[EM] language/framing quibble

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Morning, Kristofer

re: "Even without rigid monitoring, there should be a
      counteracting measure. After all, the councilmembers work
      on behalf of the people, so if they start consistently
      diverging from what the people want, there should be a way
      of directing them back. This way must not be too strict, or
      we get short term interest on one hand and populism on the
      other. It should still be there; I think that's partly the
      point of the bidirectionality we're talking about, although
      it's not limited to "counteraction", but also involves
      information (to guide)."

Absolutely!!!

The other day, you mentioned the idea that those not selected at the 
highest level should have a role in advising the person selected (You 
may not have said it exactly that way, but that's the way I interpreted 
it.)  I'd like to look at that a bit more carefully.

At present, in the United States, our elected officials have 'staffs', 
including legislative assistants.  I understand many of our (so-called) 
representatives do not even read the legislation they vote on ... they 
let their 'legislative aides' do it.

Now, that's a travesty, if I've ever heard one.

The people who reach the highest levels have already been carefully 
examined.  They advanced because they were considered worthy by a large 
number of people.  We should avail ourselves of that pool of talent. 
I've already mentioned using them as a source from which appointive 
offices are filled.  In addition, following your thought, they can 
function as advisors to the elected official.  The only question is the 
level of formality we attach to the role.



Whoops!  That's exactly what you're saying, isn't it:

     "My idea was that even the unselected helped the selected
      become selected. In one sense, they used their power (what
      one may call that power) to reach an agreement. Therefore,
      the selected are to some extent accountable to them; which
      makes sense if you go all the way down, where the people
      (except the candidates) are all ultimately unselected. As
      you say, formal power might not be the way to do so, though."

I was wrong.  In addition to the points you've made, such an arrangement 
would provide a training ground for candidates by exposing them to the 
legislative process.  It would also provide an anti-corruption buffer. 
I'm not sure how we should implement the concept, but I'm sure we should 
do so.

We seem to be in agreement that the bidirectional capability of the 
process affords us the means of allowing the electorate to influence 
their representative's acts, after election.  I think we're agreed that 
those who reach the highest levels but are not elected should have a 
role in, at least, advising our elected officials.  We have not yet 
precisely described the method of implementation, but that's because 
we're still exploring the possibilities.

The idea of matrices seems (to me) to add complexity.  It's true the 
data can be processed by machine, and, once it's set up, it will seem 
simple enough.  But, I think that hides the complexity and transfers the 
decision making to the programmer that devises the algorithm.  It does 
not encourage us to think about and justify each decision we make.  Is 
there not a more direct way?

I'm not sure the idea of 'weighting' the input of constituents based on 
the level they attain is a good one.  Our interest in politics waxes and 
wanes throughout our lives.  It's entirely possible a person will opt 
out at the lower levels many times before experiencing a desire to 
participate.  Indeed, that's an important aspect of Practical Democracy; 
it allows us to participate, to the full extent of our ability, whenever 
our interest is aroused.

Fred