[EM] language/framing quibble

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Afternoon, Juho

re: "Yes, that method reduces campaigning since all decisions are
      very local.  The answer in this case seems to be to reduce
      the number of candidates that each voter can vote."

The purpose of the method is not to "reduce the number of candidates 
that each voter can vote", but to guarantee that each participant has 
the greatest possible opportunity to impact the political decisions of 
the community.  The proposal reduces the number of candidates because it 
is a distillation process.  Its purpose is to empower each of our 
citizens to the maximum extent possible while seeking out and elevating 
the best of our citizens to positions of political leadership.

Groups of three (triads) are the optimum size for the exchange of ideas 
when a decision is required.  If you like, I can provide the rationale 
for this assertion so it can be challenged.


re: "Local campaigning is of course still needed (in the small
      groups)."

That's a semantic issue.  Participants who wish to advance must persuade 
their peers of their value.  That persuasive effort can be labeled 
'campaigning', but it is not really analogous to the political 
campaigning we experience today so I prefer using a different term to 
describe it.


re: "Also party campaigning may be present (anonymous)."

It will be present.  Perhaps I'd better explain why I think that is a 
good thing:

As has been pointed out, most recently by Dave Ketchum, not every member 
of the electorate understands the many aspects of public office. 
Partisans of all stripes can, and should, present their view on matters 
of contemporary importance so participants in the electoral process can, 
to the extent of their interest, inform themselves on the issues.  Most 
participants will support some partisans and oppose others.  That is the 
means by which complex issues are examined.  It is a good thing ... as 
long as their participation in the electoral process is in no way 
dependent on their partisanship.  As I've said before:

   "Partisanship is a vital part of society ... provided it
    is always a voice and never a power.  The danger is not
    in partisanship, it is in allowing partisans to control
    government."

Fred Gohlke