Practical Democrach
PRACTICAL DEMOCRACY
Abstract
When we speak of government by the people, 'the people' is not an
amorphous mass. It is an abundance of individuals: some brilliant, some
dull; some good, some bad; some with integrity, some deceitful. To
achieve government by the people, we must sift through this diversity to
find the individuals with the qualities needed to address and resolve
contemporary public concerns.
In a truly democratic political process, the entire electorate will
participate in defining the issues the government must address and
selecting the individuals best equipped to resolve those issues. The
size of the electorate and the varying level of interest in public
affairs among the populace make the matter of including everyone a
challenge.
This paper describes a method of dividing the electorate into very small
groups and letting each group decide which of their members best
represents the group's interests. Those so chosen are arranged in
similar groups to continue sifting through the electorate to identify
the individuals most motivated and best qualified to address and resolve
the people's concerns. The described approach ensures that candidates
for public office are carefully examined by their peers before they are
chosen as the people's representatives.
PRACTICAL DEMOCRACY
Overview
The realities of life, particularly our economic needs, tend to distract
us from serious thought about public concerns. These circumstances have
allowed the political infrastructure in the United States to gradually
deteriorate until, as Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page[1] conclude,
"America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously
threatened." One of their striking findings is:
"... the nearly total failure of 'median voter' and other
Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories. When the
preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized
interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the
average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero,
statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."
These results should not be surprising. Justice Louis Brandeis is
quoted as saying, "We may have democracy, or we may have wealth
concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."[2]
Organized political power and concentrated wealth feed off each other.
The political process in the United States epitomizes this relationship.
If we wish to change our entrenched system, we should start by heeding
John Dewey's guidance[3]:
"The old saying that the cure for the ills of democracy
is more democracy is not apt if it means that the evils
may be remedied by introducing more machinery of the
same kind as that which already exists, or by refining
and perfecting that machinery."
Creating new machinery that differs from existing machinery in important
ways requires an understanding of the flaws in the existing machinery.
Partisanship
Democracy is not a team sport. Even though partisanship is natural for
humans, political systems built on partisanship are destructive.
George Washington warned us, in his Farewell Address, that political
factions would enable "cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men" to
"subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins
of government"[4]. In spite of his warning, those "cunning, ambitious,
and unprincipled men" created top-down political organizations that let
them set the agendas and choose the candidates for which people may vote.
When the people are only allowed to choose from party-chosen options,
the ability to vote for one of them is neither free nor democratic. On
the contrary, since those who control the options control the outcome,
it shows that the people are subjects of those who defined their
options. As Robert Michels pointed out, "... the oligarchical and
bureaucratic tendency of party organization ... serves to conceal from
the mass a danger which really threatens democracy."[5]
Over two hundred years experience with party politics informs us that,
when politics is based on partisanship, the partisans form oligarchic
power blocs that become an end in themselves and ultimately transcend
the will of the people. National Socialism and Russian Communism had
features that attracted broad partisan support throughout a national
expanse and both degenerated into destructive forces because their
partisans gained control of their governments.
The danger in communism and National Socialism was not that they
attracted partisan support; it was that the partisans controlled the
government. In general, partisanship is healthy when it helps give
voice to our views. It is destructive when it achieves power. All
ideologies, whether of the right or the left, differ from communism and
National Socialism only in the extent to which their partisans are able
to impose their biases on the public.
Party politics is a potent tool for those with a thirst for power but it
does not foster government by the people. It disenfranchises
non-partisans and results in government by a small fraction of the
people. For the people as a whole, the flaws are devastating. Their
cumulative effect victimizes the public by the most basic and effective
strategy of domination - Divide and Conquer.
In spite of the dangers inherent in partisanship, we must recognize that
it is a vital part of society. People differ, and it is essential that
they should, because we advance our common interest by examining
conceivable options. Differing people seek out and align themselves
with others who share their views. In the process of doing so, they
hone their views to help form a consensus. That is the way they give
breadth, depth and volume to their voice.
Such alliances are not only inevitable; they are a vital part of society
- provided they are always a voice and never a power. The danger is not
in partisanship, it is in allowing partisans to control government.
1--> New machinery to support a democratic political process
must incorporate partisanship without letting partisans
control the political process.
Political Campaigning
Campaigning is the process of selling political candidates to the
public. It is a top-down technique and is conceptually unsound in any
political system that purports to be democratic.
Campaigning is the antithesis of open inquiry. It is a training course
in the art of deception. Candidates must continually adjust their
assertions to appeal to the diverse groups whose votes they need for
their election. In the process, they become expert at avoiding direct
answers to questions and diverting attention from unwelcome topics. The
result is one-way communication centered on deceit, misdirection and
obfuscation.
Political campaigning incurs high costs. Those who supply the money are
not altruists; they demand a return for their money. The only product
the political parties have to sell is the laws their candidates will
enact when elected. This relationship is a major stimulus for the
corruption that is destroying democracy in America.
2--> New machinery to support a democratic political process
must function without political campaigns.
Passion Versus Intellect
Political parties mount, finance and staff campaigns designed to inflame
the passions of the electorate. There is no genuine attempt to consult
the public interest. Instead, surveys are conducted to find "hot
buttons" which generate a desired response and professionals use the
information to mold "messages" which the candidates and the parties feed
the public. It is a rabble- rousing technique.
Intelligent decisions require discourse; assertions must be examined,
not in the sterile environment of a televised debate, but in depth. The
electorate must be able to examine candidates and discuss matters of
public concern, and, with the knowledge so gained, make decisions. In
the existing political environment, they have no opportunity to do so.
3--> New machinery to support a democratic political process
must enable and encourage dialogue and deliberation on
political issues among the electorate.
Incumbency
"Few things in life are more predictable than the chances of an
incumbent member of the U.S. House of Representatives winning
reelection. With wide name recognition, and usually an insurmountable
advantage in campaign cash, House incumbents typically have little
trouble holding onto their seats..."[9]
It is reported that incumbents in the U. S. Senate and House of
Representatives are returned to office over 90% of the time even though
Congress has an approval rating of less then 15%.[10] This circumstance
obtains because the people have no options.
What choices are available to the voters when the only names on the
ballot are those chosen by the parties? When the dominant party
repeatedly chooses the same candidate and the opposing candidate is an
unacceptable alternative, the people have no way to bring new minds to
their government. Systems that let organized groups decide who can be a
candidate for public office are profoundly undemocratic.
Dynamic systems require fresh minds. The current and emerging problems
facing the electorate change constantly. The inability to select new
representatives equipped to resolve contemporary issues injures the
entire community. In addition, rot thrives in a closed environment.
Just like with apples in barrels, corruption flourishes when incumbents
are repeatedly returned to office.
4--> New machinery to support a democratic political process
must include a way for the people to change their
representatives, as they deem appropriate.
Exclusivity
Political parties are top-down arrangements that are important for the
principals: the party leaders, financiers, candidates and elected
officials, but the significance diminishes rapidly as the distance from
the center of power grows. Most people are on the periphery, remote
from the centers of power. They have little or no influence, as shown
by Gilens and Page.[1] As outsiders, they are effectively excluded from
the political process.
Party-dominated political infrastructures deny the people the right to
decide the issues they want addressed and the right to select the
candidates they want to address them. As a result, the people's
political skills atrophy because the system gives them no meaningful
participation in the political process.
The challenge of democracy is to find the best advocates of the common
interest and raise them to positions of leadership. To meet that
challenge, given the range of public issues and the way each
individual's interest in political matters varies over time, an
effective electoral process must examine the entire electorate during
each electoral cycle, seeking the people's best advocates.
Machinery that gives the entire electorate a voice in the political
process must accommodate the fact that the desire to participate in
political affairs varies from one individual to the next. Some have no
desire to participate, some will participate for altruistic reasons,
some will participate to advance their self-interest, and some will be
indifferent. To reconcile this diversity, a democratic process must be
open to all, without coercion.
We cannot know what treasures of political ability will be unearthed
when people are invited to deliberate on their common concerns - with a
purpose. Some, who start out unsure of their ability, will, as they
learn they can persuade others of the value of their perspective, gain
confidence in their ability to influence the political process. In
doing so, the people gain the internal goods that can only be attained
through the practice of politics. That, as Alasdair MacIntyre[6]
explained, benefits the entire community.
5--> New machinery to support a democratic political process
must be inclusive. It must be a bottom-up arrangement
that lets every member of the community influence political
decisions to the full extent of each individual's desire and
ability.
The Machinery
Political systems are always an embodiment of human nature. Since we
cannot divorce our political institutions from our own nature, the new
machinery to support a democratic political process must harness our
nature. It must make the qualities needed to represent the common
interest desirable attributes in those who seek political advancement.
Given the wide range of desire and ability among the members of society,
an inclusive environment must be arranged to encourage the greatest
participation. Esterling, Fung and Lee show that deliberation in small
groups raises the knowledge level of the participants and their
satisfaction with the results of their deliberations.[7] Pogrebinschi
found that "... policies for minority groups deliberated in the national
conferences tend to be crosscutting as to their content. The policies
tend to favor more than one group simultaneously..."[8]
If we are to create an environment for effective political dialogue, we
must create a framework in which all citizens are encouraged to discuss
their political concerns with their peers. Such inclusiveness can be
achieved by arranging the voters in small groups where people with
differing views discuss issues that concern them.
Since public issues are inseparable from the people who resolve them,
the groups must identify the individuals in their group who best
represent their interests. The people so chosen can deliberate with the
choices of other groups to identify the community's most pressing issues
and the individuals best suited to address them.
The inclusivity of the process depends in great measure on the size of
the groups in which the people meet and discuss their concerns. Groups
must be large enough to make a decision and small enough to encourage
those who are not accustomed to the serious discussion of political
issues to express their views.
If we examine the dynamics of such a process, we find that, when a group
of people meet to select one of their number to represent the others,
there will be three kinds of participants: those seeking selection,
those willing to be selected, and those who do not want to be selected.
If none of the participants are willing to be selected, the group will
not make a choice and will drop from the process in accordance with
their own wishes. Among groups that make a selection, those who are
selected will be somewhere on the continuum from those willing to be
selected to those seeking selection.
For simplicity, we will assume that the desire to be selected is
equivalent to a desire for public office (as the people's
representative) and that the people we mention as examples are at one
end of the wish-willingness continuum or the other. The reality is
infinitely more complex, but the results will differ only in degree from
what we learn by thinking about the people who are at the hypothetical
extremes.
The purpose of the process is to advance the best advocates of each
group's perspective on contemporary problems, in a pyramidal fashion, to
deliberate with the selections of other groups. In such an arrangement,
it is reasonable to think that active seekers of advancement will be
chosen more frequently than those who only advance because they are
willing to be selected. For that reason, after several iterations of
the process, we can anticipate that all group members will be
individuals seeking to persuade their peers that they are the best
suited to advance.
When persuasion occurs between two people, it takes place as a dialogue
with one person attempting to persuade the other. In such events, both
parties are free to participate in the process. The person to be
persuaded can question the persuader as to specific points, and present
alternatives. Under such circumstances, it is possible that the
persuader will become the persuaded.
However, when persuasion involves multiple people, it has a greater
tendency to occur as a monologue. The transition from dialogue to
monologue accelerates as the number of people to be persuaded increases.
The larger the number of people, the less free some of them are to
participate in the process. In such circumstances, the more assertive
individuals will dominate the discussion and the viewpoints of the less
assertive members will not be expressed.
Viewed this way, we can say that when selecting representatives of the
public interest, a system that encourages dialogue is preferable to one
that relies on a monologue, and dialogue is best encouraged by having
fewer people in the "session of persuasion". Under these circumstances,
the optimum group size to ensure the inclusion of, and encourage the
active involvement of, the entire electorate, is three.
Method
-
Divide the entire electorate into groups of three randomly
chosen people.a) The random grouping mechanism must insure that no two
people are assigned to a triad if they served together in a
triad in any of the five most recent elections. At the
initial level, it must ensure that no two people are
assigned to a triad if they are members of the same family.b) At any time up to one week before the process begins,
people may declare themselves members of any interest
group, faction, party, or enclave, and may create a new
one, simply by declaring membership in it. People that do
not declare group membership are automatically assigned to
a set of people with no affiliation. Triads will be
created from members of the same interest group, as long as
more than two members of the group exist. When a group has
less than three members, the group's remaining candidates
are merged with the largest set extant.c) For the convenience of the electorate, triad assignments
shall be based on geographic proximity to the maximum
extent practical, subject to the foregoing conditions. -
Assign a date and time by which each triad must select one of
the three members to represent the other two.a) Selections will be made by consensus. If consensus cannot
be achieved, selection will be by vote. Participants may
not vote for themselves.b) If a triad is unable to select a representative in the
specified time, all three participants shall be deemed
disinclined to participate in the process. -
Divide the participants so selected into new triads.
-
Repeat from step 2 until a target number of selections is
reached.
For convenience, we refer to each iteration as a 'Level', such that
Level 1 is the initial grouping of the entire electorate, Level 2 is the
grouping of the selections made at Level 1, and so forth. The entire
electorate participates at level 1 giving everyone an equal opportunity
to advance to succeeding levels.
Elective and Appointive Offices
The final phase of the Practical Democracy (PD) process, electing
candidates to specific public offices, is omitted from this outline
because that task is implementation-dependent. Whatever method is used,
it is recommended that participants who reach the highest levels but do
not achieve public office become a pool of validated candidates from
which appointive offices must be filled.
Description
The local government conducts the process. It assigns the participants
of each triad and supplies the groups with the text of pending
ordinances and a synopsis of the budget appropriate to the group. In
addition, on request, it makes the full budget available and supplies
the text of any existing ordinances. This enables a careful examination
of public issues and encourages a thorough discussion of matters of
public concern.
The public has a tendency to think of elections in terms of just a few
offices: a congressional seat, a senate race, and so forth. There are,
however, a large number of elected officials who fill township, county,
state and federal offices. The structure outlined here provides
qualified candidates for those offices.
As the process advances through the levels, the life of the triads (the
amount of time the participants spend together) increases. At level 1,
triads may meet for a few minutes, over a back-yard fence, so-to-speak,
but that would not be adequate at higher levels. As the levels advance,
the participants need more time to evaluate those they are grouped with
and to research, examine and deliberate on the issues concerning them.
(See "Time Lapse Example", below.)
Face-to-face meetings in three-person groups eliminate any possibility
of voting machine fraud. Significantly, they also allow participants to
observe the non-verbal clues humans emit during discourse and will tend
to favor moderate attitudes over extremism. As Louis Brandeis said, "We
are not won by arguments that we can analyze, but by tone and temper; by
the manner, which is the man himself."[11]
The dissimulation and obfuscation that are so effective in
campaign-based politics will not work in a group of three people, each
of whom has a vital interest in reaching the same goal as the miscreant.
Thus, the advancement of participants will depend on their perceived
qualities and demeanor as well as the probity with which they fulfill
their public obligations.
PD is a distillation process, biased in favor of the most upright and
capable of our citizens. It cannot guarantee that unprincipled
individuals will never be selected - such a goal would be unrealistic -
but it does insure that they are the exception rather than the rule.
More than that, they achieve selection alone, not as part of an
organized faction. Once elected, acts they seek to inspire must attract
the support of others over whom they have no partisan control.
Harnessing the Pursuit of Self-Interest
The initial phase of the PD process is dominated by participants with
little interest in advancing to higher levels. They do not seek public
office; they simply wish to pursue their private lives in peace. Thus,
the most powerful human dynamic during the first phase (i.e., Level 1
and for some levels thereafter) is a desire by the majority of the
participants to select someone who will represent them. The person so
selected is more apt to be someone who is willing to take on the
responsibility of going to the next level than someone who actively
seeks elevation to the next level, but those who do actively seek
elevation are not inhibited from doing so.
As the levels increase, the proportion of disinterested parties
diminishes and we enter a second phase. Here, participants that advance
are marked, more and more, by an inclination to seek further
advancement. Thus, the powerful influence of self-interest is
integrated into the process.
Those who actively seek selection must persuade their triad that they
are the best qualified to represent the other two. While that is easy
at the lower levels, it becomes more difficult as the process moves
forward and participants are matched with peers who also seek
advancement. The competitors will seek out any hint of impropriety and
will not overlook unsuitable behavior.
The pursuit of self-interest is a powerful force. Allowed free rein, it
can produce an anti-social menace. However, when it is an advantage for
an individual to be recognized as a person of principle, one's natural
tendency to pursue one's own interest is more than adequate to avoid
improper acts. The PD process gives candidates a career-controlling
incentive to maintain their integrity. Their own self-interest provides
the motivation.
Practical Democracy harnesses the pursuit of self-interest by making
integrity an absolute requirement in candidates for public office.
Bi-Directionality
The process is inherently bi-directional. Because each advancing
participant and elected official sits atop a pyramid of known electors,
questions on specific issues can easily be transmitted directly to and
from the electors for the guidance or instruction of the official. This
capability offers those who implement the process a broad scope, ranging
from simple polling of constituents to referenda on selected issues and
recall of an elected representative.
Simplified Illustration
This table illustrates the process for a community of 25,000 voters.
For simplicity, it omits interest group considerations and assumes each
triad selects a candidate. The process is shown through 7 levels.
Those who implement the process will determine the number of levels
necessary for their specific application.
Selected
Randomly
From
Full Over Prev. Total People
Level People Triads Flow Level Triads Chosen Days
1 25,000 8,333 1 0 8,333 8,333 5 (1)
2 8,334 2,778 0 0 2,778 2,778 5
3 2,778 926 0 0 926 926 12
4 926 308 2 1 309 309 12
5 309 103 0 0 103 103 19
6 103 34 1 2 35 35 19
7 35 11 2 1 12 12 26 (2)
-
If the number of candidates does not divide equally into
triads, any candidates remaining are overflow. Level 1 is a
special case. When there is overflow at Level 1, the extra
person(s) automatically become candidates at Level 2.
Thereafter, when there is overflow at any level, the number of
people needed to create a full triad are selected at random
from the people who were not selected at the previous level. -
To avoid patronage, appointive offices, including cabinet
positions, must be filled using candidates that reached the
final levels but were not selected to fill elective offices.
Time Lapse Example
To give a very rough idea of the time lapse required for such an
election, we will hypothesize triad lives of 5 days for the 1st and 2nd
levels, 12 days for the 3rd and 4th levels, 19 days for the 5th and 6th
levels, and 26 days thereafter. To illustrate, we will start triad
lives on a Wednesday and have them report their selection on a Monday.
In a 7-level election (like the one shown above), the process would
complete in 98 days:
Level Start Report Days
1 01/07/15 01/12/15 5
2 01/14/15 01/19/15 5
3 01/21/15 02/02/15 12
4 02/04/15 02/16/15 12
5 02/18/15 03/09/15 19
6 03/11/15 03/30/15 19
7 04/01/15 04/27/15 26
Cost And Time Consumption
The cost of conducting an election by this method is free to the
participants, except for the value of their time, and minimal to the
government. The length of time taken to complete an election compares
favorably with the time required by campaign-based partisan systems.
Even in California, with a voting-eligible population of about
22,000,000, the process would complete in less than 12 levels, or about
230 calendar days.
From the perspective of those not motivated to seek public office, it
is worth noting that, as each level completes, two-thirds of the
participants can resume their daily lives without further electoral
obligation. At the same time, they retain the ability to guide or
instruct their representatives to the extent and in the manner provided
by those who implement the process. (See "Bi-Directionality", above)
Concept
Practical Democracy springs from the knowledge that some people are
better advocates of the public interest than others. In Beyond
Adversary Democracy[12], Jane Mansbridge, speaking of a small community
in Vermont, says, "When interests are similar, citizens do not need
equal power to protect their individual interests; they only need to
persuade their wisest, cleverest, most virtuous, and most experienced
citizens to spend their time solving town problems in the best interests
of everyone."[13]
The fundamental challenge of democracy is to find those "wisest,
cleverest, most virtuous, and most experienced citizens" and empower
them as our representatives. PD does that by giving every member of the
electorate the right to be a candidate and the ability to influence the
selection process, while ensuring that no individual or group has an
advantage over others.
PD makes no attempt to alter the structure of government. We have the
venues for resolving adversarial issues in our legislatures and
councils. However, since the solutions that flow from those assemblies
cannot be better than the people who craft them, PD lets the electorate
select the individuals they believe will resolve adversarial issues in
the public interest.
Peoples' interests change over time. To achieve satisfaction, these
changing attitudes must be given voice and reflected in the results of
each election. The PD process lets particular interests attract
supporters to their cause and elevate their most effective advocates
during each electoral cycle. Advocates of those interests can proclaim
their ideas and encourage discussion of their concepts. Some will be
accepted, in whole or in part, as they are shown to be in the common
interest of the community.
Most people expect their elected officials to represent their interests.
The difficulty is that communities are made up of diverse interests
and the relations between those interests can be contentious.
Constructive resolution of political issues requires, first of all,
lawmakers with the ability to recognize the value in the various points
of view, from the people's perspective. That is impossible for
legislators elected to represent partisan interests.
Democracy's dilemma is to find those individuals whose self-interest
encourages them to seek advancement and whose commitment to the public
interest makes them acceptable to their peers. Such persons cannot be
identified by partisan groups seeking to advance their own interests.
They can only be identified by the people themselves.
Why Practical Democracy Works
Practical Democracy gives the people a way to select Mansbridge's
"wisest, cleverest, most virtuous, and most experienced citizens". At
each level, voters deliberate in small groups, where "... face-to-face
contact increases the perception of likeness, encourages decision making
by consensus, and perhaps even enhances equality of status."[14]
Academic studies have shown the value of deliberation in small groups.
The PD process builds on these phenomena. It lets people with differing
views deliberate and seek consensus on political issues. When triad
members are selected to advance, those selected are the individuals the
group believes best represent its perspectives. This necessarily adds a
bias toward the common interest.
PD works because it atomizes the electorate into thousands, or, in
larger communities, millions of very small groups. Each provides a
slight bias toward the common interest. As the levels advance, the
cumulative effect of this small bias overwhelms special interests
seeking their private gain. It leads, inexorably, to the selection of
representatives who advocate the will of the community.
Summary
The described process provides the sorting and selecting mechanism
required to implement Jane Mansbridge's "Selection Model" of Political
Representation.[15] It yields self-motivated representatives whose
gyroscopes are aligned with the objectives of the people who select
them. It lets the people advance the individuals they believe have the
qualities necessary to resolve public issues into ever-more deliberative
groups to work out solutions from broadly differing perspectives.
PD focuses on selecting representatives who will resolve adversarial
encounters to the advantage of the commonweal. During the process,
participants necessarily consider both common and conflicting interests,
and, because PD is intrinsically bidirectional, it gives advocates of
conflicting interests a continuing voice. At the same time, it
encourages the absorption of diverse interests, reducing them to their
essential element: their effect on the participants in the electoral
process. There are no platforms, there is no ideology. The only
question is, which participants are the most attuned to the needs of the
community and have the qualities required to advocate the common good.
Implementation
It is hard to achieve democracy because true democracy has no champions.
It offers no rewards for individuals or vested interests; it gives no
individual or group an advantage over others. Hence, it offers no
incentive for power-seeking individuals or groups to advocate its adoption.
The best chance for something like the Practical Democracy concept to
develop will be if it is adopted in a small community. In May of 2015,
the people of Frome in the U.K. rejected all party candidates and
elected an independent city government.[16] They might welcome a
mechanism like Practical Democracy to ensure the election of independent
individuals in the future.
Conclusion
Practical Democracy is an electoral process through which the people
actively participate in the conduct of, and impress their moral sense
on, their government. It creates a unique merger of self-interest and
the public interest. It completes more quickly and with less public
distraction than existing systems, however large the electorate.
We have no shortage of competent, talented individuals among us. The PD
process gives us the machinery to sift through all of us to find the
individuals with the qualities needed to address and resolve
contemporary public concerns. It lets the public discuss substantive
matters - with a purpose. It gives participants time for deliberation
and an opportunity to understand the rationale for the positions of others.
PD is a bottom-up process that lets every member of the community
participate to the full extent of each individual's desire and ability,
1--> it incorporates partisanship without letting partisans
control the process;
2--> it functions without political campaigns or the marketing
of candidates;
3--> it enables and encourages dialogue and deliberation on
political issues among the electorate;
4--> it includes a way for the people to change their
representatives as they deem appropriate; and
5--> it is a bottom-up arrangement that lets every member of
the community influence political decisions to the full
extent of each individual's desire and ability.
That is the essence of a democratic political process.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred Gohlke
Footnotes:
[1] Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page (2014). Testing Theories
of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average
Citizens.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
[2] Wikiquote, Louis Brandeis
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Louis_Brandeis
[3] Search for the Great Community, p293
http://thehangedman.com/teaching-files/pragmatism/dewey-pp2.pdf
[4] Washington's Farewell Address
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp
[5] Robert Michels, Political Parties, p27
http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/michels/polipart.pdf
[6] Political Philosophy of Alasdair MacIntyre,
http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/p-macint.htm
[7] Esterling, Kevin M., Fung, Archon and Lee, Taeku, Knowledge
Inequality and Empowerment in Small Deliberative Groups:
Evidence from a Randomized Experiment at the Oboe Town Halls
(2011). APSA 2011 Annual Meeting Paper. Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1902664
[8] Pogrebinschi, Thamy, Participatory Democracy and the
Representation of Minority Groups in Brazil (2011). APSA 2011
Annual Meeting Paper. Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1901000
[9] The Center for Responsive Politics
https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php
[10] PolitiFact.com
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/nov/11/facebook-posts/congress-has-11-approval-ratings-96-incumbent-re-e/
[11] Louis D. Brandeis
http://www.brainyquote.com/search_results.html?q=brandeis
[12] Beyond Adversary Democracy, Jane J. Mansbridge, The
University of Chicago Press, 1980
[13] Beyond Adversary Democracy, p. 88
[14] Beyond Adversary Democracy, p. 33
[15] Jane Mansbridge, A "Selection Model" of Political
Representation
https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/workingpapers/citation.aspx?PubId=5548&type=WPN
[16] How Flatpack Democracy beat the old parties in the People's
Republic of Frome
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/22/flatpack-democracy-peoples-republic-of-frome?CMP=share_btn_fb
So, the "tl;dr" version is roughly: Voters get together in groups of 3,
choose the best of the 3 to represent Them at the next stage, selected
Representatives then lather and rinse and repeat, yes?
On Monday, January 25, 2016, Fred Gohlke fredgohlke@verizon.net wrote:
PRACTICAL DEMOCRACY
Abstract
When we speak of government by the people, 'the people' is not an
amorphous mass. It is an abundance of individuals: some brilliant, some
dull; some good, some bad; some with integrity, some deceitful. To achieve
government by the people, we must sift through this diversity to find the
individuals with the qualities needed to address and resolve contemporary
public concerns.
In a truly democratic political process, the entire electorate will
participate in defining the issues the government must address and
selecting the individuals best equipped to resolve those issues. The size
of the electorate and the varying level of interest in public affairs among
the populace make the matter of including everyone a challenge.
This paper describes a method of dividing the electorate into very small
groups and letting each group decide which of their members best represents
the group's interests. Those so chosen are arranged in similar groups to
continue sifting through the electorate to identify the individuals most
motivated and best qualified to address and resolve the people's concerns.
The described approach ensures that candidates for public office are
carefully examined by their peers before they are chosen as the people's
representatives.
PRACTICAL DEMOCRACY
Overview
The realities of life, particularly our economic needs, tend to distract
us from serious thought about public concerns. These circumstances have
allowed the political infrastructure in the United States to gradually
deteriorate until, as Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page[1] conclude,
"America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."
One of their striking findings is:
"... the nearly total failure of 'median voter' and other
Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories. When the
preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized
interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the
average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero,
statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."
These results should not be surprising. Justice Louis Brandeis is quoted
as saying, "We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in
the hands of a few, but we can't have both."[2] Organized political power
and concentrated wealth feed off each other. The political process in the
United States epitomizes this relationship.
If we wish to change our entrenched system, we should start by heeding
John Dewey's guidance[3]:
"The old saying that the cure for the ills of democracy
is more democracy is not apt if it means that the evils
may be remedied by introducing more machinery of the
same kind as that which already exists, or by refining
and perfecting that machinery."
Creating new machinery that differs from existing machinery in important
ways requires an understanding of the flaws in the existing machinery.
Partisanship
Democracy is not a team sport. Even though partisanship is natural for
humans, political systems built on partisanship are destructive.
George Washington warned us, in his Farewell Address, that political
factions would enable "cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men" to
"subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of
government"[4]. In spite of his warning, those "cunning, ambitious, and
unprincipled men" created top-down political organizations that let them
set the agendas and choose the candidates for which people may vote.
When the people are only allowed to choose from party-chosen options, the
ability to vote for one of them is neither free nor democratic. On the
contrary, since those who control the options control the outcome, it shows
that the people are subjects of those who defined their options. As Robert
Michels pointed out, "... the oligarchical and bureaucratic tendency of
party organization ... serves to conceal from the mass a danger which
really threatens democracy."[5]
Over two hundred years experience with party politics informs us that,
when politics is based on partisanship, the partisans form oligarchic power
blocs that become an end in themselves and ultimately transcend the will of
the people. National Socialism and Russian Communism had features that
attracted broad partisan support throughout a national expanse and both
degenerated into destructive forces because their partisans gained control
of their governments.
The danger in communism and National Socialism was not that they attracted
partisan support; it was that the partisans controlled the government. In
general, partisanship is healthy when it helps give voice to our views. It
is destructive when it achieves power. All ideologies, whether of the
right or the left, differ from communism and National Socialism only in the
extent to which their partisans are able to impose their biases on the
public.
Party politics is a potent tool for those with a thirst for power but it
does not foster government by the people. It disenfranchises non-partisans
and results in government by a small fraction of the people. For the
people as a whole, the flaws are devastating. Their cumulative effect
victimizes the public by the most basic and effective strategy of
domination - Divide and Conquer.
In spite of the dangers inherent in partisanship, we must recognize that
it is a vital part of society. People differ, and it is essential that
they should, because we advance our common interest by examining
conceivable options. Differing people seek out and align themselves with
others who share their views. In the process of doing so, they hone their
views to help form a consensus. That is the way they give breadth, depth
and volume to their voice.
Such alliances are not only inevitable; they are a vital part of society -
provided they are always a voice and never a power. The danger is not in
partisanship, it is in allowing partisans to control government.
1--> New machinery to support a democratic political process
must incorporate partisanship without letting partisans
control the political process.
Political Campaigning
Campaigning is the process of selling political candidates to the public.
It is a top-down technique and is conceptually unsound in any political
system that purports to be democratic.
Campaigning is the antithesis of open inquiry. It is a training course in
the art of deception. Candidates must continually adjust their assertions
to appeal to the diverse groups whose votes they need for their election.
In the process, they become expert at avoiding direct answers to questions
and diverting attention from unwelcome topics. The result is one-way
communication centered on deceit, misdirection and obfuscation.
Political campaigning incurs high costs. Those who supply the money are
not altruists; they demand a return for their money. The only product the
political parties have to sell is the laws their candidates will enact when
elected. This relationship is a major stimulus for the corruption that is
destroying democracy in America.
2--> New machinery to support a democratic political process
must function without political campaigns.
Passion Versus Intellect
Political parties mount, finance and staff campaigns designed to inflame
the passions of the electorate. There is no genuine attempt to consult the
public interest. Instead, surveys are conducted to find "hot buttons"
which generate a desired response and professionals use the information to
mold "messages" which the candidates and the parties feed the public. It
is a rabble- rousing technique.
Intelligent decisions require discourse; assertions must be examined, not
in the sterile environment of a televised debate, but in depth. The
electorate must be able to examine candidates and discuss matters of public
concern, and, with the knowledge so gained, make decisions. In the
existing political environment, they have no opportunity to do so.
3--> New machinery to support a democratic political process
must enable and encourage dialogue and deliberation on
political issues among the electorate.
Incumbency
"Few things in life are more predictable than the chances of an incumbent
member of the U.S. House of Representatives winning reelection. With wide
name recognition, and usually an insurmountable advantage in campaign cash,
House incumbents typically have little trouble holding onto their
seats..."[9]
It is reported that incumbents in the U. S. Senate and House of
Representatives are returned to office over 90% of the time even though
Congress has an approval rating of less then 15%.[10] This circumstance
obtains because the people have no options.
What choices are available to the voters when the only names on the ballot
are those chosen by the parties? When the dominant party repeatedly
chooses the same candidate and the opposing candidate is an unacceptable
alternative, the people have no way to bring new minds to their
government. Systems that let organized groups decide who can be a
candidate for public office are profoundly undemocratic.
Dynamic systems require fresh minds. The current and emerging problems
facing the electorate change constantly. The inability to select new
representatives equipped to resolve contemporary issues injures the entire
community. In addition, rot thrives in a closed environment. Just like
with apples in barrels, corruption flourishes when incumbents are
repeatedly returned to office.
4--> New machinery to support a democratic political process
must include a way for the people to change their
representatives, as they deem appropriate.
Exclusivity
Political parties are top-down arrangements that are important for the
principals: the party leaders, financiers, candidates and elected
officials, but the significance diminishes rapidly as the distance from the
center of power grows. Most people are on the periphery, remote from the
centers of power. They have little or no influence, as shown by Gilens and
Page.[1] As outsiders, they are effectively excluded from the political
process.
Party-dominated political infrastructures deny the people the right to
decide the issues they want addressed and the right to select the
candidates they want to address them. As a result, the people's political
skills atrophy because the system gives them no meaningful participation in
the political process.
The challenge of democracy is to find the best advocates of the common
interest and raise them to positions of leadership. To meet that
challenge, given the range of public issues and the way each individual's
interest in political matters varies over time, an effective electoral
process must examine the entire electorate during each electoral cycle,
seeking the people's best advocates.
Machinery that gives the entire electorate a voice in the political
process must accommodate the fact that the desire to participate in
political affairs varies from one individual to the next. Some have no
desire to participate, some will participate for altruistic reasons, some
will participate to advance their self-interest, and some will be
indifferent. To reconcile this diversity, a democratic process must be
open to all, without coercion.
We cannot know what treasures of political ability will be unearthed when
people are invited to deliberate on their common concerns - with a
purpose. Some, who start out unsure of their ability, will, as they learn
they can persuade others of the value of their perspective, gain confidence
in their ability to influence the political process. In doing so, the
people gain the internal goods that can only be attained through the
practice of politics. That, as Alasdair MacIntyre[6] explained, benefits
the entire community.
5--> New machinery to support a democratic political process
must be inclusive. It must be a bottom-up arrangement
that lets every member of the community influence political
decisions to the full extent of each individual's desire and
ability.
The Machinery
Political systems are always an embodiment of human nature. Since we
cannot divorce our political institutions from our own nature, the new
machinery to support a democratic political process must harness our
nature. It must make the qualities needed to represent the common interest
desirable attributes in those who seek political advancement.
Given the wide range of desire and ability among the members of society,
an inclusive environment must be arranged to encourage the greatest
participation. Esterling, Fung and Lee show that deliberation in small
groups raises the knowledge level of the participants and their
satisfaction with the results of their deliberations.[7] Pogrebinschi
found that "... policies for minority groups deliberated in the national
conferences tend to be crosscutting as to their content. The policies tend
to favor more than one group simultaneously..."[8]
If we are to create an environment for effective political dialogue, we
must create a framework in which all citizens are encouraged to discuss
their political concerns with their peers. Such inclusiveness can be
achieved by arranging the voters in small groups where people with
differing views discuss issues that concern them.
Since public issues are inseparable from the people who resolve them, the
groups must identify the individuals in their group who best represent
their interests. The people so chosen can deliberate with the choices of
other groups to identify the community's most pressing issues and the
individuals best suited to address them.
The inclusivity of the process depends in great measure on the size of the
groups in which the people meet and discuss their concerns. Groups must be
large enough to make a decision and small enough to encourage those who are
not accustomed to the serious discussion of political issues to express
their views.
If we examine the dynamics of such a process, we find that, when a group
of people meet to select one of their number to represent the others, there
will be three kinds of participants: those seeking selection, those
willing to be selected, and those who do not want to be selected.
If none of the participants are willing to be selected, the group will not
make a choice and will drop from the process in accordance with their own
wishes. Among groups that make a selection, those who are selected will be
somewhere on the continuum from those willing to be selected to those
seeking selection.
For simplicity, we will assume that the desire to be selected is
equivalent to a desire for public office (as the people's representative)
and that the people we mention as examples are at one end of the
wish-willingness continuum or the other. The reality is infinitely more
complex, but the results will differ only in degree from what we learn by
thinking about the people who are at the hypothetical extremes.
The purpose of the process is to advance the best advocates of each
group's perspective on contemporary problems, in a pyramidal fashion, to
deliberate with the selections of other groups. In such an arrangement, it
is reasonable to think that active seekers of advancement will be chosen
more frequently than those who only advance because they are willing to be
selected. For that reason, after several iterations of the process, we can
anticipate that all group members will be individuals seeking to persuade
their peers that they are the best suited to advance.
When persuasion occurs between two people, it takes place as a dialogue
with one person attempting to persuade the other. In such events, both
parties are free to participate in the process. The person to be persuaded
can question the persuader as to specific points, and present
alternatives. Under such circumstances, it is possible that the persuader
will become the persuaded.
However, when persuasion involves multiple people, it has a greater
tendency to occur as a monologue. The transition from dialogue to
monologue accelerates as the number of people to be persuaded increases.
The larger the number of people, the less free some of them are to
participate in the process. In such circumstances, the more assertive
individuals will dominate the discussion and the viewpoints of the less
assertive members will not be expressed.
Viewed this way, we can say that when selecting representatives of the
public interest, a system that encourages dialogue is preferable to one
that relies on a monologue, and dialogue is best encouraged by having fewer
people in the "session of persuasion". Under these circumstances, the
optimum group size to ensure the inclusion of, and encourage the active
involvement of, the entire electorate, is three.
Method
-
Divide the entire electorate into groups of three randomly
chosen people.a) The random grouping mechanism must insure that no two
people are assigned to a triad if they served together in a
triad in any of the five most recent elections. At the
initial level, it must ensure that no two people are
assigned to a triad if they are members of the same family.b) At any time up to one week before the process begins,
people may declare themselves members of any interest
group, faction, party, or enclave, and may create a new
one, simply by declaring membership in it. People that do
not declare group membership are automatically assigned to
a set of people with no affiliation. Triads will be
created from members of the same interest group, as long as
more than two members of the group exist. When a group has
less than three members, the group's remaining candidates
are merged with the largest set extant.c) For the convenience of the electorate, triad assignments
shall be based on geographic proximity to the maximum
extent practical, subject to the foregoing conditions. -
Assign a date and time by which each triad must select one of
the three members to represent the other two.a) Selections will be made by consensus. If consensus cannot
be achieved, selection will be by vote. Participants may
not vote for themselves.b) If a triad is unable to select a representative in the
specified time, all three participants shall be deemed
disinclined to participate in the process. -
Divide the participants so selected into new triads.
-
Repeat from step 2 until a target number of selections is
reached.
For convenience, we refer to each iteration as a 'Level', such that Level
1 is the initial grouping of the entire electorate, Level 2 is the grouping
of the selections made at Level 1, and so forth. The entire electorate
participates at level 1 giving everyone an equal opportunity to advance to
succeeding levels.
Elective and Appointive Offices
The final phase of the Practical Democracy (PD) process, electing
candidates to specific public offices, is omitted from this outline because
that task is implementation-dependent. Whatever method is used, it is
recommended that participants who reach the highest levels but do not
achieve public office become a pool of validated candidates from which
appointive offices must be filled.
Description
The local government conducts the process. It assigns the participants of
each triad and supplies the groups with the text of pending ordinances and
a synopsis of the budget appropriate to the group. In addition, on
request, it makes the full budget available and supplies the text of any
existing ordinances. This enables a careful examination of public issues
and encourages a thorough discussion of matters of public concern.
The public has a tendency to think of elections in terms of just a few
offices: a congressional seat, a senate race, and so forth. There are,
however, a large number of elected officials who fill township, county,
state and federal offices. The structure outlined here provides qualified
candidates for those offices.
As the process advances through the levels, the life of the triads (the
amount of time the participants spend together) increases. At level 1,
triads may meet for a few minutes, over a back-yard fence, so-to-speak, but
that would not be adequate at higher levels. As the levels advance, the
participants need more time to evaluate those they are grouped with and to
research, examine and deliberate on the issues concerning them. (See "Time
Lapse Example", below.)
Face-to-face meetings in three-person groups eliminate any possibility of
voting machine fraud. Significantly, they also allow participants to
observe the non-verbal clues humans emit during discourse and will tend to
favor moderate attitudes over extremism. As Louis Brandeis said, "We are
not won by arguments that we can analyze, but by tone and temper; by the
manner, which is the man himself."[11]
The dissimulation and obfuscation that are so effective in campaign-based
politics will not work in a group of three people, each of whom has a vital
interest in reaching the same goal as the miscreant. Thus, the advancement
of participants will depend on their perceived qualities and demeanor as
well as the probity with which they fulfill their public obligations.
PD is a distillation process, biased in favor of the most upright and
capable of our citizens. It cannot guarantee that unprincipled individuals
will never be selected - such a goal would be unrealistic - but it does
insure that they are the exception rather than the rule.
More than that, they achieve selection alone, not as part of an organized
faction. Once elected, acts they seek to inspire must attract the support
of others over whom they have no partisan control.
Harnessing the Pursuit of Self-Interest
The initial phase of the PD process is dominated by participants with
little interest in advancing to higher levels. They do not seek public
office; they simply wish to pursue their private lives in peace. Thus, the
most powerful human dynamic during the first phase (i.e., Level 1 and for
some levels thereafter) is a desire by the majority of the participants to
select someone who will represent them. The person so selected is more apt
to be someone who is willing to take on the responsibility of going to the
next level than someone who actively seeks elevation to the next level, but
those who do actively seek elevation are not inhibited from doing so.
As the levels increase, the proportion of disinterested parties diminishes
and we enter a second phase. Here, participants that advance are marked,
more and more, by an inclination to seek further advancement. Thus, the
powerful influence of self-interest is integrated into the process.
Those who actively seek selection must persuade their triad that they are
the best qualified to represent the other two. While that is easy at the
lower levels, it becomes more difficult as the process moves forward and
participants are matched with peers who also seek advancement. The
competitors will seek out any hint of impropriety and will not overlook
unsuitable behavior.
The pursuit of self-interest is a powerful force. Allowed free rein, it
can produce an anti-social menace. However, when it is an advantage for an
individual to be recognized as a person of principle, one's natural
tendency to pursue one's own interest is more than adequate to avoid
improper acts. The PD process gives candidates a career-controlling
incentive to maintain their integrity. Their own self-interest provides
the motivation.
Practical Democracy harnesses the pursuit of self-interest by making
integrity an absolute requirement in candidates for public office.
Bi-Directionality
The process is inherently bi-directional. Because each advancing
participant and elected official sits atop a pyramid of known electors,
questions on specific issues can easily be transmitted directly to and from
the electors for the guidance or instruction of the official. This
capability offers those who implement the process a broad scope, ranging
from simple polling of constituents to referenda on selected issues and
recall of an elected representative.
Simplified Illustration
This table illustrates the process for a community of 25,000 voters. For
simplicity, it omits interest group considerations and assumes each triad
selects a candidate. The process is shown through 7 levels. Those who
implement the process will determine the number of levels necessary for
their specific application.
Selected
Randomly
From
Full Over Prev. Total People
Level People Triads Flow Level Triads Chosen Days
1 25,000 8,333 1 0 8,333 8,333 5 (1)
2 8,334 2,778 0 0 2,778 2,778 5
3 2,778 926 0 0 926 926 12
4 926 308 2 1 309 309 12
5 309 103 0 0 103 103 19
6 103 34 1 2 35 35 19
7 35 11 2 1 12 12 26 (2)
-
If the number of candidates does not divide equally into
triads, any candidates remaining are overflow. Level 1 is a
special case. When there is overflow at Level 1, the extra
person(s) automatically become candidates at Level 2.
Thereafter, when there is overflow at any level, the number of
people needed to create a full triad are selected at random
from the people who were not selected at the previous level. -
To avoid patronage, appointive offices, including cabinet
positions, must be filled using candidates that reached the
final levels but were not selected to fill elective offices.
Time Lapse Example
To give a very rough idea of the time lapse required for such an election,
we will hypothesize triad lives of 5 days for the 1st and 2nd levels, 12
days for the 3rd and 4th levels, 19 days for the 5th and 6th levels, and 26
days thereafter. To illustrate, we will start triad lives on a Wednesday
and have them report their selection on a Monday. In a 7-level election
(like the one shown above), the process would complete in 98 days:
Level Start Report Days
1 01/07/15 01/12/15 5
2 01/14/15 01/19/15 5
3 01/21/15 02/02/15 12
4 02/04/15 02/16/15 12
5 02/18/15 03/09/15 19
6 03/11/15 03/30/15 19
7 04/01/15 04/27/15 26
Cost And Time Consumption
The cost of conducting an election by this method is free to the
participants, except for the value of their time, and minimal to the
government. The length of time taken to complete an election compares
favorably with the time required by campaign-based partisan systems. Even
in California, with a voting-eligible population of about 22,000,000, the
process would complete in less than 12 levels, or about 230 calendar days.
From the perspective of those not motivated to seek public office, it is
worth noting that, as each level completes, two-thirds of the participants
can resume their daily lives without further electoral obligation. At the
same time, they retain the ability to guide or instruct their
representatives to the extent and in the manner provided by those who
implement the process. (See "Bi-Directionality", above)
Concept
Practical Democracy springs from the knowledge that some people are better
advocates of the public interest than others. In Beyond Adversary
Democracy[12], Jane Mansbridge, speaking of a small community in Vermont,
says, "When interests are similar, citizens do not need equal power to
protect their individual interests; they only need to persuade their
wisest, cleverest, most virtuous, and most experienced citizens to spend
their time solving town problems in the best interests of everyone."[13]
The fundamental challenge of democracy is to find those "wisest,
cleverest, most virtuous, and most experienced citizens" and empower them
as our representatives. PD does that by giving every member of the
electorate the right to be a candidate and the ability to influence the
selection process, while ensuring that no individual or group has an
advantage over others.
PD makes no attempt to alter the structure of government. We have the
venues for resolving adversarial issues in our legislatures and councils.
However, since the solutions that flow from those assemblies cannot be
better than the people who craft them, PD lets the electorate select the
individuals they believe will resolve adversarial issues in the public
interest.
Peoples' interests change over time. To achieve satisfaction, these
changing attitudes must be given voice and reflected in the results of each
election. The PD process lets particular interests attract supporters to
their cause and elevate their most effective advocates during each
electoral cycle. Advocates of those interests can proclaim their ideas and
encourage discussion of their concepts. Some will be accepted, in whole or
in part, as they are shown to be in the common interest of the community.
Most people expect their elected officials to represent their interests.
The difficulty is that communities are made up of diverse interests and the
relations between those interests can be contentious. Constructive
resolution of political issues requires, first of all, lawmakers with the
ability to recognize the value in the various points of view, from the
people's perspective. That is impossible for legislators elected to
represent partisan interests.
Democracy's dilemma is to find those individuals whose self-interest
encourages them to seek advancement and whose commitment to the public
interest makes them acceptable to their peers. Such persons cannot be
identified by partisan groups seeking to advance their own interests. They
can only be identified by the people themselves.
Why Practical Democracy Works
Practical Democracy gives the people a way to select Mansbridge's "wisest,
cleverest, most virtuous, and most experienced citizens". At each level,
voters deliberate in small groups, where "... face-to-face contact
increases the perception of likeness, encourages decision making by
consensus, and perhaps even enhances equality of status."[14]
Academic studies have shown the value of deliberation in small groups. The
PD process builds on these phenomena. It lets people with differing views
deliberate and seek consensus on political issues. When triad members are
selected to advance, those selected are the individuals the group believes
best represent its perspectives. This necessarily adds a bias toward the
common interest.
PD works because it atomizes the electorate into thousands, or, in larger
communities, millions of very small groups. Each provides a slight bias
toward the common interest. As the levels advance, the cumulative effect
of this small bias overwhelms special interests seeking their private
gain. It leads, inexorably, to the selection of representatives who
advocate the will of the community.
Summary
The described process provides the sorting and selecting mechanism
required to implement Jane Mansbridge's "Selection Model" of Political
Representation.[15] It yields self-motivated representatives whose
gyroscopes are aligned with the objectives of the people who select them.
It lets the people advance the individuals they believe have the qualities
necessary to resolve public issues into ever-more deliberative groups to
work out solutions from broadly differing perspectives.
PD focuses on selecting representatives who will resolve adversarial
encounters to the advantage of the commonweal. During the process,
participants necessarily consider both common and conflicting interests,
and, because PD is intrinsically bidirectional, it gives advocates of
conflicting interests a continuing voice. At the same time, it encourages
the absorption of diverse interests, reducing them to their essential
element: their effect on the participants in the electoral process. There
are no platforms, there is no ideology. The only question is, which
participants are the most attuned to the needs of the community and have
the qualities required to advocate the common good.
Implementation
It is hard to achieve democracy because true democracy has no champions.
It offers no rewards for individuals or vested interests; it gives no
individual or group an advantage over others. Hence, it offers no
incentive for power-seeking individuals or groups to advocate its adoption.
The best chance for something like the Practical Democracy concept to
develop will be if it is adopted in a small community. In May of 2015, the
people of Frome in the U.K. rejected all party candidates and elected an
independent city government.[16] They might welcome a mechanism like
Practical Democracy to ensure the election of independent individuals in
the future.
Conclusion
Practical Democracy is an electoral process through which the people
actively participate in the conduct of, and impress their moral sense on,
their government. It creates a unique merger of self-interest and the
public interest. It completes more quickly and with less public
distraction than existing systems, however large the electorate.
We have no shortage of competent, talented individuals among us. The PD
process gives us the machinery to sift through all of us to find the
individuals with the qualities needed to address and resolve contemporary
public concerns. It lets the public discuss substantive matters - with a
purpose. It gives participants time for deliberation and an opportunity to
understand the rationale for the positions of others.
PD is a bottom-up process that lets every member of the community
participate to the full extent of each individual's desire and ability,
1--> it incorporates partisanship without letting partisans
control the process;
2--> it functions without political campaigns or the marketing
of candidates;
3--> it enables and encourages dialogue and deliberation on
political issues among the electorate;
4--> it includes a way for the people to change their
representatives as they deem appropriate; and
5--> it is a bottom-up arrangement that lets every member of
the community influence political decisions to the full
extent of each individual's desire and ability.
That is the essence of a democratic political process.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred Gohlke
Footnotes:
[1] Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page (2014). Testing Theories
of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average
Citizens.
[2] Wikiquote, Louis Brandeis
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Louis_Brandeis
[3] Search for the Great Community, p293
http://thehangedman.com/teaching-files/pragmatism/dewey-pp2.pdf
[4] Washington's Farewell Address
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp
[5] Robert Michels, Political Parties, p27
http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/michels/polipart.pdf
[6] Political Philosophy of Alasdair MacIntyre,
http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/p-macint.htm
[7] Esterling, Kevin M., Fung, Archon and Lee, Taeku, Knowledge
Inequality and Empowerment in Small Deliberative Groups:
Evidence from a Randomized Experiment at the Oboe Town Halls
(2011). APSA 2011 Annual Meeting Paper. Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1902664
[8] Pogrebinschi, Thamy, Participatory Democracy and the
Representation of Minority Groups in Brazil (2011). APSA 2011
Annual Meeting Paper. Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1901000
[9] The Center for Responsive Politics
https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php
[10] PolitiFact.com
[11] Louis D. Brandeis
http://www.brainyquote.com/search_results.html?q=brandeis
[12] Beyond Adversary Democracy, Jane J. Mansbridge, The
University of Chicago Press, 1980
[13] Beyond Adversary Democracy, p. 88
[14] Beyond Adversary Democracy, p. 33
[15] Jane Mansbridge, A "Selection Model" of Political
Representation
https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/workingpapers/citation.aspx?PubId=5548&type=WPN
[16] How Flatpack Democracy beat the old parties in the People's
Republic of Frome
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/22/flatpack-democracy-peoples-republic-of-frome?CMP=share_btn_fb
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
--
P.S.: I prefer to be reached on BitMessage at
BM-2D8txNiU7b84d2tgqvJQdgBog6A69oDAx6
Good Morning, Frank
I'm sorry, I don't know what "tl;dr" is. If, by "lather and rinse and
repeat" you mean they discuss issues that concern them and decide which
of them has the best (from their point of view) ideas for addressing
current concerns, then, yes.
I'm sorry for rushing this, but I'm not feeling well and am on the way
to the doctor's office. The by-passes they installed last August may be
malfunctioning.
Fred Gohlke
P.S. I see I have a spelling error in the subject. I wish I knew how to
fix it. flg
"Tl;dr" means "too long; didn't read".
"Lather rinse repeat" is a colloquialism meaning, roughly, "do the same
thing".
The only concern I see at this moment about this approach is the fact it
doesn't allow much time for vetting potential Representatives, even in the
latter stages. In the US at least, a choice of Representative will often
depend upon information received just days before an election. We call it
the "October surprise".
I pray everything turns out okay with Your heart.
On Monday, January 25, 2016, Fred Gohlke fredgohlke@verizon.net wrote:
Good Morning, Frank
I'm sorry, I don't know what "tl;dr" is. If, by "lather and rinse and
repeat" you mean they discuss issues that concern them and decide which of
them has the best (from their point of view) ideas for addressing current
concerns, then, yes.
I'm sorry for rushing this, but I'm not feeling well and am on the way to
the doctor's office. The by-passes they installed last August may be
malfunctioning.
Fred Gohlke
P.S. I see I have a spelling error in the subject. I wish I knew how to
fix it. flg
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
--
P.S.: I prefer to be reached on BitMessage at
BM-2D8txNiU7b84d2tgqvJQdgBog6A69oDAx6
Good Morning, Frank
Thank you for your kind thoughts. The problem was serious enough, but
the correction was pretty straightforward - a pacemaker.
re: "The only concern I see at this moment about this approach
is the fact it doesn't allow much time for vetting potential
Representatives, even in the latter stages."
There are several things that affect the 'time for vetting':
-
The intensity of the examination. As the levels advance, the process
concentrates the individuals seeking advancement. All members of the
triads are strongly motivated to 'vet' their opponents. They will make
efficient use of their time and their examination of their competitors
will be 'up close and personal'. -
The free press. This is not a closed process. The media will dig up
and publicize information about the advancing individuals, particularly
in the later stages. The way challenged candidates handle attacks will
give the people who make the decision more insight into the triad
member's character than voters can acquire in the spin-meister system we
currently endure. -
The random assignment of triad members. Advancing candidates will
gain considerable experience in evaluating their competition because, at
each level, they will be grouped with strangers they must evaluate.
Those with the desire and ability to reach the higher levels will have
experience evaluating the other two people in their triad. -
The suggested length of triad lives is not cast in stone. However,
several weeks (depending on the level) is not an inconsiderable length
of time for evaluating the other triad members. -
Perhaps the most important reason is that you (and many, many others
just like you - real people) will be making the decisions. That is
something you have never had an opportunity to do. Can you imagine what
your attitude will be when you can actually influence the choice of the
individuals who will represent you in your government? It will be much
different than anything we've experienced in the past.
And, now, if I thought you had a sense of humor, I'd tell you the 'l' in
your "Tl;dr" could just as easily mean "lazy".
Awwww, go ahead. Smile. It don't cost nuttin'.
Fred Gohlke
In re intensity: it is not obvious how this is necessarily true.
In re press: this does nothing to alter the fact Voters in earlier steps
will have already chosen Representatives far from ideal once all the
information is available.
The fact advancing Representatives are matched with Strangers suggests
vetting will be harder than the current system. If I don't know the Others
in the triad, I don't know how to investigate Them as thoroughly nor would
necessarily have sufficient time.
Having several weeks in the average stage, however, suggests decisions
about whether to replace the current Representative will begin long before
the current One has had sufficient opportunity to demonstrate Their
decisions have been good on balance, suggesting further a trivialization of
the notion of representation.
I will not be making any such decision unless I can ensure I will advance
to the next level. Even if I were, however, I clearly make such a similar
decision when, instead of voting in a triad, I vote as part of a community.
Do You have probabilistic analysis showing the odds of a Voter in PD
altering the outcome of an election versus simple majority of the
community? If We presume all votes are coin flips, the probability of any
one vote being the deciding vote can be found by means of a binomial
distribution. For PD, the probability would be the odds of one vote
changing the outcome of the triad times the odds of that triad altering the
outcome of the next triad level times the odds of that second outcome
altering the outcome of the next triad level etc. etc. etc. up thru the
levels. If You have such analysis I would be interested in reviewing it and
might find some objections reduced.
On Saturday, January 30, 2016, Fred Gohlke fredgohlke@verizon.net wrote:
Good Morning, Frank
Thank you for your kind thoughts. The problem was serious enough, but the
correction was pretty straightforward - a pacemaker.
re: "The only concern I see at this moment about this approach
is the fact it doesn't allow much time for vetting potential
Representatives, even in the latter stages."
There are several things that affect the 'time for vetting':
-
The intensity of the examination. As the levels advance, the process
concentrates the individuals seeking advancement. All members of the
triads are strongly motivated to 'vet' their opponents. They will make
efficient use of their time and their examination of their competitors will
be 'up close and personal'. -
The free press. This is not a closed process. The media will dig up
and publicize information about the advancing individuals, particularly in
the later stages. The way challenged candidates handle attacks will give
the people who make the decision more insight into the triad member's
character than voters can acquire in the spin-meister system we currently
endure. -
The random assignment of triad members. Advancing candidates will gain
considerable experience in evaluating their competition because, at each
level, they will be grouped with strangers they must evaluate. Those with
the desire and ability to reach the higher levels will have experience
evaluating the other two people in their triad. -
The suggested length of triad lives is not cast in stone. However,
several weeks (depending on the level) is not an inconsiderable length of
time for evaluating the other triad members. -
Perhaps the most important reason is that you (and many, many others
just like you - real people) will be making the decisions. That is
something you have never had an opportunity to do. Can you imagine what
your attitude will be when you can actually influence the choice of the
individuals who will represent you in your government? It will be much
different than anything we've experienced in the past.
And, now, if I thought you had a sense of humor, I'd tell you the 'l' in
your "Tl;dr" could just as easily mean "lazy".
Awwww, go ahead. Smile. It don't cost nuttin'.
Fred Gohlke
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
--
P.S.: I prefer to be reached on BitMessage at
BM-2D8txNiU7b84d2tgqvJQdgBog6A69oDAx6