[EM] language/framing quibble

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Morning, Juho

re: "I'd encourage maintaining some separation of the political
      and business segments of the society."

How would you go about accomplishing that?


re: "The triads and other low level approaches may do good job in
      at least waking up some potential leaders.  It is however
      not guaranteed that they or other competent people will end
      up at the top."

Of course not ... and stating the obvious does little to aid our effort 
to understand complex matters.

We are talking about a method that gives every member of the electorate 
an opportunity to participate in the electoral process, to the full 
extent of their desire and ability; a method that takes control of 
elected officials away from political elites and puts it back in the 
hands of the people, where it belongs.  The method guarantees nothing, 
but it opens the door for competent people to rise to the top ... a 
prospect denied us by the current political infrastructure.


re: "In practice all political systems have some
      groupings/parties though."

There is nothing wrong with that.  In fact, it's healthy.  The problem 
is not that people seek out and align themselves with others who share 
their views, it is when those they align themselves with have the power 
to compel their support.  If the group can not attract voluntary 
agreement with the views it espouses, those who dissent must be free to 
form new alliances.


re: "I have also spent some time in thinking how we could make
      the party structure more dynamic and having more variation
      than few monolithic blocks with established power structure
      do offer."

Have you come up with a means we could examine?


re: "Since some kind of grouping of people and ideologies is
      likely we better have means to heard them."

Is there a better way than letting each and every person advance their 
own ideology as effectively as they can?

Fred Gohlke