Fred & Monkey-Puzzle--

EM notified me that some of the e-mails to me were bouncing. That means
that I'd better regularly check the archives for new postings.

When I checked today, I noticed that the replies in this thread never
reached me, and must have been the ones that were bounced from my account.

Thanks for the replies, which I'll reply to in order of posting. Replying
to Fred now, and to Monkey Puzzle next.

Fred--

Thanks for your favorable words about the Bottom-Up system.

Yes, the national-majoritarianism consideration isn't everything. The many
important advantages of Bottom-Up outweigh the matter of national
majoritarianism.

The absence of a count-fraud problem, when elections take place in a
meeting-room, and the ease of organizing such a government, by themselves,
count for a lot.

The initial organization of a new government would be a lot easier. It
wouldn't be necessary to agree nationally on a voting-system, or a
Constitution, or any national structure. Local places could meet and govern
themselves, and send a representative to the next higher level.

National matters, such as a Constitution, could be decided later, when the
Bottom-Up government has been put-together all the way up to the national
level.

Working from the bottom, with local assemblies agreeing with eachother to
send their representatives to some agreed-upon regional place, for the next
higher level of government (...and so on, on up), would do.

Whether a new government will be formed from scratch, will remain to be
seen.  It would depend on whether it's possible to get democracy within the
currently-existing government, or whether people finally just give up on
that forlorn hope.

If disgust with the current phony democracy becomes pretty much universal
and unanimous, and if democracy is never granted to us under current rule,
then maybe the bottom-up formation of a new government will be natural and
spontaneous.

Michael Ossipoff

Need for initial organizing or initil agreement on a large geographical
scale would be minimal or nonexistent.

Good Morning, Michael

Thanks, very much, for your post.  I was afraid discussion of a
bottom-up political process on the Electoral Methods site was going to
die - again.

I don't know if this is any help, but the heading on your post (the
place I always click to reply) looks odd to me:

 Michael Ossipoff email9648742 at gmail.com

I clicked on that to post my reply, and my email form came up addressed
to Electoral Methods instead of you.  I wonder if that was the cause of
your problem?

re: "It wouldn't be necessary to agree nationally on a voting-
system, or a Constitution, or any national structure."

I agree.  The structure provided by the U. S. Constitution is excellent.
It only failed because single parties gained control of multiple
branches of our government and defeated the checks and balances built
into the Constitution (a recent example is the refusal of the party
controlling the Senate to let the Senate provide its
constitutionally-mandated Advice and Consent for a Supreme Court
appointment.)

re: "Local places could meet and govern themselves, and send
a representative to the next higher level."

In doing so, they will provide proof of concept so other communities are
encouraged to adopt a bottom-up method of selecting the people's
representatives.

re: "Working from the bottom, with local assemblies agreeing
with each other to send their representatives to some
agreed-upon regional place, for the next higher level of
government (...and so on, on up), would do."

When thinking about the process at the lowest level, it's important to
consider how the individuals will act.  Some will not be interested and
will remove themselves as quickly as possible.  That's important because
it leaves the individuals with an active interest to select the
representatives.

re: "If disgust with the current phony democracy becomes pretty
much universal and unanimous, and if democracy is never
granted to us under current rule, then maybe the bottom-up
formation of a new government will be natural and
spontaneous."

I agree it will be natural but hope it won't be spontaneous.
Spontaneous action is more likely to revolutionary than evolutionary,
and revolutions benefit the organizers, not the people.  A bottom-up
process will be natural when thoughtful folks explain why the current
system failed and devise a practical method for the people to select the
best of their number to represent them in their government.

Actually, it has already started to happen.  In May of 2015, the people
of Frome in the U.K. rejected all party candidates and elected an
independent city government.  Furthermore, several years ago Rickard
Falkvinge started a Pirate Party in Sweden because he found Swedish
politicians unresponsive.  His ideas have spread and Pirate Parties are
springing up in many countries, including the United States.

Personally, I don't favor the Pirate Party approach because it is just a
different group of people seeking political power.  I much prefer a
bottom-up approach, where the people decide the issues that concern them
and raise the individuals they believe can address and resolve those
issues to represent them in their government.

Fred Gohlke