Fred Gohlke wrote:
Good Morning, Kristofer
I'm finding steadily less to comment on; we seem to be reaching a
convergence of sorts, where we either agree, or we disagree but have
found that the only real way to find out which of us is right is to run
this thing in practice. Thus, I've been a bit slow at replying, because
I've simply been using the time to find out what to say.
re: "... would be good for the petition to include information
about the level of the person who originated it."
My initial reaction to this suggestion was unfavorable, oddly, for the
very reason you thought it worthwhile; fear that petitions coming from
the lower levels of the 'pyramid' would be considered less important. On
further thought, though, I agree with you. As you point out, it is
likely the distribution of petitions will be simplified by including the
petitioner's level. In addition, those who rose to higher levels were
deemed more representative of the views of their peers than those at
lower levels. It is reasonable to give their opinions greater weight.
One additional factor is that it may aid discourse among those who met
to make selections.
It also acknowledges that the structure is recursive; a pyramid is made
up of many small pyramids, which are made up of many small pyramids.
Instead of having to go all the way to the top, you may find some who
are higher up yet willing to listen to you, but if those have been
corrupted, you still have the option of going straight to the top (only
that you have to informally organize many others for your message to
hold the same weight).
re: "The assumption here is that if someone high up in the
pyramid petitions the official, he has the support of many
below him."
I agree this is a reasonable assumption in terms of how an elected
official initially evaluates a petition. However, the ease with which
constituents may support or oppose petitions provides a means of
confirming the assumption. Since it is easy for constituents to support
or oppose a petition, official performance will be better judged by
actual support than by implied support.
Beyond performance evaluation, though, is the impact of petitions on an
official's biases. Petitions represent ideas and convictions. They may
counter ideas and convictions held by the elected official or reinforce
them. They may achieve merit on the breadth of their support or on the
force of their reason. Thus, the bidirectionality of the system not
only provides a means of sanctioning, it also serves to influence
elected officials' attitudes. As you've pointed out, when participants
move to higher levels they can not represent all the views of all the
people who elevated them. Petitions provide a means of energizing views
which are commonly held but which are 'lost in transit', so to speak.
Yes, that is true, and it's what I meant by that the bidirectionality
would not only correct, but also provide information to guide.
Hopefully, the councilmembers higher up (including those that have been
selected for the public body) will choose to heed those words instead of
thinking their own ways trump them. In some sense, they have been
selected not to jump on the latest complaint and wildly swing back and
forth on the opinion scale, but they've also been selected not to ignore
the people. In any case, if worst comes to worst, there's the ultimate
counter of initiative and referendum. But that, also, can be a guide,
not just a sanction; if a selected official just forgets about a certain
issue, not out of malice, but of simply being limited (as we all are),
and the messages don't nudge him in the right direction, the option of
referendum will work as a crude steering mechanism.
I use the term "selected", since elected doesn't really fit. There's no
public election, there's simply a whole lot of mini-elections that come
together.
re: "... the pyramids exist ... and their composition is known to
(at least) the public officials ..."
In my view, the composition of the pyramids and all petitions should be
public information. It is true this will make those who achieve the
higher levels targets for influence peddlers but I don't believe such
corruption will be as easy to achieve as it is at present. Here's why:
Our political landscape is dominated by political parties and political
parties are conduits for corruption. Corruption occurs in static
conditions and party professionals are like apples in barrels,
susceptible to rot. The Practical Democracy electoral method is
dynamic; is has no organization or fund raiser to provide a corrupting
influence. Those who would corrupt our elected representatives can not
do so en bloc, as they do with parties, they have to corrupt each
elected official, individually.
There is an enormous difference between telling a party fund-raiser what
laws you want in return for your 'contribution' and trying to
