Good Morning (again), Michael
re: "I think Don would rather the voter remain involved for as
long as his desire *or* ability allows. So he would choose
to remain himself, in order to participate as a voter; or he
would be chosen by others, in order to participate as a
candidate. Either way, he would still be involved."
You are probably right. I see I have a message from him. I'll study it
and respond. Perhaps our views can be reconciled.
re: "Maybe his involvement would give him the right, at least, to
withdraw his vote from subsequent rounds. He might then
explicitly dissent from the outcome, if it proved to be
unacceptable. (Otherwise, as it stands, his assent is taken
for granted.) Would this change be more democratic?"
As mentioned in the outline, Practical Democracy is ...
"... inherently bi-directional. Because each 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."
The extent of this capability depends on those who implement the
process. It supports all forms of citizen participation from
suggestions to recall. One interesting thought is the potential for
building the kind of 'rootward/leafward' consensus you mentioned in your
'critical theory' post on March 17th (at 03:20:38).
Fred Gohlke
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
