Practical Democracy

Tables for Practical Democracy Entry in Participedia

2012-01-14T09:10:00.002-05:00

These tables are reproduced here because Participedia does not display the tables for the Practical Democracy entry correctly:

Simplified Illustration
This table illustrates the Practical Democracy process for a community of 232,374 voters. For simplicity, it omits interest group considerations and assumes each triad selects a candidate. The process is shown through 9 levels. Those who implement the process will determine the number of levels necessary for their specific application.

                       Selected
                       Randomly
                         From
              Full Over Prev. Total People
Level People Triads Flow Level Triads Chosen Days
1 232,374 77,458   0    0   77,458 77,458    5 (1)
2   77,458 25,819   1    2   25,820 25,820    5
3   25,820 8,606   2    1    8,607 8,607   12
4    8,607 2,869   0    0    2,869 2,869   12
5    2,869    956   1    2      957    957   12
6      957    319   0    0      319    319   12
7      319    106   1    2      107    107   19
8      107     35   2    1       36     36   19
9       36     12   0    0       12     12   26 (2)
1) If the number of candidates does not divide equally into triads, any candidates remaining are overflow. Level 1 is a special case. When there is overflow at Level 1, the extra person(s) automatically become candidates at Level 2. Thereafter, when there is overflow at any level, the number of people needed to create a full triad are selected at random from the people who were not selected at the previous level.

2) To avoid patronage, appointive offices, including cabinet positions, must be filled using candidates that reached the final levels but were not selected to fill elective offices.

Time Lapse Example
To give a very rough idea of the time lapse required for such an election, we will hypothesize triad lives of 5 days for the 1st and 2nd levels, 12 days for the 3rd and 4th levels, 19 days for the 5th and 6th levels, and 26 days thereafter. Using the example above, the time lapse for an election would be:

    Level Start     Report   Days
      1 01/05/11 01/10/11    5
2 01/12/11 01/17/11    5
3 01/19/11 01/31/11   12
4 02/02/11 02/14/11   12
5 02/16/11 03/07/11   19
6 03/09/11 03/28/11   19
7 03/30/11 04/25/11   26
8 04/27/11 05/23/11   26
    9 05/25/11 06/20/11 26

Return to Participedia using the BACK button.

Practical Democracy Recap

2010-09-07T11:47:00.001-04:00

Over two hundred years experience with party politics informs us that, when politics is based on partisanship, the partisans form oligarchic power blocs[1] that become an end in themselves and ultimately transcend the will of the people.

Partisanship is a potent tool for those with a thirst for power but it does not foster government by the people. It disenfranchises the non-partisans in the electorate and results in government by a small fraction of the people. For the people as a whole, the flaws in party politics are devastating. Their cumulative effect victimizes the public by the most basic and effective strategy of domination --- divide and conquer.

Parties are important for the principals: the party leaders, financiers, candidates and elected officials, but the significance diminishes rapidly as the distance from the center of power grows. Most people are on the periphery, remote from the centers of power. As outsiders, they have little incentive to participate in the political process.

The challenge of representative democracy is not to divide the public into blocs but to find the best advocates of the common interest and raise them to positions of leadership. To meet that challenge, given the range of public issues and the way each individual's interest in political matters varies over time, an effective electoral process must examine the entire electorate during each election cycle, seeking the people's best advocates. It must let every voter influence the outcome of each election to the best of their desire and ability, and it must ensure that those selected as representatives are disposed to serve the public interest.

Support For A More Democratic Political Process

The following citations step outside the common assumption that our political system is adequately democratic and offer critical analysis and justification for considering an alternative that will better serve society. They

* provide a philosophical rationale for understanding that the Practical Democracy process will have a significant impact on those who participate;

* offer academic support for exercising care in the selection of candidates for public office;

* show that political parties, themselves, recognize their inability to represent the people; and

* describe the oligarchical nature of political parties.

1) Edward Clayton, "Alasdair MacIntyre", Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy[2]

* Human beings, as the kind of creatures we are, need the internal goods/goods of excellence that can only be acquired through participation in politics if we are to flourish. Therefore, everyone must be allowed to have access to the political decision-making process. The matters to be discussed and decided on will not be limited as they are now; they will extend to questions about what the good life is for the community and those who make it up. Politics will be especially concerned with the virtues of justice and generosity, ensuring that citizens get what they deserve and what they need. And it is an important requirement of this new politics that everyone must "have a voice in communal deliberation about what these norms of justice require" (Dependent Rational Animals 129-130). This kind of deliberation requires small communities; although not every kind of small community is healthy, a healthy politics can only take place in a small community.

* MacIntyre believes that politics should be a practice with internal goods, but as it is now it only leads to external goods. Some win, others lose; there is no good achieved that is good for the whole community; cheating and exploitation are frequent, and this damages the community as a whole.

* If politics were a practice with the possibility of internal goods and virtues, this would not be the case; but since it is currently not a practice, and therefore has only external goods to offer, it is. Anyone who has read The Prince cannot read MacIntyre on this point without recalling Machiavelli's advice to the prince about the need to be adaptable and the only relevant standards being those of success or failure; MacIntyre would certainly agree that the modern world is characterized by its Machiavellian politics.

2) Jane Mansbridge, "A 'Selection Model' of Political Representation"[3]

* As trust in government plummets in most developed democracies, citizens routinely call for more accountability and transparency. These demands are implicitly grounded in a model of political representation based primarily on sanctions, in which the interests of the representative (in economic terms, the agent) are presumed to conflict with those of the constituent (in economic terms, the principal). In such models the principal must invest in systems that monitor the agent closely, reward good behavior, and punish the bad.

Another possible --- and sometimes conflicting -- approach is based primarily on selection. This approach works only when the principal and agent would have similar objectives even in the absence of specific incentives and sanctions. That is, the agent is already internally motivated to pursue certain goals -- goals that in politics include both a general political direction and specific policies. If the representative's desired direction and policies are the ones the constituent desires, and if the representative also has a verifiable reputation of being both competent and honest, then it makes sense for a constituent to put that representative in office and subsequently spend relatively little effort on monitoring and sanctioning. As a general rule, the higher the probability that the objectives of principal and agent may be aligned, the more efficient it is for the principal to invest resources ex ante, in selecting the required type, rather than ex post, in monitoring and sanctioning. If these objectives are well aligned, citizens will be better served by a constituent-representative relationship based primarily on selection than by one based primarily on monitoring and sanctions. From a normative perspective, the selection model also tends to focus the attention of both citizens and representatives on the common interest.

3) The Report of the Commission on Candidate Selection (a board composed of the leaders of five large political parties in Great Britain) that investigated why parties are not representative of the people.[4]

* The public's ideal of representation, if seldom articulated clearly, can differ from that of the parties and political professionals. Voters seem to prefer candidates who are prepared to adopt a consensual approach to political behaviour in Parliament, the council chamber and media studios while selectorates and party professionals are more attached to an adversarial approach.

After quoting statistics showing the 'underrepresentation' of various minorities, The Report says:

* These figures add up to a picture of a narrow group of representatives selected by a tiny proportion of the population belonging to parties, for which ever fewer members of the public vote and for whom even fewer people have any feelings of attachment.

* In most cases .... selection is in the hands of parties, and their relatively small groups of members. Voters themselves have to choose between candidates picked by these small groups, and, under the first-past-the-post system, the outcome in the vast majority of constituencies is a foregone conclusion.

* Party selectorates often expect candidates to have gone through traditional hoops (almost rites of passage) --- length of party service, door-to-door campaigning, service as a local councillor and fighting a "hopeless" seat. These are commonly seen as a prerequisite for selection as a candidate in a winnable seat. Such criteria --- and evidence of personal commitment and party loyalty --- are important. But they should not be the sole criteria, especially if they discourage people with local credentials and a background outside mainstream party politics from becoming candidates.

* The whole thrust of our report is against uniformity of candidates and in favour of diversity. Quality can take many different forms in a political context. If we wish candidates to be truly representative of the communities they are elected to serve, we must recognise that there will (and should) be all sorts of candidates with a wide variety of backgrounds.

* The Commission has had to consider whether the ways in which candidates are selected should any longer be regarded as purely internal matters of no concern to the wider public.

The Report contains a good description of the waning public interest in parties ...

* Party memberships consisting of just over one elector in a hundred are unlikely to be representative of the population as a whole.

The attitudes of the electorate are shown.

* There is an apparent paradox that people feel less and less affinity with conventional party politics, yet many of their most important concerns remain very political.

* Ordinary people not involved in politics are either indifferent to internal party feuds or can react negatively to the priority which politicians and activists place upon party loyalty. It is loyalty to the constituency as a whole that the public wants to see in candidates ...

* When people are asked to rank the characteristics they value in their elected representatives, honesty is rated highest, followed by trustworthiness, accessibility and competence. Fewer than a quarter cite experience as one of the three most important attributes in an elected politician, which suggests that the long apprenticeships valued by many party activists do not make much of an impact on voters. Other desireable attributes include independence, understanding, personality, intelligence, availability and integrity. Saints, please apply.

The closing sentence, "Saints, please apply" implies that people of "independence, understanding, personality, intelligence, availability and integrity" do not exist. That is not only disparaging, it is untrue. We don't lack people with those qualities, we lack the means to select and elevate them to positions of political leadership.

4) Robert Michels, Political Parties[5]

* Organization implies the tendency to oligarchy. In every organization, whether it be a political party, a professional union, or any other association of the kind, the aristocratic tendency manifests itself very clearly. The mechanism of the organization, while conferring a solidity of structure, induces serious changes in the organized mass, completely inverting the respective position of the leaders and the led. As a result of organization, every party or professional union becomes divided into a minority of directors and a majority of directed.

* It is indisputable that the oligarchical and bureaucratic tendency of party organization is a matter of technical and practical necessity. It is the inevitable product of the very principle of organization ... Its only result is, in fact, to strengthen the rule of the leaders, for it serves to conceal from the mass a danger which really threatens democracy.

We will do well to look beyond the platitudes that harness academic inquiry to existing political structures; it is time to consider the benefits that will flow from making politics a project shared by the entire community.

PRACTICAL DEMOCRACY

Method

1) For each election, divide the entire electorate into
   groups of three randomly chosen people. (see Footnote on
   Group Size)

   a) The random grouping mechanism must insure that no two
      people are assigned to a triad if they served together
      in a triad in any of the five most recent elections.

   b) At any time up to one week before an election, people
      may declare themselves members of any party and may
      create a new party, simply by declaring membership in
      it.  People that do not declare party membership are
      automatically assigned to a set of people with no
      party affiliation.

      Triads will be created from members of the same party,
      as long as more than two members of a party exist.
      When less than three members of a party exist, the
      party's remaining candidates are merged with the
      no-party candidates.

   c) For the convenience of the electorate, triad assignments
      shall be based on geographic proximity to the maximum
      extent practical, subject to the foregoing restrictions.

2) Assign a date and time by which each triad must select one
   of the three members to represent the other two.

   a) Selections will be made by consensus.  If consensus
      cannot be achieved, selection will be by vote, in
      which case, participants may not vote for themselves.

   b) If a triad is unable to select a representative in the
      specified time, all three participants shall be deemed
      disinclined to participate in the process.

3) Divide the participants so selected into new triads.

4) Repeat from step 2 until a target number of selections
   is reached.

For convenience, we refer to each iteration as a 'Level', such that Level 1 is the initial grouping of the entire electorate, Level 2 is the grouping of the selections made at Level 1, and so forth. The entire electorate participates at level 1 giving everyone an equal opportunity to advance to succeeding levels.

Elective and Appointive Offices

The final phase of the Practical Democracy process, electing candidates to specific public offices, is omitted from this outline because it is implementation-dependent. One possible method is to stop the triad process when the number of selections is the smallest number greater than the number of offices to be filled (see example table below). Candidates who attain this level act as a committee that elects its members to the offices they are deemed most fit to occupy. Members not elected to specific offices constitute a pool of validated candidates from which appointive offices must be filled.

Bi-Directionality

The process is inherently bi-directional. Because each advancing participant and elected official sits atop a pyramid of known electors, questions on specific issues can easily be transmitted directly to and from the electors for the guidance or instruction of the official. This capability offers those who implement the process a broad scope, ranging from simple polling of constituents to referenda on selected issues and recall of an elected representative.

Description

An Electoral Commission conducts the process. It assigns the participants of each group and supplies the groups with the text of pending ordinances and a synopsis of the budget appropriate to the group. In addition, on request, it makes the full budget available and supplies the text of any existing ordinances. This enables a careful examination of public matters and encourages a thorough discussion of matters of public concern.

* As the process advances through the levels, the amount of time the participants spend together increases. At level 1, groups may meet for a few minutes, over a back-yard fence, so-to-speak, but that would not be adequate at higher levels. As the levels advance, the participants need more time to evaluate those they are grouped with. They also need transportation and facilities for meeting and voting. These are mechanical details.

* The public has a tendency to think of elections in terms of just a few offices: a congressional seat, a senate race, and so forth. There are, however, a large number of elected officials who fill township, county, state and federal offices. The structure outlined here produces publicly-validated people for those offices.

The initial phase of the process is dominated by participants with little interest in advancing to higher levels. They do not seek public office; they simply wish to pursue their private lives in peace. Thus, the most powerful human dynamic during the first phase (i.e., Level 1 and for some levels thereafter) is a desire by the majority of the participants to select someone who will represent them. The person so selected is more apt to be someone who is willing to take on the responsibility of going to the next level than someone who actively seeks elevation to the next level, but those who do actively seek elevation are not inhibited from doing so.

As the levels increase, the proportion of disinterested parties diminishes and we enter the second phase. Here, participants that advance are marked, more and more, by an inclination to seek further advancement. Thus, a powerful human trait is integrated into the system.

Those who actively seek selection must persuade their triad that they are the best qualified to represent the other two. While that is easy at the lower levels, it becomes more difficult as the process moves forward and participants are matched with peers who also wish to be chosen.

Each participant must make a choice between the other two people in the group knowing that they must rely on that person's integrity to guide their future actions and decisions. Since they are unable to control the person selected (except as otherwise provided to implement the bi-directionality described above), they must choose the person they believe most likely to conduct public business in the public interest.

However, they do not make their choices blindly. Elections are a periodic process. The majority of those seeking advancement will do so each time the process recurs. Some will be successful. They will achieve public office and their performance will be a matter of public record. When they participate in subsequent occurrences of the process, their peers can evaluate that record to help them decide the candidate's suitability for advancement.

Furthermore, the names of advancing candidates are announced as each level completes. Members of the public with knowledge of unseemly acts by an advancing candidate can present details for consideration at the next level. Since, during the second phase of the process, the peers also seek advancement, they will not overlook inappropriate behavior.

Face-to-face meetings in three-person groups eliminate any possibility of voting machine fraud. Significantly, they also allow participants to observe the non-verbal clues humans emit during discourse and will tend to favor moderate attitudes over extremism. The dissimulation and obfuscation that are so effective in campaign-based politics will not work in a group of three people, each of whom has a vital interest in reaching the same goal as the miscreant. Thus, the advancement of participants will depend on their perceived integrity as well as the probity with which they fulfill their public obligations.

This is a distillation process, biased in favor of the most upright and capable of our citizens. It cannot guarantee that unprincipled individuals will never be selected --- such a goal would be unrealistic --- but it does insure that they are the exception rather than the rule.

Michels wrote, "Though it grumbles occasionally, the majority is really delighted to find persons who will take the trouble to look after its affairs."[6] From the perspective of such people; those not motivated to influence communal action, it is worth noting that, as each level completes, two-thirds of the participants can resume their daily lives without further involvement in the process. At the same time, the bi-directional capability of the process lets those who do not advance guide or instruct their representatives to the extent and in the manner provided by those who implement the process.

Simplified Illustration

This table is built around a hypothetical election in a community with an electorate of 13,416 people. For simplicity, we omit party considerations and assume each triad selects a candidate. The election is to produce a Mayor for the community, two Council members, and candidates for state and national offices. The notes describe the rules for handling overflow situations.

Selected
                       Randomly
                         From
              Full  Over Prev.  Total People  People
Level People Triads Flow Level Triads Chosen Unchosen
  1    13416  4472    0    0    4472   4472    8944
  2     4472  1490    2    1    1491   1491    2981 (1)
  3     1491   497    0    0     497    497     994
  4      497   165    2    1     166    166     331
  5      166    55    1    2      56     56     110
  6       56    18    2    1      19     19      37
  7       19     6    1    2       7      7      12 (2)

1) If the number of candidates does not divide equally into triads, any candidates remaining are overflow. Level 2 is a special case. When there is overflow from Level 1, the extra person(s) automatically become candidates at Level 2. Thereafter, when there is overflow at any level, the number of people needed to create a full triad is selected at random from the people who were not selected at the previous level.

2) The seven (7) people selected during the 7th level decide which of their number will serve as Mayor, which will serve on the Council and which will compete for offices at the state and national levels. Any remaining candidates constitute a pool of validated individuals from which appointive offices must be filled.

Time Lapse Example

To give a very rough idea of the time lapse required for such an election, we will hypothesize triad lives of 5 days for the 1st and 2nd levels, 12 days for the 3rd and 4th levels, 19 days for the 5th and 6th levels, and 26 days thereafter. For the example, that would work out something like this:

Level  Start     Report   Days
     1)  07/07/10  07/12/10    5
     2)  07/14/10  07/19/10    5
     3)  07/21/10  08/02/10   12
     4)  08/04/10  08/16/10   12
     5)  08/18/10  09/06/10   19
     6)  09/08/10  09/27/10   19
     7)  09/29/10  10/25/10   26

Cost and Time Consumption

The cost of conducting an election by this method is free to the participants, except for the value of their time, and minimal to the government. The length of time taken to complete an election compares favorably with the time required by campaign-based partisan systems. Even in California, with a voting-eligible population of about 21,993,429, the process would complete in less than 12 levels, or about 230 calendar days.

Rationale

Practical Democracy (PD) springs from the knowledge that some people are better advocates of the public interest than others. In Beyond Adversary Democracy, Jane Mansbridge[7], speaking of a small community in Vermont, says, "When interests are similar, citizens do not need equal power to protect their individual interests; they only need to persuade their wisest, cleverest, most virtuous, and most experienced citizens to spend their time solving town problems in the best interests of everyone." The fundamental challenge of democracy is to find those people and empower them as our representatives. PD does that by giving every member of the electorate an opportunity to influence the selection process while ensuring that no individual or group has an advantage over others.

PD makes no attempt to alter the structure of government. We have the venues for resolving adversarial issues in our legislatures and councils. However, since the solutions that flow from those assemblies cannot be better than the people who craft them, PD lets the electorate select the individuals they believe will resolve adversarial issues in the public interest.

Since peoples' interests change over time, these changing attitudes must be given voice and reflected in the results of each election. The PD process lets particular interests elevate their most effective advocates during each cycle. Advocates of those interests can proclaim their ideas and encourage discussion of their concepts. Some will be accepted, in whole or in part, as they are shown to be in the common interest of the community.

Describing the public's belief in a common good, Mansbridge wrote[8]

"Political theorists in the adversary tradition have tended to downplay the idea of a common good. But despite the frequent recurrence of real conflict, the ideal finds ample support in Selby, whose residents disapprove of 'factions', 'cliques', and 'special groups'. When they talk about the town, Selby's citizens seem not only to hope but to expect that the town meeting will make policy and the townspeople elect officers on the grounds of common interest, not according to which faction had the most votes."

Most people share this view. They expect their elected officials to represent their interests. The difficulty is that communities are made up of diverse interests and the relations between those interests can be contentious. Selecting representatives to resolve those that remain outside the common interest requires a process that lets them show their capacity for careful examination and productive deliberation.

Deliberation is most effective in a face-to-face environment. The identification of common interests occurs more quickly and more freely during the face-to-face exchanges that are integral to the PD process. To quote Mansbridge again, experience teaches us that[9] "... in practice face-to-face contact increases the perception of likeness, encourages decision making by consensus, and perhaps even enhances equality of status."

Face-to-face deliberation not only lets participants examine controversial issues from various perspectives; it also exposes the acts and attitudes of the participants. Each participant's record (including those who have held public office) is a part of the process, ensuring that actors are held accountable for their acts. As the levels advance, the need to be clearly recognized as an advocate of the common interest increases. In this way, Practical Democracy creates a unique merger of self-interest and the public interest.

Summary

PD focuses on selecting representatives who will resolve adversarial encounters to the advantage of the commonweal. During the process, participants necessarily consider both common and conflicting interests, and, because PD is intrinsically bidirectional, it gives advocates of conflicting interests a continuing voice. At the same time, it encourages the absorption of diverse interests, reducing them to their essential element: their effect on the participants in the electoral process. There are no platforms, there is no ideology. The only question is, which participants are the most attuned to the needs of the community and have the qualities required to advocate the common good.

PD disproves the notion that it is 'impractical' to heed everyone's view by giving each person an opportunity to influence the electoral process to the full extent of his or her desire and ability. It lets the public discuss substantive matters --- with a purpose. It gives participants time for deliberation and an opportunity to understand the rationale for the positions of others. It lets every member of the electorate affect the flow of events, to the full extent of their desire and ability.

That is the essence of a democratic political process.

ADDRESSING THE PARADOX OF MASS DEMOCRACY[10]

The Paradox

Robert Ortiz describes the paradox that the more people who vote, the lower the average thoughtfulness of the voters and the less any one individual's vote matters[11]. The paradox results from the practice of treating 'the people' as an amorphous mass whose only political right is to vote their approval or disapproval of choices made by the oligarchy[12] that controls the nation's political parties. PD avoids that error. It recognizes that the people constitute a vast pool of talent containing individuals with the ability to resolve public issues in the public interest. It accomplishes government by the people by empowering the non-partisans in the electorate and giving each of us a voice in our government.

Participation

Individuals with the qualities required to advocate the common interest are uniformly distributed among the people. To provide the largest possible pool of talent, the right to participate in PD is as unlimited as true democracy can conceive. The participants select their 'small, representative sample', not by externally prescribed rules, but by their own judgment.

Participation is not mandatory; it is accomplished by peer pressure. If someone refuses to participate, that person implicitly grants the other members of their triad the right to make a selection on their own. While this circumstance is most likely to obtain at the lowest level, the effect is the same whenever it occurs.

Thoughtfulness

Whether or not participants are sufficiently thoughtful to contribute to the political decisions of the community is a matter for their peers to decide. PD encourages and makes time for active, thoughtful participation and provides pertinent material for consideration. The requirement for thoughtfulness increases as the process proceeds because participants are grouped with ever more capable individuals. Because self-selection is not an option, participants must carefully evaluate their peers to ensure advancement of their own interests, and, by inference, the interests of those who advanced them to their present level.

To inspire thoughtful political decision-making among the public, the political process must give the people a purpose --- a reason to think. When the people have the means to formulate the issues for their government, when they can select their own representatives, in short, when there is a purpose for their participation, the best among them will not lack for thoughtfulness.

Dynamism

The range of issues that concern the people is enormous. The individuals most qualified to deal with those issues will vary with circumstances and time. No set of selection rules can anticipate the qualities required. Only the people, themselves, can do that. PD lets participants examine their peers with regard to issues that concern them before choosing the individuals they deem best qualified to represent them. The process is always responsive to contemporary issues and dynamism is ensured because each election cycle starts with a fresh set of triads.

Conclusion

PD describes a method by which the people can actively participate in the conduct of their government. It provides a means for the people to impress their moral sense on their government. It lets everyone participate in the political process and creates a unique merger of self-interest and the public interest.

PD is a practical way to obviate Michels' Iron Rule of Oligarchy, resolve Ortiz' Paradox of Mass Democracy, and achieve MacIntyre's vision. However large the electorate, Practical Democracy lets each of us participate in the political process to the full extent of our desire and ability.

ENDNOTES

1 Robert Michels, Political Parties, http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/michels/polipart.pdf
2 http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/p-macint.htm
3 http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP08-010
4 http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/downloads/Candidate%20Report.pdf
5 Robert Michels, Political Parties
6 ibid, p. 38
7 Mansbridge, Beyond Adversary Democracy, University of Chicago Press, 1980, p. 88
8 ibid, p. 78
9 ibid. p. 33
10 Daniel Ortiz, Rethinking The Vote, The Paradox of Mass Democracy, p. 210-225
11 ibid, p. 212
12 Michels, Political Parties, p. 27

RATIONALE FOR A GROUP SIZE OF THREE

We prefer triads because we want to ensure the active participation of the entire electorate. We want to guarantee that those who are not accustomed to the serious discussion of political issues are placed in circumstances that allow and encourage them to express their views. The larger the group, the less inclined most of us are to participate in the discussion and the more inclined we are to simply form unvoiced opinions. To encourage broad participation, the discussion group should be of the smallest practical size.

Everyone who participates in the Practical Democracy process is affected by their participation. Many of us are unaware of our political talents because we are never placed in a situation that calls upon us to exercise them. When we are invited to discuss current and prospective political issues with our peers, some of us will blossom and thrive. Some, who start at the lowest levels unsure of their ability, will, when their reason is consulted and they learn they can persuade others of the value of their ideas, gain confidence in their own ability to influence our political existence. (See the references to Alasdair MacIntyre, above)

If we examine the dynamics of the process, we find that, when three members of the electorate, probably neighbors, meet for the first time to select one member of the triad to represent the other two, there will be three kinds of participants:

* those who do not want to be selected

* those willing to be selected, and

* those seeking selection.

If none of the participants are willing to be selected, the triad will not make a choice. The members will drop from the process in accordance with their own wishes.

Among triads that actually make a selection, those who are selected to advance will either be people who want to be selected or people who are willing to be selected. This is not to say that each person must be of one type or the other, but rather that each person will be somewhere on the continuum from those willing to be selected to those wanting to be selected.

For simplicity, we will assume that the desire to be selected is equivalent to a desire for public office and that the people we mention as examples are at one end of the wish-willingness continuum or the other. The reality is infinitely more complex but the results will differ only in degree from what we learn by thinking about the kind of people who are at the hypothetical extremes.

We must note that the attitudes we've mentioned are not static. Although, a person seeking public office is unlikely to become a person willing to serve, a person willing to serve might be transformed into a person seeking public office, in this way:

If person-willing-to-serve (A) decides person-seeking-office (B) is not a good choice, (A) may seek to persuade the triad that (C) is a better choice. Such an effort moves (A) closer to being a person-seeking-office because, if (A) will not support (B), the chance that (A) will be chosen increases.

Based on this assessment, we can say that people who advance to the next level either persuaded the other members of their triad to select them or they relied on the other members to select them. The difference is the extent to which they used persuasion to achieve selection.

In a pyramiding process of the type under discussion, it is reasonable to think that active seekers of public office will succeed more frequently than those who only advance because they are willing to allow themselves to be selected. Thus, after several iterations of the process, we can anticipate that each member of a triad will be a person seeking public office. In other words, the art of persuasion assumes mounting importance as the process advances.

The essence of the activity at each level is that each member of a triad wants to select the person with the qualities deemed most desirable in the individual selected to represent the group. Those seeking selection will try to persuade their peers they have the qualities sought. In this sense, a person seeking public office may be thought of as a 'persuader'.

When persuasion occurs between two people, it takes place as a dialogue with one person attempting to persuade the other. In such events, both parties are free to share in the process. The person to be persuaded can question the persuader as to specific points and present alternative points about the topic under discussion. Under such circumstances, it is possible that the persuader will become the persuaded.

When persuasion involves multiple people, it has a greater tendency to occur as a monologue. The transition from dialogue to monologue accelerates as the number of people to be persuaded increases. The larger the number of people, the less free some of them are to participate. They have fewer opportunities and are less inclined to question specific points or offer alternatives about the topic under discussion. The more assertive individuals will dominate the discussion and the viewpoints of the less assertive members will not be expressed. In such cases, assertive individuals are less likely to be persuaded of the wisdom of an alternative idea, because the view will not be expressed and thoroughly discussed.

Viewed in this light, we can say that when selecting public officials, a system that encourages dialogue is preferable to one that relies on a monologue. Discussion is best encouraged by having fewer people in the "session of persuasion". Because of the need for a definitive decision, we believe the best group size to encourage active involvement by all participants is three.

Introduction

2010-03-31T11:03:00.002-04:00

Our purpose is to consider whether current election processes produce the best-qualified candidates to serve in government, and, if not, how they can be made to do so. To cite Dr. Jane Junn in a 2003 lecture at The Teachers College at Columbia University:

"To properly address the problems of democracy, we must train the focus of our policy recommendations ... on the structures and institutions of government itself ..."
"... We must ask whether citizens are being presented with adequate resources to act, and how we might reenvision the incentives for political engagement to be more inclusive of all citizens."
"... we should continually strive to improve our democratic system of institutions and structures."
"But it must be a democracy that is enacted in a way that provides equal access and opportunities to participate."

The task is formidable.

While I may have an idea or two
The important views will come from you
Concepts devised in a single brain
Can oft by logic be split in twain

We seek productive participation with a touch of humor to help the flow of ideas. Posts should focus on the selection process and avoid discussion of specific political issues or candidates. Such topics are fraught with emotional triggers. Participants must not only post with courage and honesty, but also with courtesy and respect. Posts should make or counter a point. When one agrees with another poster, their contribution will be more effective if they add insight or logic supporting the point.

Participant's views are important. To insure that they are prominent, I will (upon request) add serious, thoughtful posters as additional authors on this blog. In that way, their posts will appear at the primary level instead of as (buried) comments.

Our discussion will be in English (the only language I know). Since English does not have a monopoly on great ideas, I will be happy to help non-English speakers with English phrasing to the extent of my ability and time.

Fred

Factionalism

2010-03-29T11:04:00.000-04:00

Partisanship is natural for humans. We seek out and align ourselves with others who share our views. Through them, we hone our ideas and gain courage from the knowledge that we are not alone in our beliefs. Partisanship gives breadth, depth and volume to our voice. In and of itself, partisanship is not only inevitable, it is healthy.

On the other hand, partisans have a penchant for denigrating those who think differently, often without considering the salient parts of opposing points of view. They seek the power to impose their views on those who don't share them, while overlooking their own shortcomings. Communism and National Socialism showed these tendencies. Both had features that attracted broad public support throughout a national expanse and both degenerated into destructive forces because their partisans gained control of their governments.

The danger in Communism and National Socialism was not that they attracted partisan support; it was that the partisans gained control of government. In general, partisanship is healthy when it helps us give voice to our views. It is destructive when it achieves power. All ideologies, whether of the right or the left, differ from Communism and National Socialism only in the extent to which their partisans are able to impose their biases on the public.

Our first President was keenly aware of the dangers factionalism posed for our new nation. In his 1796 Farewell Address, George Washington said (in part):

"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy....

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose; and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."

Partisanship is a vital part of society ... provided it is always a voice and never a power. The danger is not in partisanship, it is in allowing partisans to control government.

Our political infrastructure is controlled by the very factionalism Washington decried. If we are to, as Dr. Junn said, "... strive to improve our democratic system of institutions and structures." must we not examine the effect of the partisanship which controls our nation's politics?

Fred

Comments On Political Parties (1)

2010-03-28T16:23:00.000-04:00

"When I began this work I took for granted nothing but what could be observed as readily by others as by myself ..."

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Emile, 1762

OVERVIEW
Political parties are quasi-official institutions designed to acquire the reins of government. They sponsor candidates for public office by providing the resources needed to conduct a campaign for election. As a condition of their sponsorship, they require that the candidates support the party, thus giving the party ultimate control of the elected officials.

In the United States, our governmental system is defined by our Constitution, and nothing in our Constitution expresses or implies the need for political parties. They are an extra-Constitutional invention, devised to advance partisan interest. The problem of partisanship was well understood by the framers of our Constitution:

"When the Founders of the American Republic wrote the U.S. Constitution in 1787, they did not envision a role for political parties in the governmental order. Indeed, they sought through various constitutional arrangements such as separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, and indirect election of the president by an electoral college to insulate the new republic from political parties and factions."

Professor John F. Bibby

A "party system" developed in our nation because our early leaders used their standing to consolidate their power. Politicians in a position to do so institutionalized their advantage by forming political parties and creating rules to preserve them and aid their operation:

"The Democratic-Republicans and Federalists invented the modern political party -- with party names, voter loyalty, newspapers, state and local organizations, campaign managers, candidates, tickets, slogans, platforms, linkages across state lines, and patronage." (Wikipedia)

These features advance party interest at the expense of the public interest. They show how political parties are an embodiment of human nature; they put self-interest above all other considerations. They function precisely as a thoughtful person would expect them to function.

PARTISANSHIP
Political parties are grounded in partisanship. Partisanship is natural for humans. We seek out and align ourselves with others who share our views. Through them, we hone our ideas and gain courage from the knowledge that we are not alone in our beliefs. Partisanship gives breadth, depth and volume to our voice. In and of itself, partisanship is not only inevitable, it is healthy.

On the other hand, partisans have a penchant for denigrating those who think differently, often without considering the salient parts of opposing points of view. They seek the power to impose their views on those who don't share them, while overlooking their own shortcomings. Communism and National Socialism showed these tendencies. Both had features that attracted broad public support throughout a national expanse and both degenerated into destructive forces because their partisans gained control of their governments.

The danger in Communism and National Socialism was not that they attracted partisan support; it was that the partisans gained control of government. In general, partisanship is healthy when it helps us give voice to our views. It is destructive when it achieves power. All ideologies, whether of the right or the left, differ from Communism and National Socialism only in the extent to which their partisans are able to impose their biases on the public.

Partisanship is a vital part of society ... provided it is always a voice and never a power. The danger is not in partisanship, it is in allowing partisans to control government.

Fred

Comments On Political Parties (2)

2010-03-27T19:01:00.000-04:00

OLIGARCHIC PARTY STRUCTURE
The political parties that control all political activity in the United States are in no sense democratic. The American people do not elect those who control the parties. In fact, most Americans don't even know who they are. They are appointed by their party and serve at the party's pleasure. We, the people the parties are supposed to represent, have no control over who these people are, how long they serve, or the deals they make to raise the immense amounts of money they use to keep their party in power. They constitute a ruling elite above and beyond the reach of the American people.

When we allow those who control our political parties to usurp the power of governing our nation, it is foolish to imagine that we retain the power bestowed on us by our Constitution. It is a tragedy that so few of us recognize (or are willing to acknowledge) that we have relinquished our right to govern ourselves to unknown people who proclaim themselves our agents.

CORRUPTION
Corruption pervades our political system because the parties control the selection of candidates for public office. Candidates are not chosen for their integrity. Quite the contrary, they are chosen after they demonstrate their willingness and ability to dissemble, to obfuscate and to mislead the electorate. They are chosen when they prove they will renounce principle and sacrifice honor for the benefit of their party.

The result is a circular process that renounces virtue and is ruled by cynicism:

* Candidates for public office cannot mount a viable campaign without party sponsorship, so they obtain sponsorship by agreeing to the party's terms.

* The party, assured of the loyalty of its candidates, attracts donors because it can promise that its candidates will support the objectives set by the party, i.e., the goals of the donors.

* From the donors, the party obtains the resources it needs to attract appealing candidates and bind them to the party's will.

This cycle makes political parties conduits for corruption. Businesses, labor unions and other vested interests give immense amounts of money and logistical support to political parties to push their agenda and to secure the passage of laws that benefit the donors. The political parties meet their commitment to the donors by picking politicians who can be relied upon to enact the laws and implement the policies the donors' desire. The politicians so selected are the least principled of our citizens, but are the only choices available to the American people in our "free" elections.

None of this is a secret. The parties conduct their business with our knowledge and tacit approval. We know, full well, how they operate. We know about the "party bosses", "pork barrels", "party loyalty", "slush funds", "party whips", and the whole lexicon of political manipulation. Since we know these things exist and do not prevent them, we are party to the very corruption we decry.

THE MYTH OF CORRUPTIBILITY
Some believe we cannot remove corruption from our political systems because humans are corruptible. Why should we believe such a canard?

We are misled by the high visibility of deceit and corruption in our culture. The idea that it is inescapable leads to the self-defeating notion that trying to correct it is futile.

The reality is that the vast majority of humans are honorable, law-abiding people. They have to be, for society could not exist otherwise. By far, the greater percentage of our friends, our relatives, our co-workers and our neighbors are trustworthy people.

The reason our political leaders are corrupt is that party politics elevates unscrupulous people by design. It does so by heeding the notion attributed to B. F. Skinner: "The bad do bad because the bad is rewarded". Since the goal of a party is to advance its own interest, it rewards those who do so unfettered by the restraints of honor. Once these unprincipled people achieve leadership they infect our society because morality is a top-down phenomenon.

The idea that we can't remove corruption from our political systems because we are corruptible is nonsense. It is a myth. The problem is not the people; it is a political system that demands subservient politicians at the expense of integrity. The vast majority of our peers are honest, principled people. When we make probity a primary concern in our electoral process, the pervasiveness of dishonesty in our society will diminish.

PASSION VERSUS INTELLECT
Political parties appeal to emotion by applying the principles of behavioral science to manipulate the public. They mount, finance and staff campaigns designed to inflame the passions of the electorate.

Communication during election campaigns is one-way. There is no genuine attempt to consult the public interest and the serious issues are seldom those raised during a campaign. Surveys are conducted to find "hot buttons" which generate a desired response and professionals use the information to mold "messages" which the candidates and the parties feed the public in a flood of misinformation. It is a rabble-rousing technique.

Intelligent decisions require dialogue; assertions must be examined, not in the sterile environment of a televised debate, but in depth. The electorate must be able to examine candidates and discuss matters of public concern, and, with the knowledge so gained, make decisions. They have no opportunity to do so.

SEPARATION OF POWERS
The U. S. Constitution separated the powers of government in such a way as to operate as checks upon each other. Separation of Powers is lauded as a cornerstone of our Constitution. I'm unaware of any substantive disagreement with this view of the intent of our Founders.

Political parties persistently attack the Separation of Powers. They use their immense resources to maximize their power by forcing our public officials to vote en bloc on crucial issues, making a mockery of the safeguards we rely on to protect our freedoms. When a single group of people with a common interest succeeds in controlling multiple branches of our government, it is ludicrous to imagine we have a system of checks and balances (as was vividly demonstrated by our recent experience with the baneful effects of single party dominance.)

Fred

Improving Our Political System

2010-03-26T17:21:00.001-04:00

SEEKING IMPROVEMENT

Political parties, in their omnivorous quest for power have, during my lifetime, gone a long way toward destroying the greatness of my homeland. Unrestrained, they will succeed.

It need not be so.

Those who seek good government need not tolerate the corruption of party politics. We do not need partisanship, which sets one person against another; we need independent representatives who will think for themselves and reach intelligent decisions on matters of public concern. In other words, to improve our government, we must change the way we select our representatives.

We have the technological ability to support a more democratic method; the big hurdle is to get people to acknowledge the problem. Many fall victim to the common malady of believing our press clippings. We've been told so many times through so many years that our political system is the best in the world, some of us can't admit it is a cesspool of corruption, funded by special interests that buy the laws we endure.

Most Americans assume political parties are legitimate centers of power under our Constitution. That is untrue. Nothing in our Constitution authorizes, institutes or enables political parties. The difficulty lies, not in our Constitution, but in our will. We must want to build a political system that puts public interest above partisanship, a method that responds to vested interests but is not controlled by them.

Political systems are always an embodiment of human nature. Until we learn to harness our own nature, we can improve neither our politics nor our society. There is no Constitutional bar to devising a more democratic process; the only impediment is ourselves. Since we can not divorce our political institutions from our own nature, we must make virtue a desirable attribute in those who seek political advancement. That may be difficult ... but it is not impossible.

Fred

Purpose

2010-03-25T16:01:00.000-04:00

Our goal is to create a representative democracy which allows the entire electorate to participate in the election process, to the extent of their desire and ability. We want to eliminate all agencies and barriers which advance or retard an individual's pursuit of public office. We want to design a method that allows people to decide, for themselves, who are the best among them to act as their representatives in government.

Those who wrote the Constitution of the United States of America believed political parties to be self-serving groups that sowed dissent to advance their own interest. We've learned, from events in our own country and in others, the accuracy of that assessment. We've seen extreme cases of partisanship, like Communism and National Socialism, destroy their own nations in paroxysms of self-righteousness.

The danger in Communism and National Socialism was not that they attracted partisan support; it was that the partisans gained control of government. In general, partisanship is healthy when it helps us give voice to our views. It is destructive when it achieves power. All ideologies, whether of the right or the left, differ from Communism and National Socialism only in the extent to which their partisans are able to impose their biases on the public.

Even so, partisanship is a vital part of society. It is natural for humans to seek out and align themselves with others who share their views. Partisanship gives breadth, depth and volume to an individual's voice. In and of itself, partisanship is not only inevitable, it is healthy ... provided it is always a voice and never a power. The danger is not in partisanship, it is in allowing partisans to control government.

Our goal is to devise an electoral process which encourages the analysis and adoption of partisan ideas without endowing partisan groups with governmental power.

We want to change election from a ballyhooed carnival bathed in hyperbole and deceit to a sober, contemplative process.

We want to recognize that humans naturally pursue their own interest and design the election process in such a way that one's probity significantly affects their ability to achieve public office.

We want to create a political infrastructure where David Geffen's assertion that, "Everybody in politics lies ...", is no longer a valid political yardstick in our country.

Fred

Selecting Leaders, Foundation

2010-03-24T21:40:00.001-04:00

To improve our nation's government and our society, we can no longer allow unknown politicians to select our political leaders. Instead, we must select our leaders from among ourselves. We must insure they are the best of our people rather than the worst. In other words, our leaders must be selected FROM the people rather than FOR the people.

Our method must be democratic (i.e., allow the entire electorate to participate), and egalitarian (i.e., give everyone an equal chance to participate). The Selecting Leaders sections describe a way to accomplish this while harnessing human nature by making probity a prime concern when evaluating potential representatiaves.

Although the process is continuous, I will describe it as having two phases. The human factors dominating the first phase will metamorphose into a different set of factors as the second phase develops. This metamorphosis is the "magic" of the process; it makes virtue a valuable quality for aspiring candidates.

Selecting Leaders, Method

2010-03-23T21:49:00.001-04:00

Divide the electorate into groups of three people.

Assign a date and time by which each group must select one of the three to represent the other two.

Divide the participants so selected into groups of three.

Repeat from step 2 until a target number of selections is reached.

Selecting Leaders, Discussion (1)

2010-03-22T21:50:00.001-04:00

An Election Commission conducts the process. It names the participants of each group and supplies the groups with the text of pending ordinances and a synopsis of the budget appropriate to the group. In addition, on request, it makes the full budget available and supplies the text of any existing ordinances. This insures a careful examination of public matters and encourages a thorough discussion of partisan views on matters of public concern.

For convenience, we refer to each iteration as a "Level", such that Level 1 is the initial grouping of the entire electorate, Level 2 is the grouping of the selections made at Level 1, and so forth. The entire electorate participates at level 1 giving everyone an equal opportunity to advance to succeeding levels.

As the process advances through the levels, the amount of time the participants spend together increases. At level 1, groups may meet for a few minutes, over a back-yard fence, so-to-speak, but that would not be adequate at higher levels. As the levels advance, the participants need more time to evaluate those they are grouped with. They also need transportation and facilities for meeting and voting. These are mechanical details.

The public has a tendency to think of elections in terms of just a few offices: a congressional seat, a senate race, and so forth. There are, however, a large number of elected officials who fill township, county, state and federal offices. The structure outlined here provides qualified candidates for those offices, as follows:

At a predefined level (determined by the number of offices to be filled), the two candidates not selected to advance to the next level move into a parallel process leading to selection for offices; first in the local, then the county, then the state, and, finally, the national governments.

Selecting Leaders, Discussion (2)

2010-03-21T21:54:00.001-04:00

The initial phase of the process is dominated by participants with little interest in advancing to higher levels. They do not seek public office; they simply wish to pursue their private lives in peace. Thus, the most powerful human dynamic during the first phase (i.e., Level 1 and for some levels thereafter) is a desire by the majority of the participants to select someone who will represent them. The person so selected is more apt to be someone who is willing to take on the responsibility of going to the next level than someone who actively seeks elevation to the next level, but those who do actively seek elevation are not inhibited from doing so.

As the levels increase, the proportion of disinterested parties diminishes and we enter the second phase. Here, participants that advance are marked, more and more, by an inclination to seek further advancement. Thus, a powerful human trait is integrated into the system.

Those who actively seek selection must persuade their group that they are the best qualified to represent the other two. While that is easy at the lower levels, it becomes more difficult as the process moves forward and participants are matched with peers who also wish to be chosen.

Each participant must make a choice between the other two people in the group knowing that they must rely on that person's integrity to guide their future actions and decisions. Since they are unable to control the person selected, they must choose the person they believe most likely to conduct public business in the public interest.

However, they do not make their choices blindly. Elections are a periodic process. The majority of those seeking advancement will do so each time the process recurs. Some will be successful. They will achieve public office and their performance will be a matter of public record. When they participate in subsequent occurrences of the process, their peers can evaluate that record to help them decide the candidate's suitability for advancement. Furthermore, the names of advancing candidates are announced as each level completes. Members of the public with knowledge of unseemly acts by an advancing candidate can present details for consideration at the next level. Since, after the initial levels, the peers also seek advancement, they won't overlook inappropriate behavior.

Face-to-face meetings in three-person groups eliminate any possibility of voting machine fraud. Significantly, they also allow participants to observe the non-verbal clues humans emit during discourse and will tend to favor moderate attitudes over extremism. The dissimulation and obfuscation that are so effective in media-based politics will not work in a group of three people, each of whom has a vital interest in reaching the same goal as the miscreant. Thus, the advancement of participants will depend on their perceived integrity as well as the probity with which they fulfill their public obligations.

This is a distillation process, biased in favor of the most upright and capable of our citizens. It cannot guarantee that unprincipled individuals will never be selected ... such a goal would be unrealistic ... but it does insure that they are the exception rather than the rule.

The process is inherently bi-directional. Because each elected official sits atop a pyramid of known electors, questions on specific issues can easily be transmitted directly to and from the electors for the guidance or instruction of the official.

The cost of conducting an election by this method is free to the participants, except for the value of their time, and minimal to the government. Thus, it removes the greatest single cause of corruption in our current system ... the need for campaign funds.

I originally thought to buttress this presentation by citing two newspaper articles that discuss the (apparent) lack of interest in the election process among the majority of the electorate and the working of corruption in our system. I've decided that to do so would be superfluous.

Selecting Leaders, Illustration

2010-03-20T21:56:00.000-04:00

This table provides a visual description of the Active Democracy (or Troika) method of selecting public officials. It uses the 2004 voting-eligible population of New Jersey reported by Dr. Michael McDonald, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.

At about the seventh level, unselected candidates may enter a secondary process for selection to positions in municipal, county, state and federal governments.

Level
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)

Electors
5,637,378
1,879,126
626,375
208,791
69,597
23,199
7,733
2,577
859
286
95

Selected
1,879,126
626,375
208,791
69,597
23,199
7,733
2,577
859
286
95
31

Unselected
3,758,252
1,252,751
417,584
139,194
46,398
15,466
5,156
1,718
573
191
64

CONCLUSION
The idea presented here will be considered radical. It bears little chance of adoption because it protects no vested interest. The only way such a process will ever be adopted is if the concept can be made a topic of discussion, particularly among students interested in achieving a righteous government.

Election Process, Time Lapse

2010-03-19T16:57:00.000-04:00

It is important to note that the method just described defines a process of selecting representatives. At present, our elections are events; they are a circus, with barkers and hucksters proving "There's a sucker born every minute." They are media stunts, selling packaged goods. The public can't inspect the packages, so they get damaged goods ... with no provision for return.

Here, we're discussing election as a process ... a process by which every candidate is carefully examined before being selected.

The election process will take several months. The Election Commission will set the starting and reporting dates for each level. Here, as well as I'm able to display tabular data, is a rough outline of the time lapses for an election cycle:

Level
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)

Start
02/07/07
02/14/07
02/21/07
03/07/07
03/21/07
04/11/07
05/02/07
05/30/07
06/27/07
07/25/07
08/22/07

Report
02/12/07
02/19/07
03/05/07
03/19/07
04/09/07
04/30/07
05/28/07
06/25/07
07/23/07
08/20/07
09/17/07

Days
5
5
12
12
19
19
26
26
26
26
26

Electors
5367378
1789126
596375
198791
66263
22087
7362
2454
818
272
90

Selected
1789126
596375
198791
66263
22087
7362
2454
818
272
90
30

Note: Observant folks may spot a difference in the counts of electors selected from the table in the previous post. I made a digit transposition error in the level 1 division in the first post and have corrected it in this table. Mea culpa.

The Election Commission groups participants randomly. In addition, to the maximum extent practical, it also groups them geographically. The intent is that neighbors make their selections from among themselves. As the levels advance, this requirement recedes and participants are given more time to evaluate the others in their group.

Groups at the first two levels have 5 days to select one member to represent the other two. At levels 3 and 4, they have 12 days. At levels 5 and 6, they have 19 days. After that, each level has 26 days to make a selection.

I emphasize that the table is intended as an illustration, only. An actual implementation will require detailed knowledge of the public offices to be filled and may differ in several ways from the depiction above. The role of the Election Commission is to work out these details.

Starting at about the 5th level, I anticipate that the Election Commission will provide each group with meeting facilities, meals and such group activities as recreational outings. This insures the participants are exposed to each other in a relaxed atmosphere as well as in the more formal setting of detailed discussions.

Fred

Urbano (१)

2010-03-18T12:03:00.000-04:00

Those who read the material on this blog should be aware that others demur. If we are to reach good decisions, their comments are as important as the assertions made in the postings. Unfortunately, their comments are buried in such a way that they are not readily available. I plan to bring some of them to this "upper" level to be sure they're available to all। For example, Urbano dela Cruz posted the following in response to
"Comments On Political Parties (1)":

Fred,

"Ideology is significant for large groups of people. It is considered foolish in individuals. Among small groups of people, employment situations and social gatherings for example, those who maintain an ideological attitude are more apt to be shunned than heeded"

I'm not sure I quite agree with that statement. You'll have to show me more proof than inference. It might be said that ideologies -and the ideologically driven attract their own groups of followers.

"However high-minded the foundation of a party may be, those who achieve power by espousing its principles become cynical when they achieve power. One of the reasons is that most of the decisions they are called upon to make have nothing to do with the ideology they proclaim."

again, those is a value-judgement laden statements. you already judge that the cart comes before the horse (i.e. -espouse principles -to achieve power) and then judge the effect (become cynical) based on another judgement call ('the decisions..have nothing to do...")

You may very well be right in your analysis, but I would ask for more proof that that is how things operate. (I find it very perilous to begin ascribing motives.)

(end of Urbano's post)

I have, indeed, made value-judgements regarding our political existence. Had I not, I would not feel the system needs improvement. However, there IS a problem with having done so.

Value, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

I shan't, in this case, try to prove the correctness of my opinions because I consider it a digression. The way I arrived at them is less important than the conclusion: Our political infrastructure is flawed and correcting it will require all our attention. Even so, Urbano has raised an important point. The reader must decide if my bias is so great as to invalidate my conclusion. (Note: If there is a specific question, for example, if Urbano considers the question of ideology in small groups important enough, I'll do my best to explain my view.)

In addition to this point, Urbano raised a number of questions about the troika/triad method of selecting representatives. I plan to examine those questions (and, hopefully, those raised by others) in subsequent posts.

Fred

Urbano (२)

2010-03-18T11:00:00.000-04:00

The system ate my original post. This is a repost.

You may enjoy Urbano's unique analysis of political systems.

One of the questions Urbano dela Cruz asked had to do with corrupting (or gaming) the election system described earlier:

"can I game the system by having accomplices? -I can see how it would be possible to do that in the first, 2nd or even third iterations. then it become increasingly difficult as the chain progresses.

nevertheless, what if I can game the system at the start by getting two accomplices to pair up with a person I want to eliminate? they vote him out early in the game.

the counter game might turn into some sort of institutionalized swift-boating? finding collaborators whose job is to eliminate people at certain levels to make sure they do not move forward."

To take the last first, one person can guarantee that another member of the same group will not be selected by never voting for that person. I suspect that will be a common occurrence, particularly at the lowest levels. To plan to eliminate some specific person would be more difficult. The group makeups are random so targetting an individual would be, at best, complex.

I suppose someone could watch the group participant announcements (assuming the names are made public before the group makes a selection) and, if one had a particular animus for an individual, try to bribe one of the other two participants to guarantee that individual is not selected. That seems a bit extreme, just to prevent the advance of a single person, when those grouped with that person may very well reject the person, without prompting.

With regard to bribing one's way to the top, at first blush, it seems easy. In any group of participants, A, B, and C, A need only bribe one of the other two. If B accepts the bribe, B always votes for A, hamstringing C. If C happens to vote for B, B simply alienates C, driving C's vote to A.

Even so, I don't think the strategy can be pursued successfully, and certainly not widely. When A advances a level, the new group has two new participants D and E. D and E reached the level either by bribery or on their merits. In both cases, A has a problem.

If A propositions D and D is advancing by bribery, one may succeed in bribing the other, but only one of the two miscreants can survive.

If A propositions D and D advanced on merit, D has just achieved advancement on the strength of intellect, attitude about public concerns and the power of persuasion, and is filled with pride and confidence. Under those conditions, D is a poor target for A and is unlikely to risk taking an illegal payment and giving up an opportunity for continued advancement.

Obviously, I'm attributing "probable" actions to people I don't know, but these are not the only considerations.

I believe the pursuit of self-interest is pervasive in humans. However, those who focus solely on bribery ignore the breadth of the ways we gratify our self-interest. The giving and taking of bribes are among the least significant of these ... and they are concentrated among the losers in our society. The ways associated with our sense of our own worth are among the prime ways we pursue our self-interest.

Why do you investigate the possibilities for improving the democratic political process and share your views on the topic with others, on your blog? I'll bet the biggest reason is that you believe you are participating in a worthwhile endeavor. For my part, why do I work hard on the material I post here? I do it because I believe I'm encouraging examination of a serious problem in my beloved homeland. I'm working in the full knowledge that I'll never see the fruits of my efforts, but confident, nonetheless, that those fruits will come ... if I can persuade anyone that these ideas are worthy of contemplation and action ... or when someone more gifted than I approaches the problem in a more appealing way.

We ought not deny to others attitudes we find in ourselves. How much more powerful will these feelings be in the person who met with others, listened to their points of view, considered their concerns, discussed solutions and responded in such a manner as to warrant their own selection and advancement, and who wishes to continue advancing?

There is another, very powerful, consideration ...

Political parties act as intermediaries. They have fund raisers, people who solicit and accept the "donations" that influence the laws the party supports. The elected officials (at least the smarter ones) do not take bribes. The party takes the money and tells the official how to vote. If you eliminate the parties, all that's left is direct bribery ... and bribery is illegal. While many people will participate in immoral acts, illegal acts are not as popular.

There is an immense difference between approaching the fund raiser for a political party and negotiating a deal that gets you the laws you want ... and walking up to an individual who has been selected because he was perceived as a person of integrity ... and offering a bribe. Since the target of the bribe is, by the nature of his circumstances, alert to the probability that he will be approached, the briber will be running an enormous risk.

Again, I'm attributing "probable" actions to people I don't know, but I believe these ideas are worthy of thought. Please challenge them! If my view is weak or incorrect, the sooner I find out about it, the better.

Fred

Urbano (३)

2010-03-18T10:00:00.001-04:00

The system ate my original post. This is a repost.

You may enjoy Urbano's unique analysis of political systems.

Urbano dela Cruz also asked several other questions:

Urbano: "how do you select the triads at each level?"

I anticipate that triad (group) selection will be done by computer. An Election Commission will maintain the voter rolls and process the data. In setting up the triads, the Commission must insure randomness at the initial level. After the initial assignments, randomness is natural because the triad selections will tend to be unpredictable.

One possible way of insuring randomness in the initial triad assignments is to maintain the rolls in an unordered fashion with new voters added to the bottom and deletions in place. In this case, the grouping would be a two-step process:

Step 1: A bottom-up grouping of the voters in sets of three.

Step 2: Repetitively applying a geographical-based algorithm to optimize the groups in terms of each voter's residence until an optimum point is reached; the point at which the greatest distance between two voters can not be reduced.

For subsequent levels, as each group reports its selection, the selection will be added to a "level-list" in the order in which they are received. The "level-list" will then be processed in the same way as the voter rolls.

This is one possibility. I'm sure professional data managers can come up with something better. Obviously, I'm assuming that such a geographical-based algorithm exists or can be constructed.

Urbano: "you require that a person can't vote for himself in a triad so there is the possibility of a three way tie each time. how do you resolve that?"

"If a group is unable to select a representative in the specified time, the group is disqualified."

This is, I think, an important feature. If none of the three is able to persuade the other two that they are worthy of selection, they are not suited for public office. (If they can not persuade two people of their value, would we want them representing us?)

Urbano: "what if the worthy ones lose interest early?"

Many worthy people shun public life. I don't think we can decide who is "worthy" and who is not, except by their willingness to make their presence felt on our society. If you don't mind a modest jest on a serious topic, judging by our present electoral process, the less worthy people are, the more interest they have in public office.

Your question invites two other observations:

1) The triad/troika process I've described completes in some number of months. Since it is progressive, I think those who advance will have a increasing interest rather than diminishing. That seems less onerous than the "campaign trail" which one must traverse to the end before finding out whether or not they have been rejected.

2) The process will require a law similar to that which allows military reservists to spend time on active duty without penalty at their place of employment. Those who advance can not be economically penalized for doing so.

Urbano: "will the process of self-selection defeat the intent? i.e. -the more determined ones will keep moving forward -with no accounting for actual abilities?"

Determination is one of the many traits successful candidates will require. I don't consider that a bad thing.

Their accountability will be severely tested. One may self-select, but one can not advance without convincing two other people, who (at the upper levels) have as much interest in advancing as they do, that they have the talents and abilities that make them the best choice of the three.

Fred

Urbano (४)

2010-03-18T09:00:00.000-04:00

The system ate my original post. This is a repost.

You may enjoy Urbano's unique analysis of political systems.

Urbano: "I wasn't even thinking of bribery as the mechanism. Partisanship or idealogical commitment would be enough of a driver.

Say you have a group of 100 people all committed to (for argument's sake) an ultra right agenda and conversely a list of people that they know disagree with them and they would not at all want to see in any elective position.

You would task them with just two directives: get themselves selected in a triad -or, if they find themselves in a triad with a person in their "hit" list, they would simply vote against that person.

Say person A is one of the 100 and he encounters person B -one of the persons on the hit list and person C in a triad.

If person A cannot persuade person C to vote for him, then he must simply vote against person B. Since he can't vote for himself, and neither can B, C holds the deciding vote, but A can force either a 3 way tie: A, B, C or a win for C if B votes for C. Either way, he has eliminated B from moving forward."

I think you have described a reasonable possibility. To some extent, the risk is attenuated among larger groups. In the New Jersey example I used to describe the process, there would be 1,879,126 groups at the initial level. The chances that one of the radicals is matched with one of the targets is quite small.

If the radical group were large, say one of the major unions, for example, they could pose a definite threat. However, to do so they would have to instruct a lot of people. That would reduce the possibility of their conducting their attack in secret.

As we traverse the continuum of possibilities from small secret cabals to broadly supported ideologies, we move from a highly diluted threat toward the ideal where the ideology or partisan group succeeds because it represents a broadly shared concept.

In a smaller sample, say in a community of 25,000 where a group of radicals are determined that someone not be allowed to become Mayor (for example), the possibility you describe is more likely.

Even then, though, the initial level will have over 8,000 groups. Some of the radicals might very well persist several levels so they can carry out their assignment ... but, by that time, they'd be opposed to whoever the other two candidates are by the nature of the system. They wouldn't be concentrating on expelling the target as much as they'd be concentrating on expelling both of the other members of their group so they can carry their agenda forward.

I think its also worthy of note that people with such radical commitments might very well alienate others who don't share their views. In that case, the possibility of their advancing far enough to carry out their task would be small.

Is it possible that a radical and a target will be assigned to the same group. Yes, but the odds are against that happening before the system has an opportunity to weed out the bad actors.

Urbano: "Would you consider starting with groups of 5 instead of 3? This would prevent a single person from hijacking the process."

Absolutely! There is nothing proprietary in any part of this concept. It's merely a starting place. Like the auctioneer says, "It doesn't matter where we start ... it's where we end up that counts."

I used a group size of 3 because it seemed like the easiest way to describe the concept. If group sizes of 5, or 7, or 9 offer more advantages than disadvantages. I'd be pleased with the change.

Some time back, when I was discussing this topic with my younger brother, Jim, I tossed out the notion of increasing the group size from 3 to 5, as you suggest. Here is his reply (I'll put my objection to one of his points at the end of his description.):

"Regarding expanding groups from 3 to 5, it seems that this might increase the probability of inconclusive results (or no winner).

With groups of 3, following the rules you specify there on only 2 possible outcomes:

2 votes for one member,

1 vote for another member of the group.

or

1 vote for each member of the group.

Your thesis is based on the assertion that the member receiving 2 of the 3 votes (the maximum allowed in groups of three) will be the more likely to provide leadership with integrity.

With groups of 5, assuming similar rules as in the case of groups of 3 (i.e. you must vote for one member of the group but cannot vote for yourself) 6 outcomes are possible (no one can receive 5 votes since no one can vote for themselves).

4 votes for one member, 1 vote for another member of the group.

3 votes for one member, 1 vote for each of two other members of the group.

3 votes for one member, 2 votes for one other member of the group.

2 votes for one member and 1 vote each for three other members of the group.

2 votes for one member, 2 votes for another member and 1 vote for a third member of the group.

1 vote for each member of the group.

In groups of 5 then, if only the candidate who receives 4 votes is considered likely to have adequate integrity to provide leadership, then the statistical probability of groups of 5 reaching a satisfactory conclusion (not deadlocked) will be quite a bit lower (1/6) than in the case of 3 member groups where the statistical probability will be 1 out of 2 possible outcomes.

This analysis is strictly mathematical and does not consider variables such as "human nature" or small group dynamics. Consideration of these variables will skew the distribution of results but is unlikely to render productive outcomes for groups of 5 more probable than for groups of 3."

My only objection to Jimmy's analysis is that I see no reason to stipulate that a candidate must receive 4 votes. A person who attracts 3 of the 5 votes will be fine. I don't even think it will be a problem in a particularly contentious group, where the "winner" only gets two votes.

On that basis, the top four of the six possible outcomes would produce winners. At first blush, groups of five seems like a more attractive alternative than groups of three. As you say, it lowers the possibility of one person preventing the selection of a "target" individual.

Urbano: "However, people form groups and groups form agendas.

In this section, you refer to the work of Robert Cialdini. I can't comment intelligently on that because I'm not familiar with his work. At the risk of putting my foot in my mouth, I think each individual will come into the triad with a clean slate as far as the group is concerned.

Effectively, they all start with a clean slate. If they have a commitment to a concept or ideal that predates the life of the triad, we can expect them to be loyal to that concept or idea ... but that's not a bad thing. As a matter of fact, that's the purpose of the process: It gives participants a chance to espouse their ideas as well as they're able. If they make their points with such force that they convince the two other people in their triad that they are worthy of representing them, they get a chance to try again at a higher level.

In and of itself, partisanship is not only inevitable, it is healthy. Our goal is to build a political system that responds to vested interests but is not controlled by them. The expression of ideas in the triads is a step in that direction.

Fred

Devilish Details

2010-03-18T08:00:00.000-04:00

They say the devil is in the details. Here are an introductory few, with comments. The comments are intended, not as answers, but as spurs for thought. Critical analysis will produce a sounder result:

Face-to-Face Meetings
A central feature of Active Democracy is that participants are required to physically meet with other members of their group. This detail offers benefits and imposes penalties:

Among the good things:
a) It allows participants to experience the non-verbal clues people emit when they communicate.

b) It encourages the discussion, dynamically, of current local, national and international events in an unstructured format. Such discussions tend to reveal the natural reactions of the participants.

c) It encourages spontaneity when discussing the more formal material supplied by the Election Commission ... things like pending ordinances and the budget.

d) It removes any possibility of ballot fraud.

On the downside:

a) It makes no provision for absentee voting. To accommodate potential absentees, it might be possible to add flexibility to group scheduling; i.e., let members who can not be present ask the other members of their group to accommodate them when setting up group meetings.

b) It demands time away from one's employment. This may require a law similar to that applying to jury duty and military service requiring employers to grant employees time to participate in the election process, without penalty.

c) It makes no provision for incomplete groups. Each level will have incomplete groups, those remaining after the participants at a given level have been grouped (one or two people may be left over) and those occurring because of the death or incapacity of a group member.

The Election Commission will use members of "broken" groups to complete other groups or form new groups, as appropriate. When all the groups have been set, any remaining participants not assigned to a group (possibly one or two people) advance to the next higher level, automatically. These one or two people must be the first assigned to a group at the next higher level.

Re-election
When the system has matured (after multiple election cycles have transpired) those who achieve the first level of public office will tend to change from election to election while those who reach the upper levels of public office will tend to do so in subsequent elections because they reflect the popular preferences of their time while demonstrating the qualities we seek in our leaders.

However, the dynamic nature of the process, with random assignment to groups at each level, makes it unlikely that a person elected to a public office will be returned to the same office in successive elections. There are too many variables. Even so, a person who serves with integrity, intelligence and energy, is likely to be re-elected to some office.

Elected officials NOT returned to office
A person may rise to hold public office in one election and not reach that level again. Such people take time out of their lives for public service without career guarantees. That disrupts the individual's life unreasonably. Such people must be honored for their service, and, on a practical level, we must continue their salaries for some period (a year?) and support their transition to private life with something similar to the G. I. Bill of Rights ... advanced education, career training, small business loans, and so forth.

These are just a few of the details that must be considered. There are many more.

Fred

Lobbies

2010-03-18T07:00:00.000-04:00

In a representative democracy, such as we are supposed to have in the United States, we elect people to be our representatives. We do not require them to have any special knowledge or training. We elect them because we believe they can assimilate the information necessary to make sound decisions in the best interests of the American people.

Since the laws passed by our Congress apply to all our citizens, we anticipate that all interested parties will present their arguments, for and against, pending legislation. We expect our representatives to weigh the information presented to them objectively and to enact laws that benefit our nation and reject laws that are harmful to the American people.

As an example, we do not expect our representatives to know the science underlying the threat of global warming. Instead, we expect citizens who have the knowledge to present their arguments to our Congress for consideration. The Houses of Congress schedule hearings to allow these presentations. Since the hearing rooms will not hold the three hundred million people who might be affected by a law, the interested parties designate agents, called lobbyists, to present their arguments for them.

That's the theory, and it's a good one, but it doesn't work quite like that.

I functioned in the role of lobbyist in the mid-1950s, lobbying against The Transportation Act of 1958 ... which passed, in part because the lobbyists for the large trucking firms (aka The American Trucking Association) had greater access to the Senators on the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee than those who opposed the legislation ... like me.

In those years, I still believed our representatives were worthy of our trust. Gradually, I came to realize that the problem is not lobbying, it is that lobbyists are allowed free access to our representatives. In addition to donating huge sums to political parties, lobbyists seek their goals by suborning public officials with "favors". They wine them, dine them, provide them with exotic vacations, hire members of their family, promise them future employment and, by more subterfuges than I can relate, guarantee their fortunes. Since he who pays the piper calls the tune, our representatives do what the lobbyists ask, not what's best for our nation. The free access lobbyists have to our representatives, when added to the commitments made by party fund-raisers, undermines a truly great system.

From time to time (quite frequently, actually), a Jack Abramoff shows up and we have a brief flurry of interest. New laws are proposed, considerable lip-service is paid to cleaning up the mess, toothless legislation is passed, and then the whole thing dies down ... until next time.

There is a solution ... but do we have the stomach to demand it?

Our elected representatives are in service for the length of their term ... just like members of our armed forces ... and like members of our armed forces, they should be kept at a government installation. When I went in the service, I reported to a military installation and that became my home. The arrangements for our elected officials should be similar.

The facilities at the installation should be as palatial as need be, with golf courses, marinas, and all forms of educational and entertainment facilities, but access to our representatives should be restricted. Those wishing to affect pending legislation should present their arguments, publicly, in the hearing rooms provided for the purpose ... and that should be the absolute limit of their interaction with our elected representatives.

In addition to designing a better way to select those who represent us in our government, we must prevent special interests from propagating the corruption that currently permeates our political system.

Fred

Electoral College

2010-03-18T06:00:00.000-04:00

The original idea behind the Electoral College, set forth in Article II, Section 1 of the U. S. Constitution, was for the leaders of the states to select the most worthy person in the nation as president, without regard to the person's state of origin or political party. Then, even though our Constitution is thoroughly non-partisan, parties gained a foothold. To quote William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director, FEC Office of Election Administration, "The very people who had been condemning parties publicly had nevertheless been building them privately."

The advent of partisan politics led to a constitutional amendment which altered the Electoral College. To quote Kimberling again, "By making seemingly slight changes, the 12th Amendment fundamentally altered the design of the Electoral College and, in one stroke, accommodated political parties as a fact of life in American presidential elections."

Now, instead of recognizing the self-serving nature of partisan politics and the danger parties pose for our people, we lament the transformation of the Electoral College into a rubber stamp that give parties control of presidential elections. Even with the 12th Amendment, we need not yield this power to those who control our political parties. We must change the way we select those who represent us ... including the members of the Electoral College.

Fred

Groups of Five

2010-03-18T05:00:00.000-04:00

Urbano dela Cruz suggested setting up groups of five instead of three as originally proposed. He feels increasing the group size from three to five will reduce the potential for organized groups to target selected candidates for defeat. This table shows the progress of such an arrangement, for comparison with the original table.

Level
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)

Electors
5,367,378
1,073,478
214,698
42,942
8,590
1,718
346
70

Selected
1,073,475
214,695
42,939
8,588
1,718
343
69
14

Unselected
4,293,903
858,783
171,759
34,354
6,872
1,375
277
56

In this example, after groups were assigned at each level, any remaining participants were carried to the next level as described in Devilish Details.

Fred

Constraining Our Leaders

2010-03-18T04:00:00.000-04:00

We all have an idea of goodness, but there is no objective measure of good. Each of us measures goodness in our own way. One person may think something good while another may think the same thing bad.

I started out believing people are naturally good, but drifted to a more neutral notion as I aged. Here's why:

Self-preservation is the first law of nature. Before humans reached the cave-man state they did what they had to do to survive. They existed like other animals. They killed for food and they killed those who threatened them. For them, killing was not a moral issue it was a matter of survival.

It is likely that these beings existed in herds, that they hunted and sheltered together, instinctively. If so, they might have lived like what we refer to as cave-men. However, those beings did not become "human" until they began to change their animalistic behavior. The ability to make such a change defines what we call humans.

Assuming cave-men lived in groups, it is reasonable to imagine that the most effective survivors of the group were the strongest members. We can also imagine that the strongest could and did take from the weakest. It is also likely the weaker took what they could from the stronger, even if it was only "leavings", to satisfy their needs.

But, need is relative. It depends on many factors. In the case of cave-men, it depended on the availability of food, an individual's size and/or appetite, the need to provide for mates and offspring, need to store reserves, and many other factors. It is not hard to imagine that, however primeval, different members of the group had different needs.

When these beings started to change their animalistic behavior, when they began to "think", there is a high likelihood that their thoughts related to their needs. At some point, those thoughts expanded to include opinions or judgments about the needs of other individuals in the group. The concepts of "good" and "bad" must have originated in this way.

At some point in the existence of cave-men, the weaker members of the community recognized that, since they did not have the strength to take from the stronger members by themselves, they needed the help of others if they were to survive. It would not have been difficult for the weaker members to recognize other members of the group who also suffered by their weakness. In some way, these weaker members combined to limit the domination of the stronger. That was the beginning of "civilization".

What is not stated, but must be recognized, is that the stronger members were members of the same group. They did not stand idly by and allow the weaker members to take from them. They participated in the formation of a solution. They used their strength to protect as much of what was "theirs" as they could. This laid the foundation for the concept of "ownership", and, by extension, the concept of "greed". Ownership was claimed by the strong and the attribution of greed was laid by the weak. This is the most important, but least acknowledged, aspect of the relationships which led to the origin and structure of civilization.

If this is a reasonable estimate of the origin of civilization, several things stand out:

1) Morality, or the concept of "good and bad", can not exist in the absence of intelligent thought. The squirrel, when he stores nuts for the winter, does not ask himself if he'd be wrong to store one more. If he finds another and feels the need for it, he takes it. For animals, there is no issue of good or bad, and the concept of "greed" does not exist. A moral sense is a mark of intelligence.

2) The driving force for the organization of society is the need to restrain the strongest members of the group. If the weaker members of the group do not feel threatened by the stronger, there is no need to organize.

3) The threat the weaker members of the original society felt had to result from deprivation of the resources needed for existence (probably food). If the stronger were perceived as taking more than they needed while the weaker suffered, that condition must have been characterized as "bad".

4) The mechanism society uses to restrict bad behavior is force. By definition, a weaker member can not control a stronger one. But, several weaker members, in unison, have enough power to control even the strongest. In this sense, civilization is a banding together of the members of a group to gain the strength needed to control members exhibiting "bad" behavior.

5) When discussing these relationships, we tend to use sophisticated terms to differentiate forms of undesirable behavior. Thus, we call the taking of more than one needs "greed". This tempts us to say civilization developed to limit greed. It is more likely the initial banding together mentioned above was to ensure the survival of the weaker members of the group rather than to penalize the stronger.

6) The role of civilization as a means of controlling excessive strength or power evolved over time. As the goods available for consumption expanded beyond rudimentary food, clothing and shelter, we see ample evidence that the more powerful acquired the surplus goods first. At the same time, they increased the sophistication of the ways they exercised their power to control what they considered "theirs". Reactively, the less powerful slowly developed ways to force broader distribution of the surplus goods. That process continues today.

Looked at this way, the concepts of good and bad can not exist for a single individual. They can only exist in terms of others. I was wrong to believe that humans are naturally good. At birth, they are neither. It's true some children are born with what is called a "bad" nature, but that is a judgment rendered by others. The infant, itself, has no concept of "good" or "bad".

For each of us, the idea of good and bad grows as we develop. Initially, we see those who gratify our wishes as good and those who deny us what we want as bad. But we soon realize good and bad are much more complex than that. We exist in a constant and ever-changing mixture of good and bad, starting with our parents who supply our needs (good) and control us (bad). The choices we make flow from our understanding of that mixture, influenced by our individual characteristics. The more powerful among us may consider actions good that are abhorrent to the less powerful, but they are neither good nor bad unless they affect others and their goodness or badness depend how they affect others.

That, it seems to me, is the essence of good and bad. It is also a fairly obvious statement of the human condition. While the foregoing was written in a search for the origin and nature of goodness, it painted a picture of the weaker members of the human race forcing civilized behavior on the stronger and the stronger members impeding the civilizing efforts of their weaker brethren as well as they could. I started out trying to derive a basis for believing that humans are naturally "good", a personal bias I wanted to justify. I failed. Instead, I found a basis for understanding why we can't trust our leaders.

But that seems to create a paradox: We must have leaders, and leaders, by their nature, must lead. We are properly taught from childhood to respect and revere our leaders. How can we square that with the notion that "we can't trust our leaders"? We can only do so when we recognize that there is a difference between "trust" and "blind trust". Even those who followed Alexander learned to put bounds on his ambition.

It has ever been so.

Persuasion

2010-03-18T03:00:00.000-04:00

Persuasion is the art of causing someone to do something. It is a significant factor in politics.

In the past 200 years, elements of persuasion have been honed into the science of marketing, Those who reap the rewards of marketing use it to further their own interest, usually at the expense of those they persuade. One current manifestation is the marketing of politicians without regard for their character.

Our purpose here is to find ways to improve the quality of our political leaders. We seek to do that by harnessing our own natures to the election process. That requires that we consider the human characteristics likely to motivate the participants in the election process. We will do so by contemplating the likely attitudes of the people at the various levels of the Active Democracy process described earlier.

At the initial level, when the entire electorate meets for the first time to select one member of a their group to represent the other two, there will be three kinds of participants:

1) those who do not want to be selected,

2) those willing to be selected, and

3) those seeking selection.

In any group where all three participants do not want to be selected, the triad will not make a selection and all three participants will be eliminated.

Thus, among the groups that actually make a selection, the people who are selected will either be people who want to be selected or people who are willing to be selected. This is not to say that each person must be of one type or the other, but rather that each person is somewhere on the continuum from those willing to be selected to those wishing to be selected.

For simplicity, we will assume that the desire to be selected is equivalent to a desire for public office and that the people we mention as examples are at one end of the wish-willingness continuum or the other. The reality is infinitely more complex but the results will differ only in degree from what we learn by thinking about the kind of people who are at the hypothetical poles.

We must also note that the attitudes we've mentioned may not be static. Although a person seeking public office is unlikely to become a person willing to serve, a person willing to serve may well be transformed into a person seeking public office:

[If person-willing-to-serve (A) feels person-seeking-office (B) is not a good choice, (A) may seek to persuade the group that (A) or (C) is a better choice. Such an effort moves (A) closer to being a person-seeking-office because if A will not support B, the chance that A will be chosen increases.]

Based on this assessment, we can say that people who advance to the second level will have one of two characteristics: either they seek public office or they are willing to serve in public office. In other words, either they persuaded the other members to select them or they allowed the other members to select them. The difference is the extent to which they used persuasion to achieve selection.

In a pyramiding process of the type under discussion, it is reasonable to think that active seekers of public office will succeed more frequently than passive ones. Thus, after several iterations of the process, we can anticipate that each member of a triad will be a person seeking public office. Under such circumstances, the art of persuasion assumes mounting importance. Those making the selection want desirable qualities in the person they choose. Those seeking selection must persuade their peers they possess the qualities sought.

Whatever other qualities a person seeking office will have, we can assert with considerable confidence that two of them will be a desire for public office and persuasiveness. Our method of selecting public officials uses these traits; all three want the same thing and can only attain it by persuading the others to select them.

When persuasion occurs between two people, it takes place as a dialogue with one person attempting to persuade the other. In such events, both parties are free to participate in the process. The person to be persuaded can question the persuader as to specific points and present alternative points about the topic under discussion. In such circumstances, it is possible that the persuader will become the persuaded.

When persuasion involves multiple people, it occurs more as a monologue with one person attempting to persuade the others. The transition from dialogue to monologue accelerates as the number of people to be persuaded increases. The larger the number of people, the less free they are to participate in the process. As the number of people to be persuaded grows, the individuals among them are progressively less able to participate in the process. They can not question the persuader as to specific points or present alternative points about the topic under discussion. In such circumstances, it is unlikely that the persuader will become the persuaded.

Viewed in this light, we can say that when selecting public officials, a system that encourages dialogue is preferable to one which relies on a monologue. Discussion can best be encouraged by having fewer people in the "session of persuasion". Because of the need for a definitive decision, I believe the best group size to encourage active involvement by all participants is three.

Fred

Urbano's Design

2010-03-18T02:00:00.000-04:00

We are searching for a better way to select the people who represent us in our government. A thoughtful person, writing as Urbano dela Cruz, has proposed an excellent method. He has all communities select members of the community to serve in a council. The council members select, from among themselves, those who advance to higher levels of government. The process looks something like this:

1) Communities select the members of a community council

2) Community council members appoint some of their members to a district council

3) (In urban areas)
District council members appoint some of their members to serve on a municipal council

Municipal council members appoint from their members:

A Mayor
A Vice Mayor

(In all areas, urban and rural)
District council members appoint some of their members to serve as provincial (or State) representatives

Provincial representatives appoint from their members:

A Governor
A Vice Governor

and appoint members to serve as congressional representatives

Congressional representative appoint from their members:

A President
A Vice President
Appropriate number of Senators

Those interested in the topic should read Urbano's presentation. He describes the shortcomings of the electoral process in the Philippines, problems analogous to those which plague U. S. politics, and then describes a design to correct those problems. You can find the design here.

Fred

Excessive Self-Interest

2010-03-18T01:00:00.000-04:00

Thoughts devoted to improving the election process arise from dissatisfaction with the society fostered by our government. We want to select better representatives because we want to improve our lot. Reasoning our way through the causes and effects of our dissatisfaction is a complex and difficult task. Sometimes the search lets us view ourselves from an unfamiliar perspective.

For example, although I've never heard this view expressed by others, it seems a concept worth pondering:

"A society with no penalty for the excessive pursuit of self-interest is flawed".

When we think about the way societies develop, we should not be surprised that there are no such penalties. Those who lead the society are, by definition, those who pursue their self-interest most ardently. It would be unreasonable to expect such people to welcome restraints. Hence, the corollary:

"Penalizing the excessive pursuit of self-interest will not occur from the top down, it must flow from the bottom up."

History is replete with evidence that this is true, but we rarely think of societal problems from this perspective. When we do, we tend to act in a violent, explosive manner. We would be better served by focusing our attention on such glaring issues as the need to select better representatives before they inspire revolutionary fervor.

Fred

Deadlocks

2010-03-17T23:00:00.000-04:00

Is there value in deadlocks in the Active Democracy process?

An acquaintance asked about the wisdom of disqualifying groups that become deadlocked, i.e., triads that are unable to select one of their members to represent the other two in the time allotted for their decision. It seems to me the potential for, and need to resolve, deadlocks is one of the strong points of Active Democracy. I would welcome other points of view, to broaden my perspective.

I think disqualifying deadlocks is a strong point because those who wish to become leaders, must, virtually by definition, have strong egos. As they advance they will encounter others with as strong a wish to advance as themselves. This should produce some intellectually intense confrontations.

The ability to make a selection depends on the characteristics of the participants. Traits we may anticipate in people with strong egos are various levels of obstinacy, persuasiveness. susceptibility to reason and willingness to compromise. These are important qualities, but whether or not their holders will make good leaders (and good public servants) depends on the mix.

If, for example, all three participants are so obstinate they will not act to break a deadlock ... they would rather go down than yield ... would we consider them potentially good leaders? From another perspective, if none of the participants is able to persuade the others that selection is preferable to disqualification, isn't it improbable that they would be good public officials?

There are other aspects. For one thing, above some level, the candidates are assured a public office. Maybe not the office they'd like, but an office in which they can demonstrate their excellence so they can advance further in the next succeeding election cycle. Since disqualification takes them out of the mix entirely there will be an added incentive to make a selection.

In my opinion, candidates that allow themselves to be deadlocked are unlikely to do a good job of representing our interests in our government. Contrary views are welcome.

Fred

Ruling Class Danger

2010-03-17T22:00:00.000-04:00

At various times, people have mentioned concerns about the Active Democracy concept (privately or in other forums) that should be examined. One such demur is:

"After 2-3 full cycles of the process, the turnover of individuals who consistently reach level 4 will diminish. There will then emerge a ruling class."

This concern arises because it happened with our two-party system. Party functionaries, who gave the party continuity, tended to acquire ever more power over the process. In the 200 years since the first establishment of political parties, these people have become a ruling class that now controls our parties ... and our nation.

The described concern is founded, in part, on the fact that the qualities required to advance in the Active Democracy process will tend to elevate the same type of people in each successive election, thus raising the specter that those people will, somehow, form a new cabal.

That is unlikely.

For one thing, the electorate is in a constant state of flux. People constantly enter and leave the electorate and people's desire to seek public office varies in intensity from complete disinterest to avid pursuit throughout their lives. These are not inconsequential matters. When coupled with the random selection of triad participants, they make the system dynamic at its lowest levels. That dynamism will propagate upward.

In such an atmosphere, the fact that the same type of people will advance in each successive election will tend to improve the system. When we select public officials using a process that favors the best of our people, and when the same kind of people are the ones most frequently advanced, people who seek office will copy them. Morality is a top-down phenomenon. We take our cues from those we wish to emulate.

In addition, given the dynamism of the method, I think it unlikely that those who reach level 4 will ever have a common view or objective. Quite the contrary. In the first place, the selection process is unlikely to group them in similar triads on a regular or dependable basis. Secondly, their prior experience will affect their selectability, favorably in some cases, unfavorably in others. Thirdly, they will have knowledge of the others that will affect how they relate to them. And, finally, at each level, two of three candidates will be eliminated. That will do more to break up "ruling class" aspirations than anything else.

Fred

Opting Out

2010-03-17T21:00:00.000-04:00

The following is adapted from comments to me, privately or in other forums, expressing concerns about the Active Democracy concept. One comment was to the effect that ...

"... I have no desire for (public office). Accordingly, I would dissuade the citizens with whom I am pooled in the first round from voting for me."

(so)

"In the proposed system, I would be denied the right to consider/select any person other than the two selected for my triplet in the first round."

(In addition, this person thinks)

"This form of governance (Active Democracy) is known as an oligarchy not a democracy, despite the illusory trappings of democracy during the first round."

The essence of this comment is the wish to opt out at the lowest level and still influence selections at higher levels. Since others (duly elevated on their merits) make the selections at the higher levels, this person feels the process is oligarchical. (I dealt with oligarchy in the previous post and will not expand on that, right now)

Reaching public office is not the only reason for participating in the process. Participation is how we do our utmost to improve the quality of our elected representatives.

When one wishes to disenfranchise oneself by opting out of the process, the obvious penalty for doing so is the inability to influence the result. This is as true in political action as it is in any other form of endeavor. It is important to remember that authority and responsibility are inseparable. If one wants the authority to influence a result, one has the responsibility to participate in the process.

We are free to opt out whenever we choose, but, by doing so, we renounce our right to further influence the proceedings. If we are concerned about the selections made at higher levels, the process gives us an opportunity to make our presence felt. If we participate to the best of our ability and reach a point where our participation ends, we have done as much as our talent and disposition allow.

Fred

Citizenship Tax (1)

2010-03-17T20:00:00.000-04:00

The adverse effects of the immense growth of corporate power over the past 150 years have been described elsewhere, including by Stephanie Blankenburg and Dan Plesch writing on the Open Democracy site. Less has been said about practical ways to curb that growth.

The central problem is that our society has no penalty for greed, and "a society with no penalty for greed is flawed."

Greed is an extension of the pursuit of self-interest. It is not an evil we can address objectively. If we are to inhibit it, we must do so indirectly. What I write here will describe a method of harnessing our natural pursuit of our own interest and changing it from a destructive force to a productive one,

Self-interest is part of self-preservation and "Self-preservation is the first law of nature". It applies to all organisms, living or corporate. The methods of self-preservation vary, and are generally applauded as "survival of the fittest". However, it can be shown that, carried to extremes, self-preservation is destructive of the preserved entity's environment. Beneficial though Darwinism may be in a purely theoretical sense, if our society is the environment being destroyed, we must do what we can to prevent it.

Societies restrain undesirable characteristics by a variety of forces. They initially deal with excesses by parental guidance, disapproval, peer pressure, appeal to conscience, excommunication and other non-physical methods. If these fail, it condemns the act by mandate and authorizes a force to control it. A central feature of the process is identification of the characteristic to be restrained.

These mechanisms work until a rogue is able to influence the forces society creates to control it. Since I'm discussing our tendency to pursue our own self-interest, I'll focus on the rogues who carry that pursuit to extremes.

By far, a rogues' most effective means of evading control is by influencing those who make the rules intended to control them, to render legislation ineffective or to divert its impact. Evidence of the abuses assault us daily. We constantly get fresh examples of the manipulation of our governing and regulatory bodies. Our subdued reaction to such events may be due to our recognition that they are simply additional evidence of our natural venality. In any case, we accept them without considering whether there is a way to make them less productive for their purveyors and less destructive for us.

While one may recognize the existence of rogues after they have achieved rogue stature, we have no mechanism for penalizing them or inhibiting their greed before it becomes intolerable. However much we are offended by what we perceive as greed, the basis of our complaint is always subjective.

Our traditional way of dealing with rogues in society requires that they be identified, so the lack of an objective measure, the inability to point a finger and say so-and-so is a rogue, seems to present an insoluble problem. That's not exactly true. We may not be able to point a finger at a specific target, but we can certainly recognize the characteristics rogues share and the circumstances under which they thrive.

One quality the most destructive rogues have in common is great size. This, too, seems to present a paradox: The achievement of great size springs from the best of human capabilities. Size is attained by talent and can't be criticised simply because it reaches some specific extent. It is the result of a natural pursuit of self-interest, which, over time, becomes synonymous with self-preservation.

Thus we have a conflict: Size is achieved through ability but the beneficial effect of the enterprise evaporates when growth is unfettered. As entities grow into rogues they believe their best interests are attained at the expense of the community rather than in harmony with it. As they grow, they target the wealth of communities, and suck it out, leaving an empty husk.

Our attempts to control cancerous growth fail because we try to outlaw identifiable evils. Such laws are easily subverted. The larger the enterprise, the greater the pool of talent available to devise the methods of subversion. The result is behemoths which have a vacuum cleaner effect, sucking up resources to the detriment of our communities and our citizens.

To summarize, we know that rogues exist and we know they are injurious to the humans among us. Yet, after carefully looking at the matter, we find that the entities we call rogues started out by being very good at what they do. If we had their pool of talent, we might evolve the same way ourselves.

Hence, the conflict: On the one hand, we seek excellence and applaud success. On the other, these conditions, unrestrained, breed rogues. How can we resolve this? How can we constrain the rogue while encouraging excellence and success?

The most direct way is to make excessive size a burden.

When we think about preventing excessive size, we run into the fact that some businesses must be large. Public utilities, for example, require a huge infrastructure and great gobs of capital. Hence, although rogues tend to have great size, great size may not identify a rogue. So, our solution to the problem must focus on unwarranted size. It must not injure large entities whose size is dictated by necessity.

Growth requires nutrients on which to feed. For corporate growth, the nutrients are the availability of physical and human resources and an environment conducive to growth. In the United States, the resources are a wealth of raw materials and human assets; the environment is provided by our government. The use, or exploitation, of these assets is what allows inordinate corporate growth.

Viewed in this light, we can see that growth flows from citizenship. If an entity is to grow, the society in which it functions must allow growth, so we can say that entities grow as a direct result of their citizenship.

We have seen that growth is, by definition, exploitive. This is not to say that exploitation is an evil. It only becomes an evil when it is excessive. Entities grow by exploiting the nutrients in its environment. That is precisely the goal our society seeks to attain. It can not be condemned simply because it exploits the environment. However, unrestrained exploitation results in excesses. If we are to control the excesses, we must have a means to discriminate between justifiable size and unwarranted growth.

Fortunately, we have a simple, readily available measuring stick. The best measure of size is the total revenue an entity receives in a specified period of time. (I use the term "revenue" to mean the annual gross receipts of an entity, without reserve or allowance, less amounts paid to external vendors in which the entity has no managerial, directorial or financial interest of any amount or kind.) We can say, objectively, that the more revenue an entity generates, the larger it is. This is not a subjective opinion, it is a verifiable fact.

Citizenship Tax (2)

2010-03-17T19:00:00.000-04:00

To recap, we assert that

1) Growth is a quality we seek, applaud and reward.

2) Growth entails exploitation of the available resources.

3) At some indefinable point, an entity's growth, if unchecked, becomes a detriment to the society which spawned it.

4) The only guide we have to measure the extent to which an entity exploits our resources is its revenue.

Thus, it is appropriate to levy a progressive charge, based on revenue, for an entity's use of our resources. We can call this progressive charge "A Citizenship Tax".

The Citizenship Tax is a levy assessed on the revenue of an entity, cited in terms of annual receipts. The progressive nature of the tax requires a standard base. We will use the gross receipts (revenue) of the entity, annualized, to provide that base.

The Citizenship Tax does not concern itself with the source of an enterprise's revenue. The tax applies whether the revenue results from the operation of the entity or the sale of its assets. The only criteria is that the enterprise receive the revenue (or its equivalent, as in the case of a swap). If an entity has extensive assets in cash, real estate, equity, or in any other form, the Citizenship Tax does not concern itself with the value of those assets. However, when an asset is disposed of, in whatever manner or form, the value of the asset is part of the entity's revenue for the period.

The Citizenship Tax is not concerned with the profitability of the enterprise. It is a fee we levy for affording our citizens the right to use our resources. The charge is for the extent of the exploitation, not for the degree of success an entity has in doing so. Whether or not the enterprise is profitable does not change the amount of resources it exploits in its operation.

The Citizenship Tax is progressive. As revenue increases, the tax rate increases. As will be seen in the tax table below, the tax is insignificant for small entities. As an enterprise grows, its tax load increases, but the load only becomes burdensome for rogues.

Taxes are an expense of doing business. They increase the cost of doing business, and that cost is added to all other costs to determine the price of the enterprise's goods and services. In other words, taxes are always passed on to the consumer. When a rogue attains an unwarranted size by manipulating the rules in its own favor or dominating its competitors to the detriment of the public, The Citizenship Tax adds a cost to its operation.

The wonderful thing about The Citizenship Tax is that it is utterly and completely objective. It makes no judgment about the goodness or badness of the taxed entity. It simply charges all enterprises for their use of society's resources.

If, by the nature of its business, an enterprise must be large, it is not injured by The Citizenship Tax because all competing businesses must attain a similar size. However, when a rogue grows beyond an economically justifiable size, the tax acts to protect the public interest without additional regulation.

Corporate growth is good, and healthy, and desireable. We want to give our entrepreneurs the freedom to grow. That is the way they enrich our lives. The Citizenship Tax supports this goal because it is absolutely even-handed. It makes no judgment about the excesses of an enterprise. It is absolutely and totally objective in its application, and in its effect.

If an entity grows to a size that exceeds its value to the society, The Citizenship Tax acts as an umbrella, increasing the rogue's cost of operation and giving its competitors a cost advantage which prevents their suffocation. In fact, The Citizenship Tax would enhance the viability of competition, immeasurably.

Even at inception, The Citizenship Tax is gentle in its effect. Each entity can meet the tax in its own way. Some (like those which have subsumed suppliers or competitors) may elect to spin those entities off, to resize their operations to a smaller tax base. The option is theirs.

Brief Recap To This Point:
-------------------------
1) An entity exists in an environment and may be said to be a citizen of that environment.

2) The size of an entity is evidence of the extent to which that entity exploits the environment in which it exists.

3) Entities are dynamic and exist in a dynamic environment. (They expand and contract in response to internal pressures and the expansion and contraction of their environment)

4) I have postulated that excessive size is bad, but, because of the dynamic nature of the entities and their environment, it is not possible to make a judgment that a given size is good or bad. Stated another way, size is a method of description. In itself, it is neither good nor bad.

5) While I believe in free markets, I do not believe that self-interest, exercised without regard for the welfare of the environment which nurtures it, constitutes a free market. On the contrary, carried to its logical extreme, self-interest protects and extends itself by dominating its environment ... the antithesis of a free market.

7) The most readily available device we have for measuring the size of an entity is the total number of dollars it takes in by reason of its existence (i.e., its gross receipts)

8) Since size denotes the extent to which an entity exploits our resources, it is appropriate to levy a charge for that exploitation. Such a charge is the only practical way to to identify and restrain excessive size. The charge must accommodate the concept that size, per se, is not an evil.

THE CITIZENSHIP TAX
The Citizenship Tax is levied on the absolute gross receipts of an entity, from all sources and for all amounts received in its name by entities it controls. (i.e., franchises). The tax is progressive. Assuming a base rate of 2%, 2% is added to the rate each time the receipts increase by one decimal position, thus:

Annual Gross Receipts
$10
$100
$1,000
$10,000
$100,000
$1,000,000
$10,000,000
$100,000,000
$1,000,000,000
$10,000,000,000
$100,000,000,000
$1,000,000,000,000
$10,000,000,000,000
$100,000,000,000,000
$1,000,000,000,000,000
$10,000,000,000,000,000
$100,000,000,000,000,000
$1,000,000,000,000,000,000
$10,000,000,000,000,000,000
$100,000,000,000,000,000,000

Tax Rate
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
22%
24%
26%
28%
30%
32%
34%
36%
38%
40%

The tax rate increases proportionally from one order of magnitude to the next (for example, going from $10 billion to $100 billion receipts).

An intended side effect of The Citizenship Tax is that it makes inflation unacceptable. The more roguish an enterprise is, the more "pricing power" it has. The evils of inflation are reserved for those at the lowest end of the economic ladder. Humans never have "pricing power".

The most striking thing about The Citizenship Tax is that it harnesses a human trait ... the pursuit of self-interest ... in a productive way.

Fred

Screening Politicians

2010-03-17T18:00:00.000-04:00

Political parties maintain their stranglehold on our nation's political activity with a very simple mechanism: They monitor those who seek a career in politics. They watch them and groom them as they climb the ladder to political power. They choose politicians who have no problem sacrificing their honor for the benefit of the party and lift them through the ranks to the highest public offices.

Those who refuse to compromise their own integrity are simply passed over. The people of the community, who know they are honest, will keep them in the town council, but if they don't "play ball" with the party, the party never gives them the support they need to reach higher elective office.

There's no mystery about it. It's common sense. The party demands that the politician put party interest above all else. Those who want a career in politics are taught that it's the "Party Way or the Highway". They learn, very quickly, that there's no reward for pride and principle. Once they accept that, those who advance promptly learn the tricks of their trade; they learn how to lie convincingly, how to evade questions, how to obfuscate issues and how to deceive the public.

The amazing thing is that, even though we all know "that's the way it works", we continue to let the political parties victimize us. Since we know these people are cheats and liars, why do we let those who control our political parties "sell" candidates to us? Why do we not make the candidates prove their right to represent us?

Employers filling critical jobs don't rely on the recommendations of their competitors. Why, then, do we continue to elect public officials based on nothing more than the hogwash spewed by the very people who benefit most from hoodwinking us?

If we want a better government, we must do what the parties do. We must subject applicants for public office (the candidates) to a rigorous screening process. In my opinion, that is best done by making the candidates compete among themselves for selection. They are the most motivated to expose the hypocrites and charlatans. If this does not appeal to you, propose a better idea.

Don't just sit there ... THINK!!

Fred

Political Apathy

2010-03-17T17:00:00.000-04:00

In America, we have reached the stage where letters to the editor and op-ed pieces make us feel as if we are whistling in a typhoon. They make us feel as though no-one is listening. It's not true, but we feel that way because there is no mechanism to pursue the topics we raise. If the material we write touches 10,000 souls in our community, there is no way for us to organize those 10,000 souls to rally in support of change. (This is not to say that rabble-rousers and unions don't instigate rallies. They do, but those are special interest events. They are not intended to advance the public interest.)

I believe that years ago ... many, many years ago ... letters to the editor were heeded by politicians. I'm quite sure someone, somewhere, calculated a relationship between a letter to the editor and the number of voters who shared the author's view. I think, in those days, the formula guided legislators.

Over time, as radio and then television became more effective at manipulating voter response, and polls grew more sophisticated, such outmoded means of political guidance fell by the wayside. I suspect letters to the editor are now viewed as a grounding mechanism; a means of letting voters vent their spleen. The result of this transition is a growing sense of alienation and ineffectiveness.

I have absolutely no doubt that most of us want to find solutions to our political problems, but there are several reasons why we are unable to do so:

Thinking is hard work. It is difficult to meet the economic demands of our lives and also concentrate on political solutions. I've been told by political science professors that, even though they describe the failures in our political system in their lectures, they are too busy with their families to contemplate solutions to the failures they describe. (I felt they "should" make such an effort because they are considered our intellectual leaders in the field of political science ... I now realize I was wrong. My expectation was unreasonable. The fact that they are college professors does not make them any different than a truck driver or a machinist or a farmer. Their goal is to get from day to day. Those, like me, who expect them to do more are unrealistic and ideological nincompoops.)
We trust. We hire (elect) people to handle political matters for us. We not only expect them to do so, we believe they will. However much we lament the blatant corruption in our government and the bad laws that come out of our legislatures, we rarely think "our guy" is responsible. We find it difficult to understand that corrupt practices could not exist nor bad laws get passed if "our guy" did not condone them.
We have no options. The parties control every aspect of our political existence. We are inundated with pap and nonsense intended to establish or re-establish control of our government by one political party or another. What could be more pathetic than the political choices available to our people? When a candidates' greatest claim to fame is cynicism, we are all losers.

If we don't have a lot of time to devote to political matters ...

If we've given someone the job of handling those matters for us ...

If we have no choices anyway ...

What can we do?

NOTHING!!!

... and that's what we do.

Fred

More On Groups Of Five

2010-03-17T16:00:00.000-04:00

Roy offered the following comment. which I'm bringing to the "upper" level to be sure it's visible to casual passersby:

I cannot, at first sight, see anything against groups of five and it would seem to negate the fears of Urbano.

The groups are still small enough to enable face-to-face meetings with little effort or expense.

In addition, groups of five reduces the number of levels in the process, speeding things up and possibly being cheaper.

I'd like to hear your take on this Fred.

Regards

Roy

Good Morning, Roy

The reason I prefer groups of three to groups of five is to reduce extraneous psychological pressure on the participants. People are influenced by other people. The larger the group, the less some individuals in the group will be able to function at their best. In an effort to illustrate the basis for my concern, I'm going to cite the observations of two noted professors:

1) "What I call 'internal' exclusion refers to the way that some people's ideas and social perspectives are likely to dominate discussion and decision making even when a forum has diversity in the room. There are a whole set of practical norms about what 'proper' speaking involves that are biased against people with accents, not to mention people who don't speak the dominant language --- and biased against people who speak in a high voice or softly, biased against people who express themselves emotionally or haltingly, and so on."

2) "... a lot of the psychological literature, summarized by Tali Mendleberg, reveals the tendency of small groups to press for consensus in ways that tend to silence potential dissenters."

3) "An early and famous psychological experiment, the Asch experiment, showed that people were likely even to doubt the evidence of their own senses ... when confronted with a unanimous group of other people saying that what they perceived was wrong ..."

The point is, the larger the group the greater these pressures on some members of the group. Conversely, the smaller the group, the more freely each member will contribute. Our goal is to seek the best among ourselves, so it behooves us to do all we can to encourage everyone to participate to the maximum of their ability. The smaller the group and the longer the exposure of the members of the group to each other, the smaller the impact these adverse effects will have on the participants.

On the other hand, as Roy points out, groups of five would speed the process somewhat. In the final analysis, group size will be set by the implementors of the concept. Implementation should be preceded by sets of experiments and testing to establish the optimum conditions.

Fred

Footnote: The citations above are taken from a set of questions Archon Fung, an associate professor at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, posed to Iris Marion Young, Professor in Political Science at the University of Chicago (until her death on August 1st, 2006) and Jane Mansbridge, Adams Professor of Political Leadership and Democratic Values at Harvard University. The purpose of the discourse as to examine participatory and deliberative democracy. The material I cited above was taken out of that context. The questions and the responses provide interesting insight into participatory democracy in their own right, and are worthy of serious consideration. They are available at:

http://www.archonfung.net/papers/FungDeliberationDarkNCR04.pdf

Gerrymandering

2010-03-17T15:00:00.001-04:00

Frank Mcenulty, an independent candidate for President of the United States, described (in another forum) one of the gimmicks politicians use to maintain their stranglehold on the political process in our country. This scheme affects him directly, and we ignore his plight at our peril.

When expressing his support for term limits in a discussion about the way to select the best-qualified candidates to serve in government, Mr. Mcenulty said, "... in addition to term limits we desperately need to have congressional districts honestly drawn. It is almost impossible to vote out an incumbent or get an official from a different party elected because of how districts are gerrymandered ...". He followed this by saying (and I agree), "Term limits are important, but gerrymandering is just outright fraud against the voters."

The laws that strangle us exist at the state level because there are no express prohibitions in our Constitution to prevent the states from making laws governing the electoral process. Political parties entered the vacuum afforded by our Constitution and enacted ... at the state level ... the rules which limit our ability to select our own candidates or control our own governments.

When those who seek political power are allowed to write the rules by which that power is attained, it is unwise to imagine altruism will be their motivating force. In these circumstances, gerrymandering and all the other manifestations of corruption that engulf us are inevitable. When we let parties control our political processes, we are foolish to expect them to act in a principled manner.

We have a failed political system because we allowed politicians to bastardize our political system to serve their own ends. The depth of that bastardization is astounding. It is certainly not limited to gerrymandering. It pervades the entire fabric of politics from rules for caucuses, primaries and conventions to rules that allow riders on our public laws. The system is powerful and it's deeply entrenched.

Our only recourse is to rally enough support to force the various states to abolish the party-preferential regulations that prevent the American people from governing themselves. Attempts to clean it up must come before our state legislatures, and they have a long history of rendering such cleansing ineffective while misleading the public with lip-service to "cleaning house". Working through the 50 state legislatures is a non-trivial task, but it must be done.

Correcting the serious problems in our political system is a daunting prospect. Doing so without recourse to self-defeating violence will test our intellect and our resolve. I'm certain we can accomplish the task, but I'm not sure how long it's going to take.

Fred

Selecting Leaders, Partisanship

2009-06-17T10:20:00.001-04:00

Kristofer Munsterhjelm, in extended discussion on the Electorama site and in private emails, explained why good government must include proportional representation for the many diverse interests of the people. Careful consideration of Kristofer's description showed that society would benefit if special interests are able to participate as a group, provided the rest of society is equally well represented. Practical Democracy ensures that those who are not members of organized groups will also be represented by including the entire electorate in the electoral process.

Groups of people who share a common interest are incomparably different from entities organized for the purpose of achieving political power. The following describes how Practical Democracy integrates proportional representation for partisans of diverse interests without letting the interest groups control the process. It is hereby incorporated in the Selecting Leaders section, above.

Selecting Leaders, Partisanship

At any time up to one week before an election, voters may declare themselves to be members of any party or may create a new party, simply by declaring membership in it. Voters that do not declare party membership will automatically be assigned to a set of voters with no party affiliation. The Election Commission will create triads from members of the same party, as long as more than two members of a party advance. When less than three members of a party advance, the party's remaining candidates are merged with the unaligned candidates. This allows elevation of the advocates for partisan interests to the highest level supported by the party's membership.

This change reduces the risk of suitable candidates being shut out at the lowest level and encourages thorough examination of the tenets of partisan views. It makes Practical Democracy responsive to the interests of the people. The public is encouraged ... and empowered ... to support the ideas that are important to them. Special interests maintain their identity through multiple levels, depending on the size of the party, and the champions for partisans advance to levels where they can promote their cause. Each party achieves influence in government commensurate with the public support its cause inspires.

This modification corrects the abuses of the present system of party politics because, under Practical Democracy, voters with no party affiliation have a voice. Special interests will be represented in our government, but, more importantly, the people will be represented, too.

Fred Gohlke

2009-06-17T10:16:00.000-04:00