You do not change the basics but, anyhow:
A smaller group could decide. HOW did they get the authority.
I suspect many will agree that "lot" is unacceptable except for resolving
ties when there is nothing better available.
Anyway, whoever is deciding has the same learning need that I described below.
DWK
On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 23:07:28 +0100 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
So, you do not like the word "campaign".
Suppose I take an interest in becoming mayor of Owego.
This will require my neighbors learning this, and something of what I
might do as mayor.
What shall we call this getting the word out, if not campaigning?
Because parties are usually involved, those of us sharing thought will
call ourselves the "People's Party", though it does nothing outside
our village.
My neighbors must learn this to be able to vote for me.
I think his point is that by using other methods, you may get around
this apparent necessity. For instance, Owego might pick a
"Representative House" by lot (Athenian model) and that House elects the
mayor in a parliamentary fashion; or it might use a recursive selection
process where you convince a small council you're the best among them to
stand, then a small council made up of the suceeding candidates of the
previous councils, and so on up to mayor. In both cases, you "get the
word out" to a subset of the people - in the former, to the random
assembly, and in the latter, to the intersection of councils that you
end up being a part of.
--
[email protected] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
