system, or a Constitution, or any national structure."

  a representative to the next higher level."

  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."

  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."

Fred— You wrote: 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. [endquote] I doubt that a genuinely new government would choose to adopt the old Constitution. Most agree that the Constitution needs changes, and, instead of trying to repair it here & there, it would probably be best to really start from scratch. The Bill of Rights is basically a good thing, but it isn’t being enforced very well. What I meant by the text that you quoted above was just that, initially, a consititution, national structure & voting-system needn’t be agreed-upon at the start. Things like that could wait until the Bottom-Up system has been put together all the way up to the top. That’s when national decisionmaking would become possible. Before that it wouldn’t be possible or necessary. You continued: 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.) [endquote] >From the point of view of those running things, there hasn’t been any failure. The failure has to do with the ownership & control of the media, and the unverifiability of vote-counting. Those are the 2 things that people everywhere should be demanding reform of. …but only if they want anything better. If not, then why bother them. You wrote: 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. [endquote] Yes. 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. [endquote] It isn’t possible to predict the turnout, but, by the assumptions I stated, people will be interested in genuine change. The legitimacy would depend on there being widespread interest and support. 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. [endquote] Spontaneously is the only way it would happen. People aren’t interested in being led. You continued: Spontaneous action is more likely to revolutionary than evolutionary [endquote] You’d have to define the words “evolutionary” & “revolutionary”. In order for the current system to “evolve” into something better, it would have to include genuine democracy. You continued: and revolutions benefit the organizers [endquote] Spontanaeity isn’t about organizers or leaders. You continued: , 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. [endquote] It will be natural if & when, by conversations everywhere, there comes to be a largely unanimous feeling that democracy is never going to be allowed under current rule. I’s about conversation, not leaders or organizers. You continued; 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. [endquote] Good. They had legitimate & valid elections. That’s great for them. You continued: 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. [endquote] Parties do something useful when they write and offer platforms. Reading party platforms is the only way to find out what’s being offered. Parties aren’t a bogey or villain. But yes, a Bottom-Up reform, starting from scratch, wouldn’t be party-led. It would be spontaneous. I don’t think people take well offers by a party to lead them. You continued: 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. [endquote] Yes that’s what I was referring to, structured from the bottom up. I’m not _advocating_ a new Bottom-Up government. I’m merely saying that, if it eventually becomes obvious to everyone, that current rule isn’t going to ever allow democracy, then the formation of a new Bottom-Up government will be spontaneous. But that’s the very distant future, when conversations everywhere have led to a unanimous agreement that it’s time for that. That would be after there’s nearly unanimous demand for democracy & honest, open media, and after those things have been asked for, unsuccessfully. Right now, those widespread conversations haven’t happened, and there’s no direction, and so far no one seems to have a clue what they’re doing or what’s going on. So obviously this talk of a new government is hypothetical discussion of something that could happen later, _if_ people are able to first even know and agree on what they want (and then find out that they can’t get it). That hasn’t even begun, and might never begin. Michael Ossipoff