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?<span></span><br><br>On Monday, January 25, 2016, Fred Gohlke <<a href="mailto:fredgohlke@verizon.net">fredgohlke@verizon.net</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> PRACTICAL DEMOCRACY<br>
<br>
Abstract<br>
--------<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
PRACTICAL DEMOCRACY<br>
<br>
Overview<br>
--------<br>
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:<br>
<br>
"... the nearly total failure of 'median voter' and other<br>
Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories. When the<br>
preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized<br>
interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the<br>
average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero,<br>
statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
If we wish to change our entrenched system, we should start by heeding John Dewey's guidance[3]:<br>
<br>
"The old saying that the cure for the ills of democracy<br>
is more democracy is not apt if it means that the evils<br>
may be remedied by introducing more machinery of the<br>
same kind as that which already exists, or by refining<br>
and perfecting that machinery."<br>
<br>
Creating new machinery that differs from existing machinery in important ways requires an understanding of the flaws in the existing machinery.<br>
<br>
<br>
Partisanship<br>
------------<br>
Democracy is not a team sport. Even though partisanship is natural for humans, political systems built on partisanship are destructive.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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]<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
1--> New machinery to support a democratic political process<br>
must incorporate partisanship without letting partisans<br>
control the political process.<br>
<br>
<br>
Political Campaigning<br>
---------------------<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
2--> New machinery to support a democratic political process<br>
must function without political campaigns.<br>
<br>
<br>
Passion Versus Intellect<br>
------------------------<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
3--> New machinery to support a democratic political process<br>
must enable and encourage dialogue and deliberation on<br>
political issues among the electorate.<br>
<br>
<br>
Incumbency<br>
----------<br>
"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]<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
4--> New machinery to support a democratic political process<br>
must include a way for the people to change their<br>
representatives, as they deem appropriate.<br>
<br>
<br>
Exclusivity<br>
-----------<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
5--> New machinery to support a democratic political process<br>
must be inclusive. It must be a bottom-up arrangement<br>
that lets every member of the community influence political<br>
decisions to the full extent of each individual's desire and<br>
ability.<br>
<br>
<br>
The Machinery<br>
-------------<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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]<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
Method<br>
------<br>
1) Divide the entire electorate into groups of three randomly<br>
chosen people.<br>
<br>
a) The random grouping mechanism must insure that no two<br>
people are assigned to a triad if they served together in a<br>
triad in any of the five most recent elections. At the<br>
initial level, it must ensure that no two people are<br>
assigned to a triad if they are members of the same family.<br>
<br>
b) At any time up to one week before the process begins,<br>
people may declare themselves members of any interest<br>
group, faction, party, or enclave, and may create a new<br>
one, simply by declaring membership in it. People that do<br>
not declare group membership are automatically assigned to<br>
a set of people with no affiliation. Triads will be<br>
created from members of the same interest group, as long as<br>
more than two members of the group exist. When a group has<br>
less than three members, the group's remaining candidates<br>
are merged with the largest set extant.<br>
<br>
c) For the convenience of the electorate, triad assignments<br>
shall be based on geographic proximity to the maximum<br>
extent practical, subject to the foregoing conditions.<br>
<br>
2) Assign a date and time by which each triad must select one of<br>
the three members to represent the other two.<br>
<br>
a) Selections will be made by consensus. If consensus cannot<br>
be achieved, selection will be by vote. Participants may<br>
not vote for themselves.<br>
<br>
b) If a triad is unable to select a representative in the<br>
specified time, all three participants shall be deemed<br>
disinclined to participate in the process.<br>
<br>
3) Divide the participants so selected into new triads.<br>
<br>
4) Repeat from step 2 until a target number of selections is<br>
reached.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
Elective and Appointive Offices<br>
-------------------------------<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
Description<br>
-----------<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.)<br>
<br>
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]<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
Harnessing the Pursuit of Self-Interest<br>
---------------------------------------<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Practical Democracy harnesses the pursuit of self-interest by making integrity an absolute requirement in candidates for public office.<br>
<br>
<br>
Bi-Directionality<br>
-----------------<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
Simplified Illustration<br>
-----------------------<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Selected<br>
Randomly<br>
From<br>
Full Over Prev. Total People<br>
Level People Triads Flow Level Triads Chosen Days<br>
1 25,000 8,333 1 0 8,333 8,333 5 (1)<br>
2 8,334 2,778 0 0 2,778 2,778 5<br>
3 2,778 926 0 0 926 926 12<br>
4 926 308 2 1 309 309 12<br>
5 309 103 0 0 103 103 19<br>
6 103 34 1 2 35 35 19<br>
7 35 11 2 1 12 12 26 (2)<br>
<br>
1) If the number of candidates does not divide equally into<br>
triads, any candidates remaining are overflow. Level 1 is a<br>
special case. When there is overflow at Level 1, the extra<br>
person(s) automatically become candidates at Level 2.<br>
Thereafter, when there is overflow at any level, the number of<br>
people needed to create a full triad are selected at random<br>
from the people who were not selected at the previous level.<br>
<br>
2) To avoid patronage, appointive offices, including cabinet<br>
positions, must be filled using candidates that reached the<br>
final levels but were not selected to fill elective offices.<br>
<br>
<br>
Time Lapse Example<br>
------------------<br>
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:<br>
<br>
Level Start Report Days<br>
1 01/07/15 01/12/15 5<br>
2 01/14/15 01/19/15 5<br>
3 01/21/15 02/02/15 12<br>
4 02/04/15 02/16/15 12<br>
5 02/18/15 03/09/15 19<br>
6 03/11/15 03/30/15 19<br>
7 04/01/15 04/27/15 26<br>
<br>
<br>
Cost And Time Consumption<br>
-------------------------<br>
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.<br>
<br>
>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)<br>
<br>
<br>
Concept<br>
-------<br>
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]<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
Why Practical Democracy Works<br>
-----------------------------<br>
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]<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
Summary<br>
-------<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
Implementation<br>
--------------<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
Conclusion<br>
----------<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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,<br>
<br>
1--> it incorporates partisanship without letting partisans<br>
control the process;<br>
<br>
2--> it functions without political campaigns or the marketing<br>
of candidates;<br>
<br>
3--> it enables and encourages dialogue and deliberation on<br>
political issues among the electorate;<br>
<br>
4--> it includes a way for the people to change their<br>
representatives as they deem appropriate; and<br>
<br>
5--> it is a bottom-up arrangement that lets every member of<br>
the community influence political decisions to the full<br>
extent of each individual's desire and ability.<br>
<br>
That is the essence of a democratic political process.<br>
<br>
Respectfully submitted,<br>
<br>
Fred Gohlke<br>
<br>
<br>
Footnotes:<br>
[1] Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page (2014). Testing Theories<br>
of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average<br>
Citizens.<br>
<a href="https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf" target="_blank">https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf</a><br>
<br>
[2] Wikiquote, Louis Brandeis<br>
<a href="https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Louis_Brandeis" target="_blank">https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Louis_Brandeis</a><br>
<br>
[3] Search for the Great Community, p293<br>
<a href="http://thehangedman.com/teaching-files/pragmatism/dewey-pp2.pdf" target="_blank">http://thehangedman.com/teaching-files/pragmatism/dewey-pp2.pdf</a><br>
<br>
[4] Washington's Farewell Address<br>
<a href="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp" target="_blank">http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp</a><br>
<br>
[5] Robert Michels, Political Parties, p27<br>
<a href="http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/michels/polipart.pdf" target="_blank">http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/michels/polipart.pdf</a><br>
<br>
[6] Political Philosophy of Alasdair MacIntyre,<br>
<a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/p-macint.htm" target="_blank">http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/p-macint.htm</a><br>
<br>
[7] Esterling, Kevin M., Fung, Archon and Lee, Taeku, Knowledge<br>
Inequality and Empowerment in Small Deliberative Groups:<br>
Evidence from a Randomized Experiment at the Oboe Town Halls<br>
(2011). APSA 2011 Annual Meeting Paper. Available at SSRN:<br>
<a href="http://ssrn.com/abstract=1902664" target="_blank">http://ssrn.com/abstract=1902664</a><br>
<br>
[8] Pogrebinschi, Thamy, Participatory Democracy and the<br>
Representation of Minority Groups in Brazil (2011). APSA 2011<br>
Annual Meeting Paper. Available at SSRN:<br>
<a href="http://ssrn.com/abstract=1901000" target="_blank">http://ssrn.com/abstract=1901000</a><br>
<br>
[9] The Center for Responsive Politics<br>
<a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php" target="_blank">https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php</a><br>
<br>
[10] PolitiFact.com<br>
<a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/nov/11/facebook-posts/congress-has-11-approval-ratings-96-incumbent-re-e/" target="_blank">http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/nov/11/facebook-posts/congress-has-11-approval-ratings-96-incumbent-re-e/</a><br>
<br>
[11] Louis D. Brandeis<br>
<a href="http://www.brainyquote.com/search_results.html?q=brandeis" target="_blank">http://www.brainyquote.com/search_results.html?q=brandeis</a><br>
<br>
[12] Beyond Adversary Democracy, Jane J. Mansbridge, The<br>
University of Chicago Press, 1980<br>
<br>
[13] Beyond Adversary Democracy, p. 88<br>
<br>
[14] Beyond Adversary Democracy, p. 33<br>
<br>
[15] Jane Mansbridge, A "Selection Model" of Political<br>
Representation<br>
<a href="https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/workingpapers/citation.aspx?PubId=5548&type=WPN" target="_blank">https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/workingpapers/citation.aspx?PubId=5548&type=WPN</a><br>
<br>
[16] How Flatpack Democracy beat the old parties in the People's<br>
Republic of Frome<br>
<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/22/flatpack-democracy-peoples-republic-of-frome?CMP=share_btn_fb" target="_blank">http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/22/flatpack-democracy-peoples-republic-of-frome?CMP=share_btn_fb</a><br>
----<br>
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="http://electorama.com/em" target="_blank">http://electorama.com/em</a> for list info<br>
</blockquote><br><br>-- <br>P.S.: I prefer to be reached on BitMessage at BM-2D8txNiU7b84d2tgqvJQdgBog6A69oDAx6<br>