[EM] Feeling left out in Sefton

[Michael Allan]

Good morning Fred,

> re: "There are 9000 electors in my ward, yet only 32 of them
>      decided in favour of these new Councillors?"
>
> Does this mean you disapprove of representative democracy?  If so, the 
> difference in our views can't be bridged.

Your high regard for it is obvious, because you take it to the Nth
degree!  You elaborate a deep hierarchy of representation.

But then, so do I.  Our methods are similar in this regard.  The
difference is that I expose the full depth of the representative
hierarachy to the scrutiny of popular assent.  You do not.

> The 32 (actually 6 in the Sefton example) were carefully examined and 
> selected by their peers.  They were chosen because they were deemed most 
> representative of the people who selected them.  Is this not inordinately 
> better than having a political elite tell us who our representative is 
> going to be.

Whatever the reasons for their individual choices, the choosers
numbered 32.  Or am I wrong?  Each winner was initially chosen by 2 in
the level one tier, then by 2 in the level two tier, and so on.  With
a total of eight tiers, that's 16 choosers per winner.  There are two
winners, so that's 32.

I grant that most of the choosers are themselves chosen (they are the
representation you speak of), but that does not alter the fact that
only 32 people (out of a total electorate of 9001) actually decided in
favour of the winners.  Or am I wrong?

> With regard to the balance of your message, it seems to be mostly an 
> exercise in facetiousness.  I'm hard pressed to find anything worthy of a 
> response.

I apologize!  The allusion to the "Day of the Triffids" was facetious.
I got carried away in my role as Devil's advocate.  I pressed a point
too hard...

> There is, however, one misrepresentation that warrants 
> clarification:
>
> re: "... this new electoral method has stolen my vote for Council"
>
> The petition specifically requests implementation of Practical Democracy as 
> a method of selecting 'candidates'.  Even people like you, who do not 
> participate in the selection process, shall have the opportunity to vote 
> for the candidate of their choice.

It is only a primary election?  (I didn't know!)  So the elector still
gets a vote when it comes down to a final decision.  He won't be
"feeling left out in Sefton".

I take it the "practical primary" is the only one?  All other
candidates are excluded?  (Otherwise, I guess you wouldn't need a
petition to implement this.)  Then I guess it's what they call a
"blanket primary".

In that case, there's a loss of the wider field of candidates.  Gone
are the various party offerings.  Gone are the independents.  Instead
there are just 2 candidates.  It's not much of a choice.  All the real
choices were made in the primary, of course.  But most people won't
know the difference (alas!), they are used to restricted choices.

The elector's vote then is "stolen" (sorry) not from the principal
election, but rather from the primary.  Each candidate that emerges
from the primary has the direct approval (albeit in a series of run
offs) of only 16 people.  The elector is probably not among them.  But
then he probably doesn't participate in primaries anyway.  Most people
don't.  So, again, he won't feel the loss.

So then, as a primary election method, it looks like practical
democracy is safe from popular resentment.  That final vote in the
principal election protects it.  I concede.

> If you have specific comments or questions, I will respond to
> them...

I do have a question.  I posted it earlier in these threads: :)

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

If you can answer, maybe we can uncover the logical consequences of
not taking popular assent into account - this time in a primary
election.  Just to be up front, I intend to argue that "practical
democracy" is not democracy at all.  It's an elite meritocracy.

(If you agree, we might discuss whether that's a good thing.  You see,
I have an alternative in mind that combines the two - a way to benefit
from the one without losing the other.)

-- 
Michael Allan

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