[EM] why ANY pr disempowers minority voters.

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Morning, Juho

re: "Parties and everyone should not make too
      self-interested decisions."

'Parties and everyone' make self-interested decisions.  That's the 
reality.  The pursuit of self-interest is a natural human trait.  The 
challenge, in politics, is to select the individuals whose self-interest 
is aligned with the interests of the community, and raise them to 
leadership positions.


re: "... in some other systems clearly defined political
      parties could be a benefit."

Certainly.  In oligarchies, for example.


re: "... I tend to think that all organisations with some
      power have the risk of some central individuals or
      groupings grabbing more of that power to themselves
      than would be beneficial to the society."

Is that not precisely the circumstance in which we find ourselves?


re: "I see some risks also in the peer approach. There
      will in any case be some high managers sitting on
      top of the pyramid."

I'm not entirely clear on what a 'high manager' is, but I think you are 
correct.  Those who reach the top of the pyramid will have persuaded 
others they have the qualities necessary to advance the community's 
interests.  We should note that, as we approach to top of the pyramid, 
the competition will be intense.  Each member of a triad wants to be 
elevated and, therefore, will not be easy to convince.  They will seek 
out any flaw in their competitors, to improve their own chance of 
advancement.  That is not a risk, it is the purpose of the process.


re: "From their (the high managers) point of view a group
      of voters discussing with their peers might be less
      harmful form the point of view of interfering with
      their power hungry plans, than voters that would
      directly vote one of the competing parties in the
      next election would have."

The voters discussing political issues with their peers are doing so to 
select one of the members of the triad to advance, and become a 
candidate for further advancement.  The 'high managers' with "power 
hungry plans" must first be advanced by their peers.  In other words, 
their peers are the people voting on their advancement, not once, but 
multiple times, as they move toward the top of the pyramid.  That gives 
the people a repeating opportunity to detect - and avoid - their 'power 
hungry plans'.


re: "I thus see a need to have some very direct channels that
      make it possible for each voter (without any intermediate
      small managers/ representatives) to influence the system."

I will be posting the complete process in a day or so.  In it, you will 
see that it provides a way for those who do not advance to influence 
those they have chosen to represent them.


re: "In order to use this power, the voters should have some
      reasonable understanding on how the system works."

It would be difficult to misunderstand a system that lets you choose one 
of your peers to represent your interests, or persuade your peers that 
you represent their interests.  Can any system be more elementary than 
that?  It is certainly easier to understand than casting a vote for a 
person you know nothing about.


re: "... in a democracy it makes very much sense to try
      to make all groupings of the society interested in
      the future of the society."

You are correct.  And the very first step in encouraging the people's 
interest is a process where their views have meaning.  When people are 
able to discuss their concerns with their neighbors and select the best 
advocate of their interests to represent them, most will be interested.


re: "I want the voters have two paths to influence (bottom-up
      vie peers and top-down via direct elections)."

As we can see by looking around us, top-down systems do not allow 
bottom-up influence.


I'll be interested in your comments on Frome.

Fred Gohlke