood, school crossings and so on, vote for a major party, or the vote will automatically go to the major party. If there is sufficient concern, enough Independents will stand for election, may win the election, but if not, have registered a level of concern and indicated that a problem exists and gives numerical ‘proof’ of that concern. Voters have a very long memory of being ignored, at least in my opinion. This is effectively a Citizens Initiated Referendum, as mentioned below, and costs nothing extra and yet provides much information to the major parties about policies.
A good example of this targeted community concern showing itself through the ballot box is that three long-held Labor seats went to the Greens at the last election because of concern over coal-seam gas in the north of NSW and freeway construction in Sydney. There are always people that object to projects that benefit the wider community, the so called ‘not in my backyard’ group, but the three seat-changes must cause concern to the major parties and cause them to ‘tread lightly’ and listen to the community. Surely, this is a positive approach.
It should be noted that this system is a general one and is applicable to the Upper and Lower House elections, however, in the Upper House election, the ability to follow the candidate’s preferences by placing a 1 above the line negates the system that I am putting forward. There was discussion, after the last election, about the desirability of candidates preferencing among themselves, and of course this is possibly a rorting of the system. The alternate system is to mark 100 choices below the line, which is laborious but fair and in line with what I am advocating, but there is a simple answer that was in force at the last election that the voter can number the groups in their order of preference and only those numbers written are used. In other words, your vote exhausts when the numbers that you write cease, and there were prominent placards outside of the booth stating this.
In real terms, if the Independents don’t get the numbers, my vote will go to the Greens and finally to Labour, depending on the numbers. The question is why do I want an Independent to win the seat? The answer is that they are the only unaligned candidates and have the ability to change their stance as the electorate changes its views and opinions. Secondly, the ‘balance of power’ in the parliament is sought after because it allows a stronger representation to those members that have it and I want my choice of Independent to have it. Thirdly, it reduces the ‘party faithful’ that have been slowly rising through the ranks for years and are rewarded with ‘winnable’ seats and tend to contribute little, as I have become aware with my problem.
It is not my intention to ‘air’ the tricks of the parties, even if I knew them, nor do I care what a particular politician gets from being a politician, but I am looking for a better way to bring my concerns to the notice of someone who will do something constructive to fix them. The Mathematics of the Mind sets up the parties as attractors, together with our aims and we logically sort out a solution using the mind (as opposed to iteration). This refers to the “ape plague” which has been caused by the use of the mind/brain without the controls brought about by a ‘constrained’ process like Survival of the Fittest.
My friend, Terry reminded me of an effort, some years ago to bring in something called the Citizen Initiated Referendum. I can see that if a number of voters wanted to air their choices and grievances then a referendum at the time of elections would not be too costly. The difficulty is, to my mind, the organization of the questions to be voted upon, the counting, and so on until it becomes complex and expensive. What I am suggesting is cheap and simple and uses the economist’s approach of letting the market decide without restriction (through voting by price, laissez faire).
The Independents will listen to the community and state their policy on their how-to-vote-card and it becomes easy for the voter to ‘target’ their vote. In effect it IS a referendum! But, it is a referendum only if there is a choice of Independent candidates in each electorate, and concerned citizens can have their say without ‘handing’ their vote to a major party in the first instance. If there are no current ‘issues’, give your vote to a major party, but if there are concerns, make your feelings known through the ballot box. This ability for the community to quickly and decisively make their feelings felt should keep all of the politicians working hard and not ignore their electorate and should help prevent the problem that I have encountered.
As we have seen, this is a simple solution that adds no further complexity to the voting system, but uses a general mathematics of concepts to show that we need to change our way of thinking. Old people tend to lose touch and the solution is to modify the weight of their vote, as mentioned in chapter 22, and I’m sure that they would agree. The practice of political parties driving elderly people to polling booths seems to be a good idea, but it is a form of influencing voting patterns.
This system forms an informal political party of the Independents that represents the swinging voters because they do not have agendas, but want the things that we can all agree on, and that is the purpose of this book; to help solve the world’s problems of global warming, over-population, over-use of resources etc. By using a general mathematics of concepts, everyone can agree on a particular solution, and that is the first step to setting that solution in motion.
The simplistic premise that ‘each adult has an equal vote’ is too simple and doesn’t work, as we have seen. For the same reason technology is causing an Armageddon of global warming, over-population, and extinctions etc. because it uses mathematics that is the ‘exact’ part of the Mathematics of the Mind and both use ordering/logic, which means that logic is necessary to make a decision after the ordering has been made. As mentioned above, one solution/attractor of the Mathematics of the Mind is that you should not vote if you derive a benefit, or some percentage of a vote depending on a mathematical model of benefit (chapter 22), so the fact that ‘each adult has an equal vote’ is an error that occurred by using too few attractors on which to apply logic. This is analogous to using mathematics, which leads to technology, instead of the Mathematics of the Mind, which leads to technology and social matters and the question of technology in society. It is a general solution that depends on the attractors brought into it. Logically, a general solution MUST be iterative and ‘in the limit’, simply because it is illogical to expect a unique solution to always exist AND for us to know it! That is the preserve assigned to God!
Nothing has been suggested that is not being done by the major parties at present, and there is nothing illegal in giving preferences, but on the contrary, the voting system becomes fairer and more transparent if Independents and voters realize the implications. One point that may confuse is the question ‘how many Independents is the optimal to have standing for election?’. I suggest (say) 5 of the most successful men and women in the electorate act as Independents or form an Independent party to offer their services. Politicians should offer life-skills because life-long party ‘loyalty’ does not help the community. We need successful people to offer their services and their life/business skills, and the electorate needs the how-to-vote-card to give information on degrees and accolades.
In conclusion, we need to increase peoples’ awareness that they can use their vote in a way that provides more information, and also gives voters the ‘best’ people that are needed to run the country. The elections are expensive and the maximum information on the community’s wants should be obtained, and this method provides a better picture by showing the electoral process as part of a general mathematics of concepts that shows where problems are occurring. If the ordinary voter, using this method, can produce a REAL voice in the big issues concerning the planet, then they are entering into the quest to restart evolution through Survival of the Best.
The Mathematics of the Mind requires a prediction, and this voting system that I have outlined will increase the number of Independents, dilute the major parties hold on government, bring a real democracy to government that truly represents the peoples’ wishes and forces the world-wide government/religion/justice system to enact workable means to stop global warming, over-population etc. and put a curb on the ‘plague of apes’, and bring about the Selection of the Best. Failure would be very messy!
darrylpenney 