Date: 	 Sun, 17 Apr 2016 14:43:35 -0400
From: 	 Fred Gohlke <fredgohlke@verizon.net>
Subject: 	 Re: 	 [EM] 1/r as a voting system.

Can you suggest a practical way for a large electorate to sift among themselves to find the best advocates of the public interest?

Fred Gohlke

This is technically beyond the scope of the post, but to get on the ballot, candidates would need to get more signatures than the square-root of the population who will vote by the filing deadline:

Let us suppose that a candidate runs for president of a country with a population of 100,000,000.  The candidate would have to get over a Myriad (10,000) signatures by the filing deadline.

This is how I would imagine the election would work:

0.	Gather signatures before the deadline.
1.	Once on the ballot, candidates can use only governmental money for campaigning (we waste at least 10%, probably 20%, and maybe as much as 30% on tax breaks, subsidies, and pork the rich buy in campaign-contributions, so using 1% of the budget for campaigning, but requiring candidates to only use that money and forbidding lying would be a great investment) and will be struck from the ballot for lying.  Write-Ins are always allowed.
2.	Hold a primary with the independents treated like a party.
3.	Have a Top-2 RunOff.
4.	Have the general election.
5	Have a Top-2 RunOff.

I hope that I answered your questions satisfactorily.

Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2016 14:43:35 -0400 From: Fred Gohlke <fredgohlke@verizon.net> Subject: Re: [EM] 1/r as a voting system. > Can you suggest a practical way for a large electorate to sift among themselves to find the best advocates of the public interest? > Fred Gohlke This is technically beyond the scope of the post, but to get on the ballot, candidates would need to get more signatures than the square-root of the population who will vote by the filing deadline: Let us suppose that a candidate runs for president of a country with a population of 100,000,000. The candidate would have to get over a Myriad (10,000) signatures by the filing deadline. ¿What if shenanigans keep a candidate off of the ballot? Always have a space on the ballot for write-ins. This is how I would imagine the election would work: 0. Gather signatures before the deadline. 1. Once on the ballot, candidates can use only governmental money for campaigning (we waste at least 10%, probably 20%, and maybe as much as 30% on tax breaks, subsidies, and pork the rich buy in campaign-contributions, so using 1% of the budget for campaigning, but requiring candidates to only use that money and forbidding lying would be a great investment) and will be struck from the ballot for lying. Write-Ins are always allowed. 2. Hold a primary with the independents treated like a party. 3. Have a Top-2 RunOff. 4. Have the general election. 5 Have a Top-2 RunOff. I hope that I answered your questions satisfactorily.

Thank you, alabio. I know my post went beyond the method you outlined and I appreciate you describing what you have in mind for the selection of candidates. I gather you came up with it quickly and I hope we can improve on it. The problem with petition-type systems is that they are exploited by rabble-rousers; people who are experts are inflaming the public passion on issues like women's rights or terrorism. Such people are rarely good advocates of the public interest. They lack the qualities needed to meet the extremely broad range of problems that face our government: global warming, diminishing water supply, bureaucracy, financial predators, increasing poverty, and a broader range of public problems than I can relate. We have no shortage of people with the intellect and the integrity to resolve these problems, the difficulty is in devising a method of finding them and raising them to public office. Fred Gohlke