Small National-Assembly:

I expect that the reason why we have such a (otherwise unnecessarily) large
Congress is so that it can have representatives from hundreds of districts.

Without the districts, we wouldn't need the humungous Congress.

Of course that's likewise true of other countries' Congresses & Parliaments.

With a 7-seat governing-body, there needn't be an unnecessarily unwieldlly-
large candidate lineup in the elections.

We could have one big national election to fill those seats. The winner
would get a seat. That winner is removed from the election, and the count
is repeated with the remaining candidates. That winner is seated and
removed from the election, and another count is done...etc. ...till the 7
seats are filled.

In other words, the top 7 candidates in the finishing-order take the 7
seats.

It's more majoritarian than proportional representation.

In fact, why not just use a good single-winner method to choose, as one
whole party slate, between the various parties' 7-seat candidate sets. When
a certain party wins, its 7-candidate set takes the 7 seats.

With either of these national assemblies, combined with honest, open media
and verifiable vote-counting, I don't expect that there would be any
Republocrats in the assembly.  ...nor need there be.

Bottom-Up System:

But I also like the suggestion for the Bottom-Up system:

Workplaces, neighborhoods, & maybe colleges, would each elect a local
management/governing body, and also a representative to send to the next
higher jurisdiction.

At that higher jurisdiction, the representatives that have been sent there
would constitute a governing body for that level of govt.  ...and they'd
also elect a representative to send to the next higher jurisdiction.

...and so on, all the way up to a national assembly.

The intermediate levels could be municipal (city, county, or both), state,
and national--but maybe with intermediate-size regions inbetween.

No, it wouldn't be very majority-preserving at the national level. But it
would be in each level's elections.

A big advantage is that, at each level, including the bottom level, you
better know the other voters, and even the candidates.

And the candidates aren't distant and unreachable. There's full direct
close-up communication among voters at each level, and between voters &
candidates. ...and between voters and officeholders.

Not like the distant, unreachable officeholders now, who aren't available
to answer questions, comments, requests, complaints, etc.

Count fraud would no longer be a problem,. The count-fraud problem could be
solved now, with public ballot-imaging, but in the Bottom-Up system the
problem wouldn't need to be solved, because it couldn't exist in the first
place.

Bottom-Up is the easy, natural, locally-organizable system. Arguably
Bottom-Up is the natural orientation & form for government.

Is i worth giving up numerical majority-preservation at the national level
to achieve those advantages.

Michael Ossipoff

Good Morning, Michael

Thank you for your suggestion that we adopt a bottom-up political
process.  It's timely.  The fallacy of letting political parties tell us
who we can vote for was clearly illustrated in the recent election in
the United States.

You point out that "Bottom-Up is the easy, natural, locally- organizable
system."  I agree.

It is, however, different than anything we're used to and that makes it
difficult for many people to accept.  The fact that you recognize its
value and call attention to it will help others see the wisdom of a
process that lets everyone participate in selecting our representatives.

You ask whether it's "worth giving up numerical majority-preservation at
the national level to achieve those advantages."  It will also work at
the local level.  It is worthwhile because numerical majorities are
heavily influenced by media manipulation.  They tend to be more
emotional than intellectual.  Your bottom-up proposal lets the people
make more thoughtful choices.

I hope others will help hone your suggestion.  It is certainly worth
examining.

Fred Gohlke

Good Morning, Monk

re: "... what is the problem that we are trying to address with
legislatures to begin with?"

The problem we are trying to address is the quality of the people
elected to our government.  We need people who represent the public
interest, not special interests.

re: "One could argue, along the lines of The Wisdom of Crowds,
that governing can be compared to a genetic modeling
problem."

There is no need to complicate the issue.  There is nothing wrong with
the structure of our government.  Our problems flow from the caliber of
the people elected to public office.  As foreseen by George Washington,
cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men have used partisanship to
defeat the will of the people.  We need to replace those cunning,
ambitious, and unprincipled men with men and women who will serve the
commonweal with integrity.

re: "The problem with the Bottom Up proposal is that it is
basically a hierarchical system ..."

That's not the problem, that's the benefit.  There is, among us, every
scrap of wisdom and ability available to society.  We must sift through
this abundance to find the individuals best suited to address and
resolve contemporary problems.  In doing so, we must consider both
common and conflicting interests.  We must absorb diverse interests in a
way that serves the common good.  That is best accomplished by a
pyramidal process where the individuals that advance are judged by their
peers to be the most attuned to the needs of the community and have the
qualities required to advocate the common good.

re: "Frango ut patefaciam -- I break so that I may reveal"

Confundunt volo quaestionem -- "I want to confuse the issue", seems more
likely.

Fred Gohlke