Do humans have a political gene? I believe that we revert to a basic left/right filter if we are carriers of these predisposed genetic factors;
Non-political if we are of mixed traits, when logic and intelligent;
Discussions are discarded in our North American nonsensical, mudslinging politics;
For me, Gregor Mendel reflects the epitome of an observer/experimenter. On his chart stands all of the science of modern genetics.
It occurred to me that if there was any genetic component to human political alignment then it should be easy to discover by direct observation of the voting results.
If one asks a population a political question (samples a gene pool by voting), then something resembling Mendel's R chart might be seen in the results if this were true.
I took the USA Presidential elections as an example, because it has basically a right and left system.
The last few American Presidential elections exactly reflect Mendel's chart, in my view. 25% voted Republican, 25% voted Democratic, and 50% were of mixed left/right variance, and didn't vote. In fact the average ratio of the of the last 12 Presidential election outcomes, if you discard the high and low results is: A split of 6/ 4 (Rep to Dem) wins RR(25.78)+rr(24.22)+Rr(49.93)=100%
This situation is repeated throughout the world whenever a free vote occurs, in varying degrees, depending on a society's level of sophistication, or lack thereof. I believe that when a society is confused it reverts back to its inherited instincts and the voting results are a confirmation of my belief.
In the two candidate, run-off, Presidential elections of France, the turn-out is remarkably high compared to the US. In the first election an average of 9.4 candidates (ignoring the highs and the lows), were rewarded with a turnout of 80.5% of the eligible votes, which garnered an average of 32.8% of the popular vote for the final winning candidate, whether they won the first round or not.
The second, or run-off, French Presidential election's turnout was even higher at an average of 82.74%. When faced with the choice between two candidates, the winner averaged 58.9%. He edged out the competition by an average of 8.76% of the popular vote. The win/loss ratio in the first election compared to the second round results is (4W/3L) showing equal opportunity that comes from many informed voters making intelligent choices.
Again, if you look at the results a large left/right split is still visible but a bit skewed: RR(29.45)+rr(20.55)+Rr(41.1)=91%%
The French have a much larger turnout than the Americans and more choices. I believe the higher turnout is an example of gene drift towards a higher average intelligence in the population.
Whether it is the system that is spurring on this desirable drift, or the intelligent population which is making its electoral system work, remains to be resolved. My working premise is that the more intelligent, the more choices a society has, the less visible Mendel's ratio appears in the voting results.
As the intelligence allele increases its frequency in a population a more considered, rather than basic genetic right/left response, it dissolves Mendel's gene ratio in the results.
The Spanish Presidential elections tell a similar story. From a field of 8.5(avg) the final winner took an average of 20.7% of the popular vote from a turnout of 80.3%(avg) of those eligible. The final winner of the Presidential elections averaged 57.1% of the turnout voters. This represents a comparison to Mendel's R chart of RR(28.55)+rr(21.45)+Rr(42.9)=93% Again a major right/left shift near the ratio (25)+(25)+(50)=100%
The Norwegian Parliament is a bit more diverse, with an avg of 9.5 Political parties garnering a turnout of 78.9% of those who may vote. The winner of the largest share of share of the seats averages 37.9% of the seats while receiving an average of 33.9% of the turn-out vote.
These results again show a more sophisticated population, with more choices because of the high percentage of voters who participate 78.9%. While the Ratio of RR+rr+Rr=100% is not a viable comparison for my R chart-basic-reaction-hypothesis, it does again show a correlation of intelligence (high turnout) with a wider perspective, more choices, less guttural/genetic response in the voting booth, I believe.
I am very familiar with the drone of Canadian politics, yet I am having a fresh understanding of it today. Canadians show signs disinterest in politics, lower participation (only 64.7%). This shows less sophistication than European societies. We are pummeled with high passion, less thought inducing politics, and fewer choices like our US neighbors.
The averaged results of the last 5 elections saw 6 parties garner 64.7% of eligible votes, rewarding them with an average of 50.6% of the seats (power) with an averaged 38.7% of the popular votes cast. RR(19.4)+rr(30.6)+Rr35.3=85.3% Although, showing a tendency towards the R chart as the turn out falls close to 70% we have a multiple party system which makes it more difficult to get clear results, Canadians are still slightly better off. Perhaps having displayed less gullibility and stayed out of Iraq, proves it more than our parliamentary system.
Because I understand the political spectrum here, I am amazed that even though the winners only garnered 38.8% of the popular vote, they got exact half the power by winning, on the average, 50.6% of the seats. So in terms of the power of left and right, the ratio looks like this in Canada RR(25.3)+rr(24.7)+Rr(35.3). Again, I believe that we Canadians are drifting to less intelligent choices, dumbing down in our political understanding.
The Swedish Parliamentary elections are remarkable in their turnout, averaging 87.9% of their eligible voters (perhaps compensating for an inherent parliamentary system weakness through excellent turnout.) They average 8 Political Parties to choose from and have a very close correspondence of their averaged popular vote 41.7% , to the average number of seats held by it (42.9%). There is no glimmer of Mendel's ratio in their election results. But like the rest of my examples have shown, the higher the turn-out, the more intelligent a society appears to be in their political processes.
There is one more genetic relationship that is evident to me in these figures. Since I keep repeating that the higher the intelligence of the society, the more likely it is we'll see a large voter turn-out.
It is a well known fact that intelligence is a genetic, inherited trait. That it is a dominant allele, I am inferring due our species survival and progress, because as the turn-out of eligible voters approaches and surpasses 80% , the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium (HWE) of p^2, 2pq, q^2, where p is the frequency of the major allele, comes to mind. The optimum ratio of a dominant desirable trait (allele) in a free breeding population is 80%.
When one considers all of the ramifications of these insights, amateur though they may be, if this Genetic-Political component were true, we might be able to extrapolate why little gets done in our polarized North American “democracies” which do not engage its citizenry with reason (Obama might be the One who will engage the middle again).
Although people rule by majority in a democracy and control our leadership with the vote, this may not be the way to draw forth intelligent capable compromisers/leaders that would get things done (although this may be proven through inconsistency, because in 2008 it might be the case that an intelligent leader is drawn forth).
I believe this type of system of American/Canadian democracy, as practiced today, is approaching the leadership of the pack, spurred on by the most basic of instincts.
This might be due to the vicious hate-filled political campaigns designed to polarize the political factions of our society specifically, but also could be caused by a genetic drift to lower intelligence.
The personality types one would consistently expect to be drawn forth in these dysfunctional types of government systems in North America, would exactly resemble those chameleons, con artists, polarized political hacks which populate our vaunted “democratic” governments now.
These further results, pertaining to the American Presidential elections, indicate a decline of voter participation since the earliest (average of 1960, 1964, 1968= 61.93%) for which figures (the “Turnout”) were kept, until the last (average 1996, 2000, 2004= 51.87%). This is a (10.06%) (very) dramatic decline in less than 50 years... Do the letters "GWB" figure into it anywhere?
If our institutions don't evolve in harmony in reflection of/with all of the rest of life on this planet, there is little chance that we will master the solutions that will be needed to survive as a species in the immediate future. Mutation is good, because unless we allow and cherish the wondrous monster by engaging the rational middle, natural selection will have no stock to work on and stagnant societies don’t survive.
We must evaluate everything and find new solutions rather than perpetuate a pointless conflict between right and left, which is only a reflection of our human nature and has nothing to do with good government.
Perhaps Plato was right?
Comparisons (American Presidential Elections)
Date Marg Victory % Win % Other votes % % No Vote
2004 2.46 Rep 50.73 1 43.8
2000 0.51 Rep 47.87 3.74 49.6
1996 8.51 Dem 49.23 10.05 51
1992 15.56 Dem 43.01 19.55 44.8
1988 7.72 Rep 53.3 0.98 49.8
1984 18.26 Rep 58.77 0.67 46.9
1980 8.74 Rep 50.75 8.23 47.4
1976 1.06 Rep 50.08 1.9 46.5
1976 1.06 Rep 50.08 1.9 46.5
1972 23.15 Rep 60.67 1.8 44.8
1968 0.7 Rep 43.42 13.86 46.6
1964 22.58 Dem 61.05 0.48 38.1
1960 0.7 Dem 49.72 0.74 36.9
av/mi/h/l: 15.56 Rep 6/4 51.56 4.3 49.93
France (Presidential)
Date 1st-2nd mov Voter -to # of candidates % pop vote
April May '02 Win 3.0---64.4 71.6---79.7 16 19.9---82.2
April May '95 Loss 2.5---5.4 78.4---79.7 9 23.3—79.7
April May '88 Win 14.1---8.0 81.4---84.1 9 34.1—54.0
April May '81 Loss 2.4---3.6 81.1---85.9 10 25.9---51.8
May 5-19 '74 Loss 10.6--1.6 84.2---87.3 12 32.6---50.8
June 1-15 '69 Win 21.2-16.4 77.6---68.9 7 44.5---58.2
Dec 5-19 '65 Win 12.9-10.4 84.7---84.3 6 44.6---55.2
Averages 8.76 80.54---82.74 32.8---58.9
Spain (Presidential)
Oct 1st -29th 06 Win 7.0-- 21.6 83.2-- 81.0 8 48.6-- 60.8
Oct 6th--27th 02 Win23.2—22.6 82.3--- 79.5 6 46.4---61.3
Oct 4th--1998 Win 21.4 78.5 12 53.1
Oct 3rd--1994 Win 17.3 82.2 8 54.3
averages 20.7 80.3 8.5 57.1
Norway (Parliament)
Date % of seats Turn-out # of parties % of pop vote
Sep 12th 2005 36.09 77.4 10 32.7
Sep 10th 2001 26.06 75.5 10 24.3
Sep 15th 1997 39.39 78.3 10 35
Sep 15th 1993 40.61 75.8 9 36.9
Sep 11th 1989 39.38 82.3 10 33.4
Sep 09th 1985 45.22 84 8 40.8
averages 37.79 78.9 9.5 33.9
Canada (Parliament)
Jan 23 2006 40.26 64.7 6 36.3
June 28th 2004 43.83 60.9 6 36.7
Nov 6th 2000 57.14 61.2 6 40.8
June 2nd 1997 51.5 67 6 38.5
Oct 35th 1993 60.41 69.6 6 41.3
averages 50.6 64.68 6 38.74
Sweden (Parliament)
Date % of Seats Turn-out # of Parties % of pop vote
Sep 17th 2006 37.23 82 9 35
Sep 15th 2002 41.26 80.1 8 39.9
Sep 20th 1998 37.54 81.4 8 36.4
Sep 18th 1994 46.13 86.8 8 45.3
Sep 15th 1991 39.54 86.7 9 37.7
Sep 18th 1988 44.7 86 8 43.2
Sep 15th 1985 45.56 89.9 7 44.7
Sep 19th 1982 47.56 91.4 8 46.5
Sep 16th 1979 44.13 90.7 7 43.2
Sep 19th 1976 43.55 91.8 7 42.7
Sep 16th 1973 44.57 90.8 7 43.6
averages 42.9 87.9 8 41.65
My sources for these results were:
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/ [1]
http://electionresources.org/ [2]