[EM] Feeling left out in Sefton

[Michael Allan]

Good morning Fred,

> (First of all, I just found a message from you to me on September 8th. I 
> ran across it by accident.  I apologize for missing it.  Perhaps it would 
> be better if you clicked on the link with my name at the very top of my 
> posts.  When you do that your message comes to me by email.  I'll try to 
> respond to the September 8th message as soon as I can.  flg.)

(OK, no problem.  I'll CC you for my list replies.)

> Those who do not advance beyond the lowest levels no longer
> influence the selection process.  Some, as you suggest, may feel
> 'left out', particularly since our interest in politics waxes and
> wanes throughout our lives.  That feeling may, and should, spur
> us to try harder in the next election.  Some may not have the
> talent to advance beyond the lower levels, but, some will hone
> their skills, advance, and become leaders.
>
> The important thing is that they have the opportunity.

Yes, that is a good thing.  I must point out however that I do not
wish to be a Councillor myself.  It is not my calling.

In my case, all I wanted was the opportunity to express my agreement
or disagreement with the final selection.  This is what has me feeling
left out of the decision.  You see, two Councillors were elected here
in my ward and I (an elector) had no voice in the matter.  Nor did any
of my neighbours.  I've been visiting them, and asking, "Did you agree
to these new Councillors?"

> re: "My concern is a feeling of distance.  Mass voting gave me
>      immediacy and equality (however illusory)...
>
> The parenthetical expression 'however illusory' is a serious
> reservation.  As much as some people get a sense of immediacy and
> equality, others are alienated by being called upon to vote on
> people and issues chosen by others.  That is one of the reasons
> for the lag in voter turnout.
>
> I don't think it's widely recognized (except by political
> professionals), but public involvement in political affairs is
> adversely affected by the confrontational nature of partisan
> politics.  The significance of adversarial relationships is
> greatest for the principals.  Thereafter, it diminishes as the
> distance from the adversaries grows.  This is evident in all
> conflicts from sports and games to politics and war.  Partisan
> politics puts most people on the periphery, remote from the
> process.  Their interest lags and they don't participate.  The
> only way to raise the interest of the people on the periphery is
> to make them part of the process.

But I was left out the process for 3 months, during which time these
decisions were made.  I have since been told that each decision was
made by 16 people.  Can that be true?  There are 9000 electors in my
ward, yet only 32 of them decided in favour of these new Councillors?

> There is a possible exception to the exclusion for those at the
> upper levels who do not advance.  The proposal, as prepared for
> the Sefton Municipal Council, is for the selection of candidates
> for the council.  The original proposal is more extensive.  It
> includes the following:
>
>  "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."
>
> An additional provision, suggested by a colleague but not yet
> added to the text of the proposal, is that those not selected at
> the uppermost levels become a pool of validated candidates from
> which appointive offices must be filled.

(So the structure of assent is a kind of scaffold, or mould pattern,
in which to construct a new power structure?  I've been exploring that
idea in the theory of my own method.)
http://zelea.com/project/votorola/d/theory.xht#action-power

Furthermore (to return to my complaining), during that whole 3 months
I was constantly reminded by the media that this new electoral method
has stolen my vote for Council, and substituted a vote for a "triad".
Apparently I am not alone in feeling that I got the short end of the
stick.  There appears to be a groundswell of resentment here in
Sefton.  People are calling it the "Day of the Triads".

(You see, practical democracy is not a popular method by it's own
definition.  It will therefore have many attackers and few defenders.
This is not only a problem of perception.  The method is essentially
exclusive.  It does not depend on popular assent.  That places it
beyond the pale of modern democracy and jurisprudence.  You will be
attacked on those fronts too.)

(I suggested one path to a solution in another sub-thread.  I
suggested increasing the inclusiveness by allowing people to express
their assent and dissent with the decisions, even as they bubble their
way up through the triads.  This would take you closer to the method I
am currently developing.  And it might solve some other problems that
are looming, if you actually intend to initiate an electoral reform in
Sefton.)

http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2008-September/022558.html

http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2008-September/022557.html

-- 
Michael Allan

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