[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics + a method proposal

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Afternoon, Juho

re: "One more observation on the risks.  Some people may feel 
participation in a triad to be more challenging than dropping a ballot n 
a box and therefore avoid taking part in such challenging activities 
where they are expected to perform and prove their viewpoint."

Are we to leave our fate to those unable or unwilling to express their 
view on the circumstances that govern our lives?

There is no requirement that they take part in any 'challenging 
activities'.  At the lowest level, they probably don't even have to go 
to a polling place or fill out a ballot.  All they have to do is discuss 
their views with two of their neighbors and select one of the two to 
represent their interest.  The extent to which they engage in the 
process is their option.

The point is that they ... and we ... have the option.



re: "I haven't carefully thought what kind of method would be good for 
this purpose and I'm also not to familiar with the set-up."

Insofar as the outline is concerned, you haven't had time to think 
carefully about the method and none of us know the form it will take. 
You apparently found aspects of my suggestion unacceptable.  Therefore, 
it seemed worthwhile to encourage the development of a different 
approach.  All I've done is take some of the points you mentioned and 
put them in a crude outline.  At the moment, it can't be called a 
method.  It will become one, if and when, we, by suggesting and 
challenging and justifying and discussing, gradually hone it into a 
semblance of a sound idea.

To accomplish that, we must start by recognizing that there's no such 
thing as 'wrong'.  Every idea is an embryo.  Our job is to see to its 
nutrition.  All we need contribute is good will, open-mindedness and a 
genuine desire to craft a sound electoral method.  If we are able to do 
that, we will have realized the power and the promise of the internet.

The greatest challenge we'll encounter is handling divergent opinions in 
a way that informs but does not detract from our joint effort.  I'm not 
sure I have the wit or wisdom to arrange that gracefully, but, if we can 
make a good start, we can be sure others, more talented than I am, will 
come to the fore.



re: "I tried to offer nomination practices that would be 'equal to all'."

Ideas for nomination practices are in the outline.  They should be 
challenged, justified, modified and honed until we have an acceptable 
set of practices.



re: "There may be also other means to limit the ill effects of costly 
campaigning."

Dave Ketchum has already made the outstanding suggestion that each 
candidate offer a resume of qualifications and aspirations.  The idea 
deserves examination and enhancement.  (I see you, too, approve Dave's 
approach.  I need to include your comment in the outline.)



re: "In a democracy a strong and persistent majority opinion of the 
citizens (if one exists) should overrule the opinions of the incumbent 
politicians."

An aspect of Active Democracy that may have escaped notice is:

"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."

At the suggestion of my friend in the U. K., we are using this 
capability to improve the people's voice in their government.  The 
change is so promising we may change the name of the process from Active 
Democracy to Inclusive Democracy; it includes the entire electorate in 
our government.

Something has come up that may affect my availability to work on this 
project.  I'll keep working as long as I can and will let you know if 
you'll need to find a replacement.

Fred