[EM] language/framing quibble

Dave Ketchum davek at clarityconnect.com
Thu Mar 5 10:39:27 PST 2009

You do not change the basics but, anyhow:

A smaller group could decide.  HOW did they get the authority.

I suspect many will agree that "lot" is unacceptable except for resolving 
ties when there is nothing better available.

Anyway, whoever is deciding has the same learning need that I described below.


On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 23:07:28 +0100 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
> Dave Ketchum wrote:
>> So, you do not like the word "campaign".
>> Suppose I take an interest in becoming mayor of Owego.
>> This will require my neighbors learning this, and something of what I 
>> might do as mayor.
>> What shall we call this getting the word out, if not campaigning?
>> Because parties are usually involved, those of us sharing thought will 
>> call ourselves the "People's Party", though it does nothing outside 
>> our village.
>> My neighbors must learn this to be able to vote for me.
> I think his point is that by using other methods, you may get around 
> this apparent necessity. For instance, Owego might pick a 
> "Representative House" by lot (Athenian model) and that House elects the 
> mayor in a parliamentary fashion; or it might use a recursive selection 
> process where you convince a small council you're the best among them to 
> stand, then a small council made up of the suceeding candidates of the 
> previous councils, and so on up to mayor. In both cases, you "get the 
> word out" to a subset of the people - in the former, to the random 
> assembly, and in the latter, to the intersection of councils that you 
> end up being a part of.
  davek at clarityconnect.com    people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
  Dave Ketchum   108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708   607-687-5026
            Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                  If you want peace, work for justice.

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list