[EM] the 'who' and the 'what'

[Michael Allan]

Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
> If you take the parallel system strategy to its extreme, you'd get a 
> "parallel organization" where (as an example), a group elects a "double 
> mayor" and support him over the real mayor, essentially building a state 
> inside the state. I don't think that's very likely to happen, though; as 
> hard it may be to alter the nation through voting, it's going to be even 
> harder to make a duplicate state from nothing, and that duplicate state 
> would still have to abide by the laws of the real state.

Or the leading mayoral candidates of the parallel system might
subsequently place themselves on the ballot of the City system.
People would expect more-or-less equivalent results.  They would
expect the City system to reflect and ratify their prior choices.
Then the two electoral systems would not be competitive (as I
implied).  They would be in synergy. The parallel system would be
feeding candidates into the City system.  Its function in that context
would be indentical to that of the party electoral systems.  It would
occupy the same political "niche".  So the competition would be there,
in that niche.

Similar arguments can be applied to a parallel legislature.  Popular
parallel legislation would naturally find its way onto the legislative
agenda of the state.  Unpopular state legislation would naturally be
voted down in the parallel legislature.  Party discipline might be
undermined.

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, 647-436-4521
http://zelea.com/