> From: election-methods-request@lists.electorama.com > Subject: Election-Methods Digest, Vol 132, Issue 19 > To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com > Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 12:01:41 -0700 > 1. Re: (2): UK 'post mortem', 2nd discussion between Steve and > Fred Gohlke (Alexander Praetorius) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Alexander Praetorius citizen@serapath.de, As requested, attached is my article, Please feel free to ask questions, criticize, offer suggestions, etc. Also, feel free also to ask me to also send you the illustrative missing items in the Appendix: 2 flow charts and 3 tables.Steve Re: > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 17:43:57 +0200 > From: Alexander Praetorius <citizen@serapath.de> > To: Fred Gohlke <fredgohlke@verizon.net> > Cc: Election Methods <election-methods@lists.electorama.com> > Subject: Re: [EM] (2): UK 'post mortem', 2nd discussion between Steve Alexander Praetorius > and Fred Gohlke > Message-ID: > <CADPDqjE=BVtoyXm6WJqoJGeUcz_niFPZk85VYTBjFc6G9XG5EQ@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Help people to become self employed (sole proprietors or owners of 1-person > limited liability company) > Thats where democracy starts. > > What are we mumbeling about democracy when 40+ hours every week - people go > to work and do what they are told to do. > They have to start co-deciding with the people they meet every day and > about the way they want to do business. > > A "Ltd." can be founded and maintained these days for as cheap as 30 GBP a > month flat price... this is something everyone can afford and it can be > managed online. > At the click of a button, people could "invite" others to collaborate (thus > join their business) ... Everyone can have a personal "HOLDING Ltd." which > ones 0+ other Ltd. for all the entrepreneurial projects they are engaging > in. This kind of culture has to happen and.... THE TIME IS NOW :-) The > "self employed sector" is growing like never before - and if you already > have to create: > "Model Article Of Association" (which can be enforced by an APP), then this > is how people can start to practice democracy in every day life. > > Only if they do that, they will discover and want more influence in all > kinds of aspects of their lives.... if they do not make that step, they > will stay wage slaves forever... > > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Fred Gohlke <fredgohlke@verizon.net> wrote: > > > Good Morning, Steve > > > > This will be a slow process. Empowering the people is not a trivial > > issue. It has many facets. > > > > > > re: I see each person's somewhat different 'internal > > proportionality' as what would guide each citizen > > as how to participate or not ... > > > > I agree, particularly with regard to "each citizen". A democratic process > > is (or, rather, should be) bottom-up. It must be inclusive but it cannot > > be coercive. Each of us must be allowed to participate in the political > > process to the full extent of our desire and ability. In the U. S., the > > people have been excluded from the political process for so long that many > > of them have been schooled in the art of disinterest. Such people will not > > trust an inclusive process until they have seen it work. > > > > When we devise an inclusive democratic process, some people will > > participate, others will learn to participate, and some will never > > participate. From the point of view of the community, those who will not > > participate in its government add no value to the political process. > > However, all the rest do, so the first step in devising an inclusive > > process must be to distinguish between the two types of citizens. It has > > been shown, by Archon Fung of Harvard and many others, that, when people > > who want to participate in the political process, deliberate on the issues > > that concern the community, their efforts can be productive. > > > > > > re: ... in electing a rep, e.g. to choose which candidate(s) > > to rank. > > > > This raises the most important question in politics: Who names the > > candidates? I see you mentioned this issue, as follows: > > > > > > re: During APR's primary election you would rank (1,2,3, etc.) > > all the voluntary, social organizations that had applied > > directly to elect their own rep(s) during the next general > > election, i.e applied to the central electoral commission to > > become and official electoral 'association' ... You would > > rank these according to the degree to which each organization > > seemed to mirror your own. > > > > How would I know, with any degree of certainty, the aims of the > > organizations? Is AARP an organization to help retired people or a > > marketing enterprise? Is it reasonable to think the lay citizen will do > > the exhaustive research necessary to rank the multitude of organizations > > seeking to increase their power and influence by placing an advocate in the > > government?>>>S: I do not think 'certainty' on such matters can be expected. Each person can only do all they can to find out and judge which organizations and candidates are most likely to represent him or her for each primary election and general election. > > > > You mentioned sending me a more complete explanation of APR. I'd like to > > see the explanation of the groundwork. >>>S: Yes find my article attached, Alexander Praetorius. > I don't think it's difficult to > > arrange for the people to decide who they want to represent them in their > > government and I'm anxious to see your approach. I may offer a > > counter-suggestion >>>S: Yes, pleas do.>as a step in the slow process of re-thinking our > > political infrastructure. > End of Election-Methods Digest, Vol 132, Issue 19 > *************************************************

Good Afternoon, Steve I cannot access your article. My computer has no idea what a ".obj" file is. However, don't sweat it. It may not matter. re: I do not think 'certainty' on such matters can be expected. That is not responsive. My question was: "How would I know, with any degree of certainty, the aims of the organizations?". In other words, what mechanism are you providing that will give me genuine insight into "the aims of the organizations". The question does not ask for certainty, it simply asks how I (or any other lay citizen) would know - with *any* degree of certainty - the aims of the organizations. What troubles me even more is the suggestion that the people should not expect to have any level level of certainty about the organizations they support with their votes. In my opinion, anyone who votes for a candidate put forth by an organization without knowing, with some degree of certainty, the aims of the organization, is a fool. One of the curses of party politics is the deceit, misdirection and obfuscation that engulf the voters. An electoral process that ignores that reality will not improve democracy. Should you choose to respond to this post, please do not send my comments back to me. I already have them and do not enjoy going through them again, in case you inserted a comment. Fred Gohlke