Good Afternoon, Don
Wow! You certainly put a lot of effort into proving a point not at
issue. I appreciate the legal citations, but they were unnecessary.
The right of the people to assemble, whether in 4-H Clubs or political
parties, is not in question.
[With regard to Professor Bibby's essay on political parties in the
United States, you said ...]
"This is very interesting, but not relevant."
It most certainly is relevant to my purpose, which is to dispel the
false notion that "political parties are legitimate centers of power
under our Constitution." They are not. Professor Bibby shows political
parties were not ordained by our Constitution, but were instituted by
self-interested politicians after the Constitution was adopted.
re: "A political parties do not control of the government. Elected
officials control the government. Obama is not controlled
by the Democratic Party. After the general election the
Democratic Party is almost a non entity (has no power what
so ever)."
That's nonsense. You may be able to say parties have no 'legal' control
over elected officials, but, in practical terms, parties will control
our elected officials until the law of self-preservation is repealed.
What are 'party discipline', 'soft money', 'party bosses', 'pork
barrels', 'party loyalty', 'slush funds', 'party whips', and the whole
lexicon of political manipulation if not the tools used to control our
elected representatives. To assert otherwise is to deceive.
re: "You could have a Senate with 50 elected 'Independent'
congresspersons. Within hours they would form 'coalitions'
along 'ideology grounds'. Would you say that is partisan
politics."
I would not characterize such an arrangement as anything other than the
normal development of human relations. We have a natural tendency (as
well as a Constitutional right) to align ourselves with others who share
our views. It is a healthy trait and will be the basis of a sound
government, when we achieve it.
re: "Before I 'vote' for one of the other two people in my Tried,
I would want them to state their qualifications and
positions on issues."
As described in my March 6th post to Juho, the triads are scheduled in a
way that allows the members to carefully examine each other before
making a decision. To give a rough idea of the time lapse required for
such an election in a community with an electorate of 2,000, and
hypothesizing 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 (although only 5 levels are required for the
example-sized community) the schedule would look like this:
Level Start Report Days
1) 07/09/08 07/14/08 5
2) 07/16/08 07/21/08 5
3) 07/23/08 08/04/08 12
4) 08/06/08 08/18/08 12
5) 08/20/08 09/08/08 19
This allows ample time for you to examine the 'qualifications and
positions on issues' of the other members of your triad.
re: "The system [Practical Democracy] provides an 'undue
restriction' on a person's ability to vote."
That is not correct. You are adding a qualification to voting that does
not exist in the 14th Amendment or in law. The method allows everyone
to participate. Every member of the electorate has an equal vote. To
say they have a voting right at subsequent levels is the same as saying
a voter has a right to vote at the meetings of councils where a council
member was elected to represent the voters.
Furthermore ...
re: "Most voters are unwilling to spend the time to vote at the
polls, let along the time this method takes."
You may (or may not) agree that such 'uninterested citizens' are a major
impediment to attaining good government, but it is an assertion worthy
of careful thought.
In castigating democracy, the author of the essay on ADA
(Anti-Democratic Action), at the link provided by Graham Bignell, said:
"To motivate sluggish masses to pick one choice over
another, democratic leaders must oversimplify topics
and create theatrical opposites."
The 'sluggish masses' are the same people you refer to as 'voters ...
unwilling to spend the time to vote at the polls'. They are the people
Rick Shenkman described in his book, "Just How Stupid Are We", They are
the people Daniel Summars (an advocate of an Article V Convention to
amend our Constitution) says, "... are too lazy, apathetic, and
complacent in the area of government and voting responsibly".
Under Practical Democracy, these uninterested citizens may choose not to
proceed past the first level. Those who advance through several levels
are guaranteed to be people with the interest and energy to advance and
they do so only after careful examination of the "qualifications and
positions on issues" you expressed concern about.
re: "My comment on "Practical Democracy" are to make it more
democratic and to make it better."
The reason I engage in discourse on this site is to improve the
Practical Democracy concept. Can you offer a specific suggestion?
Fred Gohlke
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
