Good Afternoon, Michael
re: "Let's sum up. You propose an electoral process to correct
the evils of party politics."
No. I'm proposing (or, actually, searching for) a democratic electoral
process. Party politics is a side issue. It is an important issue, but
a side issue, nonetheless. The focal point is enabling government by
the people. My purpose is to conceive a practical approach to bottom-up
government rather than the top-down version we have now. All I can do
is describe a method and hope other thoughtful people will provide a
rational explanation of why it will fail - or help hone it into a more
complete solution.
re: "You hope that people somewhere will give it a try."
Yes, I do.
re: "However, if they do, you cannot foresee any sequence of
events by which the promised benefits could be realized.
Is that correct?"
No, that's not accurate. There are no promised benefits except those
that flow from selecting the best individuals in the community to make
the decisions that advance the common interest. It would be
presumptuous of outsiders like me to define them or to promise their
achievement.
In terms of the sequence of events, as I said yesterday, if a community
uses a 'different' approach and it succeeds, other communities with
similar problems will adopt it. The process would be most analogous to
osmosis.
re: "I'm looking for a way (any sequence of events) by which the
proposed process could *possibly* deliver on its promised
benefits. I have no doubt such a way exists, but I ask you
to place it on the table (1, 2, 3) so we can all examine it."
I don't believe politics works like that. In human interactions, there
are an infinite number of possibilities with an infinite difference in
energy potential behind them that can be triggered by an infinite number
of potential circumstances. It's true that behavioral scientists can
generate selective responses in narrow fields, but since such efforts
are always for someone's benefit, they are done at the expense of the
community rather than for its benefit. Seeking to improve society, as
we are doing here, is much more complex and much less predictable.
Yesterday, I mentioned a community in the throes of political change. I
have no idea what benefits those people need, nor do I believe it is my
place to define them. The people there must identify the circumstances
that concern them, seek the members of the community best able to
address those concerns and raise them to leadership positions. The
individuals the people select to lead them will address and resolve the
problems facing the community as well as they can be resolved.
I suppose we could say the outline of Practical Democracy on
Participedia was step 1, the initiative of the pastor in seeking more
information on the process was step 2, and whatever the community does
with the concept is step 3, but that's not helpful because step 2 cannot
be predicted with precision. I'd be more inclined to suggest Mark
Buchanan's, Nexus - Small Worlds and the Groundbreaking Theory of
Networks, comes closer to describing the process: I'd never heard of
the pastor I mentioned in my last post, and yet, he learned about
Practical Democracy, saw in it a potential benefit for his community and
sought more information.
That's about as much as one can expect from a 'different' idea.
Fred
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
