Good Morning, Kristofer
Thank you very much for the link to the Mother Jones article describing
efforts to curtail the utter domination corporations exert over our
existence. Perhaps, in time, reason will triumph.
re: "Practical Democracy really then has two parts - the
selection phase and the continuation phase."
That was the thought behind the Sefton petition. Although it does not
eliminate campaigning, the petition seeks to give the people of Sefton a
means of choosing their own governmental representatives rather than
letting self-interested partisans dictate the candidates. It is not a
complete solution but it is a major step in the direction of returning
government of the people to the people.
re: "It might be possible to improve one of the phases without
having to improve the other, thus making the reform more
continual ..."
Absolutely. Your reference to "Keeping record of the pyramid structure
for later message passing ..." describes a phase that offers broad
possibilities. It can be designed to be, as I would prefer, a means by
which elected officials can seek the guidance of their constituents or,
as others have suggested, a means by which the people can control the
acts of their representatives. It seems likely different jurisdictions
will implement this phase in different ways and the optimum may not
appear for some time.
re: "Yet other parts may be applicable to all types of
representative democracy; for instance, staggered
elections ... or the term limit ... or ... diminishing
lobbying ..."
Again, absolutely! And we should note that the potential for
implementing such features will improve dramatically when we are able to
select representatives whose interest in good government exceeds their
interest in partisan issues.
re: "Public officials gain some knowledge of the direction of
politics by interacting with the world, so even if it were
permissible, we couldn't just stick them all in the council
building until their term is up. How do we keep the
officials free while still limiting the influence of
lobbyists, when this influence is outside of the system?"
Interacting with the world is more commonly effected by communications
devices than by personal contact. My attitude on this topic is, no
doubt, idiosyncratic. It flows from the time I spent in the U. S. Air
Force. Even so, I will express it.
Our elected representatives are in service for the length of their term
... just like members of our armed forces ... and like members of our
armed forces, they should be maintained at a government installation.
The facilities at the installation can be as palatial as need be, with
golf courses, marinas, and all forms of educational and entertainment
facilities, but access to the facility should be restricted. Those
wishing to affect pending legislation should present their arguments,
publicly, in hearing rooms provided for the purpose ... and that should
be the absolute limit of their personal contact with our elected
representatives.
Do we have the stomach for such a solution? We sequester juries in
important cases. Should the conduct of our government be deemed less
worthy of objectivity?
re: "... what we really need is radical transparency ..."
In this section, you note the shortcomings of this approach. In
addition to those you mentioned, there is the problem that, with the
proper incentive, one may justify taking almost any position. It's
called obfuscation and the most corrupt people are the most adept at the
practice. Demanding transparency from a partisan politician is like
holding back the tide with a pencil.
Fred
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
