[EM] Conceiving a Democratic Electoral Process

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Afternoon, Michael

re: "Let's sum up.  You propose an electoral process to correct
      the evils of party politics."

No.  I'm proposing (or, actually, searching for) a democratic electoral 
process.  Party politics is a side issue.  It is an important issue, but 
a side issue, nonetheless.  The focal point is enabling government by 
the people.  My purpose is to conceive a practical approach to bottom-up 
government rather than the top-down version we have now.  All I can do 
is describe a method and hope other thoughtful people will provide a 
rational explanation of why it will fail - or help hone it into a more 
complete solution.


re: "You hope that people somewhere will give it a try."

Yes, I do.


re: "However, if they do, you cannot foresee any sequence of
      events by which the promised benefits could be realized.
      Is that correct?"

No, that's not accurate.  There are no promised benefits except those 
that flow from selecting the best individuals in the community to make 
the decisions that advance the common interest.  It would be 
presumptuous of outsiders like me to define them or to promise their 
achievement.

In terms of the sequence of events, as I said yesterday, if a community 
uses a 'different' approach and it succeeds, other communities with 
similar problems will adopt it.  The process would be most analogous to 
osmosis.


re: "I'm looking for a way (any sequence of events) by which the
      proposed process could *possibly* deliver on its promised
      benefits.  I have no doubt such a way exists, but I ask you
      to place it on the table (1, 2, 3) so we can all examine it."

I don't believe politics works like that.  In human interactions, there 
are an infinite number of possibilities with an infinite difference in 
energy potential behind them that can be triggered by an infinite number 
of potential circumstances.  It's true that behavioral scientists can 
generate selective responses in narrow fields, but since such efforts 
are always for someone's benefit, they are done at the expense of the 
community rather than for its benefit.  Seeking to improve society, as 
we are doing here, is much more complex and much less predictable.

Yesterday, I mentioned a community in the throes of political change.  I 
have no idea what benefits those people need, nor do I believe it is my 
place to define them.  The people there must identify the circumstances 
that concern them, seek the members of the community best able to 
address those concerns and raise them to leadership positions.  The 
individuals the people select to lead them will address and resolve the 
problems facing the community as well as they can be resolved.

I suppose we could say the outline of Practical Democracy on 
Participedia was step 1, the initiative of the pastor in seeking more 
information on the process was step 2, and whatever the community does 
with the concept is step 3, but that's not helpful because step 2 cannot 
be predicted with precision.  I'd be more inclined to suggest Mark 
Buchanan's, Nexus - Small Worlds and the Groundbreaking Theory of 
Networks, comes closer to describing the process:  I'd never heard of 
the pastor I mentioned in my last post, and yet, he learned about 
Practical Democracy, saw in it a potential benefit for his community and 
sought more information.

That's about as much as one can expect from a 'different' idea.

Fred