[EM] (2): UK 'post mortem', 2nd discussion between Steve and Fred Gohlke

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Morning, Steve

This will be a slow process.  Empowering the people is not a trivial 
issue.  It has many facets.


re: I see each person's somewhat different 'internal
     proportionality' as what would guide each citizen
     as how to participate or not ...

I agree, particularly with regard to "each citizen".  A democratic 
process is (or, rather, should be) bottom-up.  It must be inclusive but 
it cannot be coercive.  Each of us must be allowed to participate in the 
political process to the full extent of our desire and ability.  In the 
U. S., the people have been excluded from the political process for so 
long that many of them have been schooled in the art of disinterest. 
Such people will not trust an inclusive process until they have seen it 
work.

When we devise an inclusive democratic process, some people will 
participate, others will learn to participate, and some will never 
participate.  From the point of view of the community, those who will 
not participate in its government add no value to the political process. 
  However, all the rest do, so the first step in devising an inclusive 
process must be to distinguish between the two types of citizens.  It 
has been shown, by Archon Fung of Harvard and many others, that, when 
people who want to participate in the political process, deliberate on 
the issues that concern the community, their efforts can be productive.


re: ... in electing a rep, e.g. to choose which candidate(s)
     to rank.

This raises the most important question in politics:  Who names the 
candidates?  I see you mentioned this issue, as follows:


re: During APR's primary election you would rank (1,2,3, etc.)
     all the voluntary, social organizations that had applied
     directly to elect their own rep(s) during the next general
     election, i.e applied to the central electoral commission to
     become and official electoral 'association' ... You would
     rank these according to the degree to which each organization
     seemed to mirror your own.

How would I know, with any degree of certainty, the aims of the 
organizations?  Is AARP an organization to help retired people or a 
marketing enterprise?  Is it reasonable to think the lay citizen will do 
the exhaustive research necessary to rank the multitude of organizations 
seeking to increase their power and influence by placing an advocate in 
the government?

You mentioned sending me a more complete explanation of APR.  I'd like 
to see the explanation of the groundwork.  I don't think it's difficult 
to arrange for the people to decide who they want to represent them in 
their government and I'm anxious to see your approach.  I may offer a 
counter-suggestion as a step in the slow process of re-thinking our 
political infrastructure.

Oh, yes.  I'd better mention that I don't have the latest computer 
doo-dads.  I do all my work in a DOS environment and copy it to Windows 
2000 when I go on the internet.  There are some 'flash' things that 
don't work on my computer.

Am I old-fashioned?  Yup.  I'm 86.  I work in text, learning new 
whizz-bangs doesn't appeal to me.

Fred Gohlke