Partisan politics is inherently flawed, feat. Frostpunk.

(Blog post includes spoilers for the story of Frostpunk 2.)

This is a re-write of my previous post Partisan politics is a disease., which was written without regard for any structure, pretty quickly, and as a response to an incident involving the previous Fediverse instance fosstodon.org that I was a member in.¹ This blog post covers most of the information the previous one does, and adds more to it. (You don't need to read that previous blog post, just read this one.)

So what is this blog post about? In short, it's my short essay on why I think that partisan politics is an inherently flawed system, it polarizes and divides our society, and is a source of a huge amount of our planet's inequalities and discrimination.

Not everything will have a footnote, mostly because this is my own writing :), but I will try to include footnotes and in some cases citations, there's a "Further reading" section at the bottom of the blog.

Let's start from the beginning.

So at the bottom of the newly-formed ocean there were very small single-celled organisms.² #

I think we went too far with that one. So, what is partisan politics?

Partisan politics happens to be a little disease on our tiny little planet, while in history democracy spread to all parts of the globe, the partisan system followed right behind it, and has managed to "infect" every system it touches. Let's imagine we have a float value which ranges from -1 to 1 with you know, decimals. Let's imagine a small-sized city and, that for some reason we assign a number between -1 and 1 to every single person, and that to govern the city we have a leader. I'm not gonna get too technical, otherwise I might lose some readers.

So, let's say we have ~250 people with numbers ranging from -1 to 1. For example one person might have 0.234, other person -0.790 and so on, here's now the landscape we're working with, below is some data I created for this, you don't need to read it or understand it, but this is just for a "practical" example.

1[ 0.721682, 0.593498, -0.845845, 0.273862, 0.785347, 0.023700, -0.079692, 0.737998, 0.271292, -0.349183, 0.821975, 0.436270, -0.530773, 0.980836, 0.286716, 0.684125, -0.873508, 0.763871, -0.591534, 0.740674, 0.555206, -0.099118, 0.147007, -0.698846, 0.296865, 0.200619, -0.273108, -0.480240, 0.779847, 0.912845, -0.692943, 0.501529, 0.506342, -0.538788, -0.224609, 0.291690, 0.484912, 0.695700, 0.029688, -0.243796, -0.653484, -0.148337, -0.807527, -0.184257, -0.167501, 0.479189, -0.500132, -0.041009, 0.243060, -0.091666, -0.300335, -0.201735, 0.809216, 0.846671, 0.099419, 0.106081, 0.047290, 0.826312, 0.625841, -0.172863, 0.739156, 0.932898, -0.671333, 0.245499, -0.605890, 0.104058, -0.462812, 0.879022, -0.200243, 0.566876, -0.364775, 0.146273, -0.581461, -0.172302, 0.962016, 0.251039, -0.693113, -0.538116, -0.789971, 0.549947, 0.370218, -0.090306, -0.651788, 0.179434, -0.243634, 0.447632, -0.714485, 0.803656, 0.273944, 0.911356, -0.369207, 0.013100, 0.844255, -0.040540, -0.741401, -0.761635, -0.936482, -0.204213, -0.882613, -0.136725, -0.637337, -0.247388, -0.990451, -0.218798, 0.580310, 0.971565, -0.967759, 0.887197, -0.566551, -0.757730, 0.437144, 0.803668, 0.151964, 0.785356, -0.016898, 0.908330, 0.232988, 0.268617, 0.711986, -0.493068, 0.179974, -0.657221, 0.520032, 0.024228, 0.302239, 0.778630, 0.262593, 0.365757, -0.425583, 0.379980, -0.770967, -0.062920, -0.867408, -0.761418, 0.718282, 0.712902, -0.789853, 0.750523, 0.600099, -0.356404, 0.992793, 0.037243, -0.552736, 0.144758, -0.177400, 0.430366, 0.053087, -0.944412, -0.301017, -0.234927, -0.437480, 0.878957, 0.107853, -0.917449, -0.096815, -0.589908, 0.861181, -0.834222, 0.775850, -0.564401, 0.545758, -0.995117, 0.372678, 0.678350, -0.756536, 0.090960, 0.391251, -0.546389, -0.158517, -0.008649, 0.097207, -0.165724, -0.971406, 0.544471, 0.979034, -0.148806, -0.025163, 0.032121, -0.093218, 0.673820, 0.797195, 0.469302, 0.552777, -0.094953, 0.551853, -0.544038, 0.315140, 0.413035, -0.378260, 0.090989, 0.848633, -0.832502, 0.095872, 0.221311, 0.845848, 0.339336, -0.687728, 0.237099, 0.792948, 0.153755, -0.771550, -0.109845, 0.988031, -0.742956, -0.565374, 0.967065, 0.108238, 0.409463, -0.000814, -0.984980, 0.083283, -0.203619, 0.484321, -0.363941, 0.701428, 0.036175, 0.092021, 0.016568, -0.550791, 0.713761, -0.892443, -0.702158, 0.881259, 0.203429, 0.519153, 0.727107, -0.457235, 0.831425, -0.035794, -0.664288, -0.014820, 0.192655, 0.225867, -0.026788, 0.449699, 0.660493, -0.059724, -0.442063, 0.069956, 0.939463, -0.427044, -0.846761, -0.264157, -0.942722, -0.210701, -0.562729, 0.093452, 0.881320, 0.453839, 0.542661 ];

³.

So, this sample size of 250 numbers is very spread apart, goes all the way from -0.99512 to 0.99279 and is distributed fairly evenly. A perfectly distributed set with values between -1,1 would have a value of ((1-(-1))^2)/12=0.3333, and the value for this set is 0.31867, so this is a mostly unbiased dataset.

Okay so we just did a fair bit of math and computing for seemingly no reason right? Okay so, let's say that this model accurately represents humanity's politics (if it could be represented in a single axis, politics in real life however is not single dimensional!). The idea behind political parties is so, that the population has representatives which reflect their views in government. And that whichever side is more represented (negative or positive) has more representation in government (in this case with a mean of 0.05486 which almost dead center, but kind of leans to the positive side).

So (in a two-party system) political parties basically said "alright so we're gonna take this area 1 to 0.750" and the other side was like "yeah I'll represent the people between -1 and -0.750", and then those who aren't in between these extreme ranges are kind of out of luck, and they have to choose the side which is closest. To get an idea, the percentage of values which aren't on either side is 74.80%. Do you see the problem here?

In a two-party system in which only the extremes are represented, 74.80% of the population fall out of either of the party zones and are "politically homeless", and if they want to be part of the political process, they have to align with an extreme.⁴

So we have just mathematically described why partisan politics divides the population into two different camps. Now let's get into why it's also flawed in a leadership standpoint. For this we should turn to Frostpunk.

The city must survive, Frostpunk and politics. #

Frostpunk and its sequel Frostpunk 2 are strategy games which tackle politics in a unique manner, in the first game you are divided between two choices, "Faith" and "Order", which both unlock unique buildings and methods to control the citizens of New London. The second game (which is the one I've played) is more unique, it shows in detail what happens with a partisan system.

I'll quickly explain Frostpunk and then describe the second game's political landscape, Frostpunk is a game where you control a leader of a city (either the Captain in the first game or the Steward in the second) and try to keep the citizens alive, by building housing, fueling the generator, to keep its citizens warm enough in the ice age the game takes place in.

In Frostpunk 2 there are 4 factions primarily, these are:

• Stalwarts, which strives for Progress, Merit and Reason.
• New Londoners, which strives for Progress.
• Pilgrims, which strives for Adaptation, Equality and Tradition.
• Frostlanders, which strives for Adaptation.⁵

As you can tell, Stalwarts are the radical/extremist version of New Londoners, and Pilgrims are the radical/extremist version of the Frostlanders.

Throughout the game you have to make decisions between Adaptation or Progress, do you choose to adapt to the frost or to overcome the frost. And in the last part of the game where you discover Winterhome, which is a ruin of a city with incredibly hazardous conditions, you have a choice to make will you salvage Winterhome (Stalwarts), or colonize it (Pilgrims).

Whichever you decide (which you do have to do), will spark civil war as a member of the opposite political faction brutally stabs another councilmember. There are these huge changes which cause Fervour in the factions, however there are also many other smaller decisions none of which are "non-partisan".

In the game you can decide between solutions for different buildings such as the coal mine, you can choose to research a "Grinding coal Mine", which is an Progress idea, or a "Dust Coal Mine", which is an Adaptation idea, both of which are different and have different properties (one of them has a higher Workforce requirement). In Frostpunk 2 there are many of these buildings which have a Progress/Adaptation versions, both of which are almost equally as good, and depending on how you build your city, you might want to choose some which use less Workforce or whatever else. However one interesting thing is, if you just choose to research buildings and ignore the faction they come from, surprisingly you could end up with a city which doesn't use ideas that align with only one of the faction, you could be in the middle of Progress and Adaptation.

And if you adopt "radical technologies" like the "Machine Attendants" (Stalwarts) choice from "New Work Model", you could upset the Pilgrims who prefer the "Apex Workers" idea.

Once the civil war starts you have multiple options, one of which is reconciliation. If you do not adopt cornerstones (adopt either Progress/Adaptation) and don't have any radical laws in place, you can reconcile the two factions and come to peace without any bloodshed.

What does this lead to? #

Extremism leads to one important thing. An "us versus them" mentality, in Frostpunk 2 the Stalwarts are entirely against the ideas of the Pilgrims, they go against everything the Stalwarts stand for. (Same with the Pilgrims). This goes into that "we are right, they are wrong" idea which is the whole cornerstone of the conflict in the game. The solution of course is consultation which is out of scope of this blog post.

If a political faction decides that "they are wrong", they become the enemy. Hatred is easily possible in an extreme situation where there are 2 warring factions, such as in the civil war situation in the game. Neither side wants to put their arms down to sit down and consult about what is the proper way to run the city, both sides believe to be absolutely correct, even though our mathematical model shows not everybody agrees on everything.

The result. #

One thing I talked about in the previous blogpost was "something is always political", my hobby is in software and open source, one statement I hear a lot about is "open source is inherently political", because open source is collective, it is freedom for people. This is what some open source projects (not naming names) use as an excuse to have a partisan political stance on things, open source is political if you define it being inherently about collectively working towards a common goal, then yes it's political. However open source is not partisan, art is not partisan.

It is unhealthy to inject partisan discussion into places where it is not needed. In the end, if you have a open source community for an open source project, use a Code of Conduct and enforce it, if you're worried about the safety of minority groups in your community, you can enforce a strict Code of Conduct and you can do it without involving partisan politics at all, here's an example of a good Code of Conduct, the Contributor Covenant.

Ending note. #

So in the end, partisan politics doesn't need to invade our lives, and it certainly is not a proper way to govern even a small 250-person city. Not participating in partisan discussions, is how we can create a safer, an inclusive and a better society.

Further reading. #

Here is some further reading which I think is relevant to the topic.

• Politics, Bahaipedia
• Consultation, Bahaipedia
• Contributor Covenant.