[EM] Practical Democrach
Frank Martinez
frankdmartinez at gmail.com
Mon Jan 25 06:54:46 PST 2016
So, the "tl;dr" version is roughly: Voters get together in groups of 3,
choose the best of the 3 to represent Them at the next stage, selected
Representatives then lather and rinse and repeat, yes?
On Monday, January 25, 2016, Fred Gohlke <fredgohlke at verizon.net> wrote:
> PRACTICAL DEMOCRACY
>
> Abstract
> --------
> When we speak of government by the people, 'the people' is not an
> amorphous mass. It is an abundance of individuals: some brilliant, some
> dull; some good, some bad; some with integrity, some deceitful. To achieve
> government by the people, we must sift through this diversity to find the
> individuals with the qualities needed to address and resolve contemporary
> public concerns.
>
> In a truly democratic political process, the entire electorate will
> participate in defining the issues the government must address and
> selecting the individuals best equipped to resolve those issues. The size
> of the electorate and the varying level of interest in public affairs among
> the populace make the matter of including everyone a challenge.
>
> This paper describes a method of dividing the electorate into very small
> groups and letting each group decide which of their members best represents
> the group's interests. Those so chosen are arranged in similar groups to
> continue sifting through the electorate to identify the individuals most
> motivated and best qualified to address and resolve the people's concerns.
> The described approach ensures that candidates for public office are
> carefully examined by their peers before they are chosen as the people's
> representatives.
>
>
> PRACTICAL DEMOCRACY
>
> Overview
> --------
> The realities of life, particularly our economic needs, tend to distract
> us from serious thought about public concerns. These circumstances have
> allowed the political infrastructure in the United States to gradually
> deteriorate until, as Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page[1] conclude,
> "America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."
> One of their striking findings is:
>
> "... the nearly total failure of 'median voter' and other
> Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories. When the
> preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized
> interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the
> average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero,
> statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."
>
> These results should not be surprising. Justice Louis Brandeis is quoted
> as saying, "We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in
> the hands of a few, but we can't have both."[2] Organized political power
> and concentrated wealth feed off each other. The political process in the
> United States epitomizes this relationship.
>
> If we wish to change our entrenched system, we should start by heeding
> John Dewey's guidance[3]:
>
> "The old saying that the cure for the ills of democracy
> is more democracy is not apt if it means that the evils
> may be remedied by introducing more machinery of the
> same kind as that which already exists, or by refining
> and perfecting that machinery."
>
> Creating new machinery that differs from existing machinery in important
> ways requires an understanding of the flaws in the existing machinery.
>
>
> Partisanship
> ------------
> Democracy is not a team sport. Even though partisanship is natural for
> humans, political systems built on partisanship are destructive.
>
> George Washington warned us, in his Farewell Address, that political
> factions would enable "cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men" to
> "subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of
> government"[4]. In spite of his warning, those "cunning, ambitious, and
> unprincipled men" created top-down political organizations that let them
> set the agendas and choose the candidates for which people may vote.
>
> When the people are only allowed to choose from party-chosen options, the
> ability to vote for one of them is neither free nor democratic. On the
> contrary, since those who control the options control the outcome, it shows
> that the people are subjects of those who defined their options. As Robert
> Michels pointed out, "... the oligarchical and bureaucratic tendency of
> party organization ... serves to conceal from the mass a danger which
> really threatens democracy."[5]
>
> Over two hundred years experience with party politics informs us that,
> when politics is based on partisanship, the partisans form oligarchic power
> blocs that become an end in themselves and ultimately transcend the will of
> the people. National Socialism and Russian Communism had features that
> attracted broad partisan support throughout a national expanse and both
> degenerated into destructive forces because their partisans gained control
> of their governments.
>
> The danger in communism and National Socialism was not that they attracted
> partisan support; it was that the partisans controlled the government. In
> general, partisanship is healthy when it helps give voice to our views. It
> is destructive when it achieves power. All ideologies, whether of the
> right or the left, differ from communism and National Socialism only in the
> extent to which their partisans are able to impose their biases on the
> public.
>
> Party politics is a potent tool for those with a thirst for power but it
> does not foster government by the people. It disenfranchises non-partisans
> and results in government by a small fraction of the people. For the
> people as a whole, the flaws are devastating. Their cumulative effect
> victimizes the public by the most basic and effective strategy of
> domination - Divide and Conquer.
>
> In spite of the dangers inherent in partisanship, we must recognize that
> it is a vital part of society. People differ, and it is essential that
> they should, because we advance our common interest by examining
> conceivable options. Differing people seek out and align themselves with
> others who share their views. In the process of doing so, they hone their
> views to help form a consensus. That is the way they give breadth, depth
> and volume to their voice.
>
> Such alliances are not only inevitable; they are a vital part of society -
> provided they are always a voice and never a power. The danger is not in
> partisanship, it is in allowing partisans to control government.
>
> 1--> New machinery to support a democratic political process
> must incorporate partisanship without letting partisans
> control the political process.
>
>
> Political Campaigning
> ---------------------
> Campaigning is the process of selling political candidates to the public.
> It is a top-down technique and is conceptually unsound in any political
> system that purports to be democratic.
>
> Campaigning is the antithesis of open inquiry. It is a training course in
> the art of deception. Candidates must continually adjust their assertions
> to appeal to the diverse groups whose votes they need for their election.
> In the process, they become expert at avoiding direct answers to questions
> and diverting attention from unwelcome topics. The result is one-way
> communication centered on deceit, misdirection and obfuscation.
>
> Political campaigning incurs high costs. Those who supply the money are
> not altruists; they demand a return for their money. The only product the
> political parties have to sell is the laws their candidates will enact when
> elected. This relationship is a major stimulus for the corruption that is
> destroying democracy in America.
>
> 2--> New machinery to support a democratic political process
> must function without political campaigns.
>
>
> Passion Versus Intellect
> ------------------------
> Political parties mount, finance and staff campaigns designed to inflame
> the passions of the electorate. There is no genuine attempt to consult the
> public interest. Instead, surveys are conducted to find "hot buttons"
> which generate a desired response and professionals use the information to
> mold "messages" which the candidates and the parties feed the public. It
> is a rabble- rousing technique.
>
> Intelligent decisions require discourse; assertions must be examined, not
> in the sterile environment of a televised debate, but in depth. The
> electorate must be able to examine candidates and discuss matters of public
> concern, and, with the knowledge so gained, make decisions. In the
> existing political environment, they have no opportunity to do so.
>
> 3--> New machinery to support a democratic political process
> must enable and encourage dialogue and deliberation on
> political issues among the electorate.
>
>
> Incumbency
> ----------
> "Few things in life are more predictable than the chances of an incumbent
> member of the U.S. House of Representatives winning reelection. With wide
> name recognition, and usually an insurmountable advantage in campaign cash,
> House incumbents typically have little trouble holding onto their
> seats..."[9]
>
> It is reported that incumbents in the U. S. Senate and House of
> Representatives are returned to office over 90% of the time even though
> Congress has an approval rating of less then 15%.[10] This circumstance
> obtains because the people have no options.
>
> What choices are available to the voters when the only names on the ballot
> are those chosen by the parties? When the dominant party repeatedly
> chooses the same candidate and the opposing candidate is an unacceptable
> alternative, the people have no way to bring new minds to their
> government. Systems that let organized groups decide who can be a
> candidate for public office are profoundly undemocratic.
>
> Dynamic systems require fresh minds. The current and emerging problems
> facing the electorate change constantly. The inability to select new
> representatives equipped to resolve contemporary issues injures the entire
> community. In addition, rot thrives in a closed environment. Just like
> with apples in barrels, corruption flourishes when incumbents are
> repeatedly returned to office.
>
> 4--> New machinery to support a democratic political process
> must include a way for the people to change their
> representatives, as they deem appropriate.
>
>
> Exclusivity
> -----------
> Political parties are top-down arrangements that are important for the
> principals: the party leaders, financiers, candidates and elected
> officials, but the significance diminishes rapidly as the distance from the
> center of power grows. Most people are on the periphery, remote from the
> centers of power. They have little or no influence, as shown by Gilens and
> Page.[1] As outsiders, they are effectively excluded from the political
> process.
>
> Party-dominated political infrastructures deny the people the right to
> decide the issues they want addressed and the right to select the
> candidates they want to address them. As a result, the people's political
> skills atrophy because the system gives them no meaningful participation in
> the political process.
>
> The challenge of democracy is to find the best advocates of the common
> interest and raise them to positions of leadership. To meet that
> challenge, given the range of public issues and the way each individual's
> interest in political matters varies over time, an effective electoral
> process must examine the entire electorate during each electoral cycle,
> seeking the people's best advocates.
>
> Machinery that gives the entire electorate a voice in the political
> process must accommodate the fact that the desire to participate in
> political affairs varies from one individual to the next. Some have no
> desire to participate, some will participate for altruistic reasons, some
> will participate to advance their self-interest, and some will be
> indifferent. To reconcile this diversity, a democratic process must be
> open to all, without coercion.
>
> We cannot know what treasures of political ability will be unearthed when
> people are invited to deliberate on their common concerns - with a
> purpose. Some, who start out unsure of their ability, will, as they learn
> they can persuade others of the value of their perspective, gain confidence
> in their ability to influence the political process. In doing so, the
> people gain the internal goods that can only be attained through the
> practice of politics. That, as Alasdair MacIntyre[6] explained, benefits
> the entire community.
>
> 5--> New machinery to support a democratic political process
> must be inclusive. It must be a bottom-up arrangement
> that lets every member of the community influence political
> decisions to the full extent of each individual's desire and
> ability.
>
>
> The Machinery
> -------------
> Political systems are always an embodiment of human nature. Since we
> cannot divorce our political institutions from our own nature, the new
> machinery to support a democratic political process must harness our
> nature. It must make the qualities needed to represent the common interest
> desirable attributes in those who seek political advancement.
>
> Given the wide range of desire and ability among the members of society,
> an inclusive environment must be arranged to encourage the greatest
> participation. Esterling, Fung and Lee show that deliberation in small
> groups raises the knowledge level of the participants and their
> satisfaction with the results of their deliberations.[7] Pogrebinschi
> found that "... policies for minority groups deliberated in the national
> conferences tend to be crosscutting as to their content. The policies tend
> to favor more than one group simultaneously..."[8]
>
> If we are to create an environment for effective political dialogue, we
> must create a framework in which all citizens are encouraged to discuss
> their political concerns with their peers. Such inclusiveness can be
> achieved by arranging the voters in small groups where people with
> differing views discuss issues that concern them.
>
> Since public issues are inseparable from the people who resolve them, the
> groups must identify the individuals in their group who best represent
> their interests. The people so chosen can deliberate with the choices of
> other groups to identify the community's most pressing issues and the
> individuals best suited to address them.
>
> The inclusivity of the process depends in great measure on the size of the
> groups in which the people meet and discuss their concerns. Groups must be
> large enough to make a decision and small enough to encourage those who are
> not accustomed to the serious discussion of political issues to express
> their views.
>
> If we examine the dynamics of such a process, we find that, when a group
> of people meet to select one of their number to represent the others, there
> will be three kinds of participants: those seeking selection, those
> willing to be selected, and those who do not want to be selected.
>
> If none of the participants are willing to be selected, the group will not
> make a choice and will drop from the process in accordance with their own
> wishes. Among groups that make a selection, those who are selected will be
> somewhere on the continuum from those willing to be selected to those
> seeking selection.
>
> For simplicity, we will assume that the desire to be selected is
> equivalent to a desire for public office (as the people's representative)
> and that the people we mention as examples are at one end of the
> wish-willingness continuum or the other. The reality is infinitely more
> complex, but the results will differ only in degree from what we learn by
> thinking about the people who are at the hypothetical extremes.
>
> The purpose of the process is to advance the best advocates of each
> group's perspective on contemporary problems, in a pyramidal fashion, to
> deliberate with the selections of other groups. In such an arrangement, it
> is reasonable to think that active seekers of advancement will be chosen
> more frequently than those who only advance because they are willing to be
> selected. For that reason, after several iterations of the process, we can
> anticipate that all group members will be individuals seeking to persuade
> their peers that they are the best suited to advance.
>
> When persuasion occurs between two people, it takes place as a dialogue
> with one person attempting to persuade the other. In such events, both
> parties are free to participate in the process. The person to be persuaded
> can question the persuader as to specific points, and present
> alternatives. Under such circumstances, it is possible that the persuader
> will become the persuaded.
>
> However, when persuasion involves multiple people, it has a greater
> tendency to occur as a monologue. The transition from dialogue to
> monologue accelerates as the number of people to be persuaded increases.
> The larger the number of people, the less free some of them are to
> participate in the process. In such circumstances, the more assertive
> individuals will dominate the discussion and the viewpoints of the less
> assertive members will not be expressed.
>
> Viewed this way, we can say that when selecting representatives of the
> public interest, a system that encourages dialogue is preferable to one
> that relies on a monologue, and dialogue is best encouraged by having fewer
> people in the "session of persuasion". Under these circumstances, the
> optimum group size to ensure the inclusion of, and encourage the active
> involvement of, the entire electorate, is three.
>
>
> Method
> ------
> 1) Divide the entire electorate into groups of three randomly
> chosen people.
>
> a) The random grouping mechanism must insure that no two
> people are assigned to a triad if they served together in a
> triad in any of the five most recent elections. At the
> initial level, it must ensure that no two people are
> assigned to a triad if they are members of the same family.
>
> b) At any time up to one week before the process begins,
> people may declare themselves members of any interest
> group, faction, party, or enclave, and may create a new
> one, simply by declaring membership in it. People that do
> not declare group membership are automatically assigned to
> a set of people with no affiliation. Triads will be
> created from members of the same interest group, as long as
> more than two members of the group exist. When a group has
> less than three members, the group's remaining candidates
> are merged with the largest set extant.
>
> c) For the convenience of the electorate, triad assignments
> shall be based on geographic proximity to the maximum
> extent practical, subject to the foregoing conditions.
>
> 2) Assign a date and time by which each triad must select one of
> the three members to represent the other two.
>
> a) Selections will be made by consensus. If consensus cannot
> be achieved, selection will be by vote. Participants may
> not vote for themselves.
>
> b) If a triad is unable to select a representative in the
> specified time, all three participants shall be deemed
> disinclined to participate in the process.
>
> 3) Divide the participants so selected into new triads.
>
> 4) Repeat from step 2 until a target number of selections is
> reached.
>
> For convenience, we refer to each iteration as a 'Level', such that Level
> 1 is the initial grouping of the entire electorate, Level 2 is the grouping
> of the selections made at Level 1, and so forth. The entire electorate
> participates at level 1 giving everyone an equal opportunity to advance to
> succeeding levels.
>
>
> Elective and Appointive Offices
> -------------------------------
> The final phase of the Practical Democracy (PD) process, electing
> candidates to specific public offices, is omitted from this outline because
> that task is implementation-dependent. Whatever method is used, it is
> recommended that participants who reach the highest levels but do not
> achieve public office become a pool of validated candidates from which
> appointive offices must be filled.
>
>
> Description
> -----------
> The local government conducts the process. It assigns the participants of
> each triad and supplies the groups with the text of pending ordinances and
> a synopsis of the budget appropriate to the group. In addition, on
> request, it makes the full budget available and supplies the text of any
> existing ordinances. This enables a careful examination of public issues
> and encourages a thorough discussion of matters of public concern.
>
> The public has a tendency to think of elections in terms of just a few
> offices: a congressional seat, a senate race, and so forth. There are,
> however, a large number of elected officials who fill township, county,
> state and federal offices. The structure outlined here provides qualified
> candidates for those offices.
>
> As the process advances through the levels, the life of the triads (the
> amount of time the participants spend together) increases. At level 1,
> triads may meet for a few minutes, over a back-yard fence, so-to-speak, but
> that would not be adequate at higher levels. As the levels advance, the
> participants need more time to evaluate those they are grouped with and to
> research, examine and deliberate on the issues concerning them. (See "Time
> Lapse Example", below.)
>
> Face-to-face meetings in three-person groups eliminate any possibility of
> voting machine fraud. Significantly, they also allow participants to
> observe the non-verbal clues humans emit during discourse and will tend to
> favor moderate attitudes over extremism. As Louis Brandeis said, "We are
> not won by arguments that we can analyze, but by tone and temper; by the
> manner, which is the man himself."[11]
>
> The dissimulation and obfuscation that are so effective in campaign-based
> politics will not work in a group of three people, each of whom has a vital
> interest in reaching the same goal as the miscreant. Thus, the advancement
> of participants will depend on their perceived qualities and demeanor as
> well as the probity with which they fulfill their public obligations.
>
> PD is a distillation process, biased in favor of the most upright and
> capable of our citizens. It cannot guarantee that unprincipled individuals
> will never be selected - such a goal would be unrealistic - but it does
> insure that they are the exception rather than the rule.
>
> More than that, they achieve selection alone, not as part of an organized
> faction. Once elected, acts they seek to inspire must attract the support
> of others over whom they have no partisan control.
>
>
> Harnessing the Pursuit of Self-Interest
> ---------------------------------------
> The initial phase of the PD process is dominated by participants with
> little interest in advancing to higher levels. They do not seek public
> office; they simply wish to pursue their private lives in peace. Thus, the
> most powerful human dynamic during the first phase (i.e., Level 1 and for
> some levels thereafter) is a desire by the majority of the participants to
> select someone who will represent them. The person so selected is more apt
> to be someone who is willing to take on the responsibility of going to the
> next level than someone who actively seeks elevation to the next level, but
> those who do actively seek elevation are not inhibited from doing so.
>
> As the levels increase, the proportion of disinterested parties diminishes
> and we enter a second phase. Here, participants that advance are marked,
> more and more, by an inclination to seek further advancement. Thus, the
> powerful influence of self-interest is integrated into the process.
>
> Those who actively seek selection must persuade their triad that they are
> the best qualified to represent the other two. While that is easy at the
> lower levels, it becomes more difficult as the process moves forward and
> participants are matched with peers who also seek advancement. The
> competitors will seek out any hint of impropriety and will not overlook
> unsuitable behavior.
>
> The pursuit of self-interest is a powerful force. Allowed free rein, it
> can produce an anti-social menace. However, when it is an advantage for an
> individual to be recognized as a person of principle, one's natural
> tendency to pursue one's own interest is more than adequate to avoid
> improper acts. The PD process gives candidates a career-controlling
> incentive to maintain their integrity. Their own self-interest provides
> the motivation.
>
> Practical Democracy harnesses the pursuit of self-interest by making
> integrity an absolute requirement in candidates for public office.
>
>
> Bi-Directionality
> -----------------
> The process is inherently bi-directional. Because each advancing
> participant and elected official sits atop a pyramid of known electors,
> questions on specific issues can easily be transmitted directly to and from
> the electors for the guidance or instruction of the official. This
> capability offers those who implement the process a broad scope, ranging
> from simple polling of constituents to referenda on selected issues and
> recall of an elected representative.
>
>
> Simplified Illustration
> -----------------------
> This table illustrates the process for a community of 25,000 voters. For
> simplicity, it omits interest group considerations and assumes each triad
> selects a candidate. The process is shown through 7 levels. Those who
> implement the process will determine the number of levels necessary for
> their specific application.
>
> Selected
> Randomly
> From
> Full Over Prev. Total People
> Level People Triads Flow Level Triads Chosen Days
> 1 25,000 8,333 1 0 8,333 8,333 5 (1)
> 2 8,334 2,778 0 0 2,778 2,778 5
> 3 2,778 926 0 0 926 926 12
> 4 926 308 2 1 309 309 12
> 5 309 103 0 0 103 103 19
> 6 103 34 1 2 35 35 19
> 7 35 11 2 1 12 12 26 (2)
>
> 1) If the number of candidates does not divide equally into
> triads, any candidates remaining are overflow. Level 1 is a
> special case. When there is overflow at Level 1, the extra
> person(s) automatically become candidates at Level 2.
> Thereafter, when there is overflow at any level, the number of
> people needed to create a full triad are selected at random
> from the people who were not selected at the previous level.
>
> 2) To avoid patronage, appointive offices, including cabinet
> positions, must be filled using candidates that reached the
> final levels but were not selected to fill elective offices.
>
>
> Time Lapse Example
> ------------------
> To give a very rough idea of the time lapse required for such an election,
> we will hypothesize triad lives of 5 days for the 1st and 2nd levels, 12
> days for the 3rd and 4th levels, 19 days for the 5th and 6th levels, and 26
> days thereafter. To illustrate, we will start triad lives on a Wednesday
> and have them report their selection on a Monday. In a 7-level election
> (like the one shown above), the process would complete in 98 days:
>
> Level Start Report Days
> 1 01/07/15 01/12/15 5
> 2 01/14/15 01/19/15 5
> 3 01/21/15 02/02/15 12
> 4 02/04/15 02/16/15 12
> 5 02/18/15 03/09/15 19
> 6 03/11/15 03/30/15 19
> 7 04/01/15 04/27/15 26
>
>
> Cost And Time Consumption
> -------------------------
> The cost of conducting an election by this method is free to the
> participants, except for the value of their time, and minimal to the
> government. The length of time taken to complete an election compares
> favorably with the time required by campaign-based partisan systems. Even
> in California, with a voting-eligible population of about 22,000,000, the
> process would complete in less than 12 levels, or about 230 calendar days.
>
> From the perspective of those not motivated to seek public office, it is
> worth noting that, as each level completes, two-thirds of the participants
> can resume their daily lives without further electoral obligation. At the
> same time, they retain the ability to guide or instruct their
> representatives to the extent and in the manner provided by those who
> implement the process. (See "Bi-Directionality", above)
>
>
> Concept
> -------
> Practical Democracy springs from the knowledge that some people are better
> advocates of the public interest than others. In Beyond Adversary
> Democracy[12], Jane Mansbridge, speaking of a small community in Vermont,
> says, "When interests are similar, citizens do not need equal power to
> protect their individual interests; they only need to persuade their
> wisest, cleverest, most virtuous, and most experienced citizens to spend
> their time solving town problems in the best interests of everyone."[13]
>
> The fundamental challenge of democracy is to find those "wisest,
> cleverest, most virtuous, and most experienced citizens" and empower them
> as our representatives. PD does that by giving every member of the
> electorate the right to be a candidate and the ability to influence the
> selection process, while ensuring that no individual or group has an
> advantage over others.
>
> PD makes no attempt to alter the structure of government. We have the
> venues for resolving adversarial issues in our legislatures and councils.
> However, since the solutions that flow from those assemblies cannot be
> better than the people who craft them, PD lets the electorate select the
> individuals they believe will resolve adversarial issues in the public
> interest.
>
> Peoples' interests change over time. To achieve satisfaction, these
> changing attitudes must be given voice and reflected in the results of each
> election. The PD process lets particular interests attract supporters to
> their cause and elevate their most effective advocates during each
> electoral cycle. Advocates of those interests can proclaim their ideas and
> encourage discussion of their concepts. Some will be accepted, in whole or
> in part, as they are shown to be in the common interest of the community.
>
> Most people expect their elected officials to represent their interests.
> The difficulty is that communities are made up of diverse interests and the
> relations between those interests can be contentious. Constructive
> resolution of political issues requires, first of all, lawmakers with the
> ability to recognize the value in the various points of view, from the
> people's perspective. That is impossible for legislators elected to
> represent partisan interests.
>
> Democracy's dilemma is to find those individuals whose self-interest
> encourages them to seek advancement and whose commitment to the public
> interest makes them acceptable to their peers. Such persons cannot be
> identified by partisan groups seeking to advance their own interests. They
> can only be identified by the people themselves.
>
>
> Why Practical Democracy Works
> -----------------------------
> Practical Democracy gives the people a way to select Mansbridge's "wisest,
> cleverest, most virtuous, and most experienced citizens". At each level,
> voters deliberate in small groups, where "... face-to-face contact
> increases the perception of likeness, encourages decision making by
> consensus, and perhaps even enhances equality of status."[14]
>
> Academic studies have shown the value of deliberation in small groups. The
> PD process builds on these phenomena. It lets people with differing views
> deliberate and seek consensus on political issues. When triad members are
> selected to advance, those selected are the individuals the group believes
> best represent its perspectives. This necessarily adds a bias toward the
> common interest.
>
> PD works because it atomizes the electorate into thousands, or, in larger
> communities, millions of very small groups. Each provides a slight bias
> toward the common interest. As the levels advance, the cumulative effect
> of this small bias overwhelms special interests seeking their private
> gain. It leads, inexorably, to the selection of representatives who
> advocate the will of the community.
>
>
> Summary
> -------
> The described process provides the sorting and selecting mechanism
> required to implement Jane Mansbridge's "Selection Model" of Political
> Representation.[15] It yields self-motivated representatives whose
> gyroscopes are aligned with the objectives of the people who select them.
> It lets the people advance the individuals they believe have the qualities
> necessary to resolve public issues into ever-more deliberative groups to
> work out solutions from broadly differing perspectives.
>
> PD focuses on selecting representatives who will resolve adversarial
> encounters to the advantage of the commonweal. During the process,
> participants necessarily consider both common and conflicting interests,
> and, because PD is intrinsically bidirectional, it gives advocates of
> conflicting interests a continuing voice. At the same time, it encourages
> the absorption of diverse interests, reducing them to their essential
> element: their effect on the participants in the electoral process. There
> are no platforms, there is no ideology. The only question is, which
> participants are the most attuned to the needs of the community and have
> the qualities required to advocate the common good.
>
>
> Implementation
> --------------
> It is hard to achieve democracy because true democracy has no champions.
> It offers no rewards for individuals or vested interests; it gives no
> individual or group an advantage over others. Hence, it offers no
> incentive for power-seeking individuals or groups to advocate its adoption.
>
> The best chance for something like the Practical Democracy concept to
> develop will be if it is adopted in a small community. In May of 2015, the
> people of Frome in the U.K. rejected all party candidates and elected an
> independent city government.[16] They might welcome a mechanism like
> Practical Democracy to ensure the election of independent individuals in
> the future.
>
>
> Conclusion
> ----------
> Practical Democracy is an electoral process through which the people
> actively participate in the conduct of, and impress their moral sense on,
> their government. It creates a unique merger of self-interest and the
> public interest. It completes more quickly and with less public
> distraction than existing systems, however large the electorate.
>
> We have no shortage of competent, talented individuals among us. The PD
> process gives us the machinery to sift through all of us to find the
> individuals with the qualities needed to address and resolve contemporary
> public concerns. It lets the public discuss substantive matters - with a
> purpose. It gives participants time for deliberation and an opportunity to
> understand the rationale for the positions of others.
>
> PD is a bottom-up process that lets every member of the community
> participate to the full extent of each individual's desire and ability,
>
> 1--> it incorporates partisanship without letting partisans
> control the process;
>
> 2--> it functions without political campaigns or the marketing
> of candidates;
>
> 3--> it enables and encourages dialogue and deliberation on
> political issues among the electorate;
>
> 4--> it includes a way for the people to change their
> representatives as they deem appropriate; and
>
> 5--> it is a bottom-up arrangement that lets every member of
> the community influence political decisions to the full
> extent of each individual's desire and ability.
>
> That is the essence of a democratic political process.
>
> Respectfully submitted,
>
> Fred Gohlke
>
>
> Footnotes:
> [1] Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page (2014). Testing Theories
> of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average
> Citizens.
>
> https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
>
> [2] Wikiquote, Louis Brandeis
> https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Louis_Brandeis
>
> [3] Search for the Great Community, p293
> http://thehangedman.com/teaching-files/pragmatism/dewey-pp2.pdf
>
> [4] Washington's Farewell Address
> http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp
>
> [5] Robert Michels, Political Parties, p27
> http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/michels/polipart.pdf
>
> [6] Political Philosophy of Alasdair MacIntyre,
> http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/p-macint.htm
>
> [7] Esterling, Kevin M., Fung, Archon and Lee, Taeku, Knowledge
> Inequality and Empowerment in Small Deliberative Groups:
> Evidence from a Randomized Experiment at the Oboe Town Halls
> (2011). APSA 2011 Annual Meeting Paper. Available at SSRN:
> http://ssrn.com/abstract=1902664
>
> [8] Pogrebinschi, Thamy, Participatory Democracy and the
> Representation of Minority Groups in Brazil (2011). APSA 2011
> Annual Meeting Paper. Available at SSRN:
> http://ssrn.com/abstract=1901000
>
> [9] The Center for Responsive Politics
> https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php
>
> [10] PolitiFact.com
>
> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/nov/11/facebook-posts/congress-has-11-approval-ratings-96-incumbent-re-e/
>
> [11] Louis D. Brandeis
> http://www.brainyquote.com/search_results.html?q=brandeis
>
> [12] Beyond Adversary Democracy, Jane J. Mansbridge, The
> University of Chicago Press, 1980
>
> [13] Beyond Adversary Democracy, p. 88
>
> [14] Beyond Adversary Democracy, p. 33
>
> [15] Jane Mansbridge, A "Selection Model" of Political
> Representation
>
> https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/workingpapers/citation.aspx?PubId=5548&type=WPN
>
> [16] How Flatpack Democracy beat the old parties in the People's
> Republic of Frome
>
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/22/flatpack-democracy-peoples-republic-of-frome?CMP=share_btn_fb
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>
--
P.S.: I prefer to be reached on BitMessage at
BM-2D8txNiU7b84d2tgqvJQdgBog6A69oDAx6
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20160125/8e550322/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list