Politics Is Only Zero Sum, If Your Political System Is An Oligarchy
Fighting The Oligarchical Trends In Local Politics.
The problem with local politics in Windham, NY (my hometown and the place I plan on running for office) is that we have fallen into an Oligarchical type structure. A single party the Republican dominates the political landscape and the party chooses only local people already connected within the community. This monopoly of power by the few over the many is a critical aspect of Oligarchy that is not only found in National Politics but also acutely in our political discourse in Windham, NY. In this case politics for any unequal system is considered a Zero-Sum project. Since the loss of the power for the few that control the system when redistributed amongst the population cannot be regained by this elite group again.
It has become abundantly clear that the local Town Council and its members including our town Supervisor feel that the general public is not the legitimate source of power in the government; but, an impediment to their own goals. The fact that after a multitude of requests for the town to follow its own policy of convening a committee of community volunteers to review and become part of the policy making process in our parks & recreation development has been denied. This fact is a clear attempt by the town board to consolidate power in the town’s board without the consent of the population. Until we seriously address this fact we will not be able to grow as a town and meet our full potential.
We have great potential in this town. However, this potential is mostly unrealized because Oligarchy like monopolies in economics represent a failure of the system. Oligarchies are by definition a concentration of power that warps the system to serve a few while leaving the majority of people out of the system. This is a fundamental breakdown of the allocation function that distributive power systems like voting offer a populace. The same is true for a corporate monopoly that can distort prices and thus render the allocation function of pricing moot. So does an Oligarchy when it comes to voting. If power is not distributed amongst the people in a proportional manner these asymmetrical power paradigms end with staggeringly stilt results in our elections. For example in Windham’s last general election of November 7th 2023, the Town Supervisor ran unopposed and received 251 votes out of 326 ballots being cast. 72 of the ballots had not voted at all for that position that’s 22.09% of the total vote. Then you have the 3 write in votes one was for me (I did it). This is a sign of a fairly problematic condition our little town. In the General Election of 2021 in Windham our supervisor received 405 votes again running unopposed. This is should be a clear sign of why our town has such a problem with it comes representing minority view points within the political system.
In 1980 when computer science was still relatively new a contest was devised by Robert Axelrod a professor of political science out of the University of Michigan. Axelrod’s goal was to create the most effective strategy for dealing with fair multi-irritation games ( like the Prisoner Dilemma or other such games). The best solution for games that have an undefined length of play such voting for town council members in our society or determining how resources will be allocated usual find Tit-for-Tat strategy is the best solution.
The Tit-for-Tat strategy is simply to cooperate the first round and then respond in every subsequent round with same response of the opposition. To make this example easy to understand the game will have a binary operation like the Prisoner’s Dilemma Game does where you have two suspects: A and B. They are kept separate and urged to confess to the police. As long as A and B maintain their solidarity with each other the police have no case. So, in this game cooperation yields the best combined results even if it doesn’t yield the best individual results. That is to say the Police might have Suspect B on a 6 month old DWI case that could be dismissed as well. So, then. Suspect B might face a fine that Suspect A won’t but they will both get off on the Felony charges they both face. And not knowing what your partner intends to do is designed to show the lack of information we are always operating under. Now, if suspects A and B will never see each other game theory’s safest strategy is betray your partner to the Cops and get a plea deal. And hope you’ve done it first. If A and B are in a continual relationship i.e. gang affiliation perhaps in this case betrayal will end badly for both suspects. Therefore cooperation with each other is preferred no matter what even if the outcome will be negative for both. Depending on your role in the gang it might be possible for you to betray lesser gang members on minor crimes to benefit yourself in a tit-for-tat type strategy.
In the Tit-For-Tat strategy the solution to the long standing problems of interactions is cooperation. Both in a negative and positive sense of the concept. For example let’s say two neighbors A and B share a resource, perhaps it is a stream. Neighbor A uses the stream to circulate water in his pond so it doesn’t become a stagnant malaria breeding ground. Neighbor B wants to create an off the grid hydroelectric power plant for him/herself. The stream can actually accommodate both operations without any issue.
But if Neighbor A who is closer to the stream’s source say about 300 yards from Neighbor B diverts all the water to create a new bigger pond system for the property than Neighbor B cannot power his/her hydroelectric system. So, Neighbor B’s response is to made a deal with Neighbor C who is above Neighbor A by 100 yards and can create a large dam and stop all the water. But due to the property lines B & C share a common border close to the location of B’s Hydroelectric project- a convenient pipe line can be constructed and allow B to power his/her Pelton Wheel turbine and thus create all the power they desire while denying Neighbor A any water at all. This is a perfect example of tit for tat any time Neighbor A uses too much of the resource that B shares with them Neighbor C redistributes equitably based on the responses of A or B. If B attempts to use to much of the resource C reduces their flow and A gains more. Thus the equilibrium of the system is to favor a cooperation in this case both A and B use only enough of the resource that C controls without total control of the water.
Now, in an oligarchical model Neighbors B & C are part of the same small group of aligned interests. Let’s say that C actually receives electrical power from B. So, the incentive is to give B more resources in the hopes that B can provide more electrical power to C. No matter what A does if C wants to improve their ability to utilize the potential power that the stream represents they must offer B more of the resources. That is until A has leverage no matter what their actions are the aligned resources of C and B will always win out in this game. And thus nullify any form of action that A will attempt use to redistribute resources towards themselves. This is our situation in Windham, NY right now.
Repeatedly the group know as Preserve The Windham Path that I’m part of have asked for the town board to follow its Comprehensive plan of 2022 and form an official volunteer committee to study the development of a new sports complex for the little league. This request has been repeatedly denied. This simple request is about creating an inclusive democratic policy in the town that will be followed for all future developments of recreational area as prescribed by Comprehensive Plan. Something the Comprehensive plan of 2022 already clearly outlines. However, for some odd reason the town supervisor and the town board members refuse to implement this policy. This is a sign of true oligarchical power. The ability for a small group of the population to isolate the rest of the population from the levers of power is a dangerous trend in political discourse in America on the whole.
Politics in little towns like my own should be one of inclusion not exclusion. The people that are part of the Preserve The Windham Path are people that want to be active in the community. They want to make a difference in the community. These are exactly the type of people this town needs more than ever. We have many challenges facing our future in Windham just as any municipality does with Climate Change and population demographics shifting from young to older. These are real problems that require a collectivist approach to solve one that Oligarchies by definition are usually unable to solve unless some form of internal political divide can be created.
That is why our present political system in this town needs to be fundamentally changed. We need to embrace the creation of direct democracy without our town. Cooperation not only with our own fellow towns people is paramount. But so too is the creation of a more coordinate Mountain Top Community including all the towns that exist in this region of the Catskill Mountains. We should be looking at the models of “Common Pool Resources” [CPR] in my example of the break down of the tit-for-tat strategy was due to the monopolization of power by a small group of people in the model.
The power of any oligarchical system is based on the fact that opposition lacks any fundamental mechanism in the system to counter their concentrated power. Like the Walls of the Castle the Oligarchs power impervious to many attacks. However, like all fortifications a fundamental shift in tactics or technology leaves the Castle’s fortifications unable to defeat the attack. In my examples of the Stream with the three Neighbors A, B and C all attempting to out do one another for complete control of the stream’s benefits even though cooperation yielded a better long term solution. In the case of the Oligarchic Power scheme of C and B the only way for A to rebalance the scales would be to find some other necessary resource that C needs and B cannot procure. This would fundamentally rebalance the power structures of the game and return the cooperative equilibrium of the Tit-For-Tag Game.
In Windham this is going to require the most important untapped resource: second home owners who don’t currently vote in Windham. It is my intention to achieve what hasn’t been achieved before getting 300 or so people that normally don’t vote in Windham to change their registration to vote in Windham it an off year election because their voice matters too. My exact strategy is still up in the air but it will require some fundraising and lots of flyers I feel. I have 16 months to make this happen and I have no time to waste.
So, I ask you to spread this message around and make sure everyone know understands Oligarchical Power Structures Must Always Be Challenged!