It is quite amazing to me that people seem to not be reading what I
proposed for 10 constituencies. I continue to see statements that NO
contituency proposals include ANY PUBLIC INTEREST SEGMENT. And yet,
my 10 contituency proposal clearly does include one;-)...
Also, I must say that I am equally interested on the NO Constituency
model and the MANY CONSTITUENCY model, but not interested in anything
in between. I am not welded to either proposal, but if we are going
to have any constituencies, then I claim we need many.
This is because with many, it is much harder to capture control.
In fact, I will claim the having many constituencies makes it harder
to capture than with none, and with many, the situation will induce
more sense of a need to cooperate with others than if there is a
chance for one or two constituencies to capture.
My objective is to convert the situation from a zero-sum-game to a
non-zero-sum-game. With just a few constituency blocks it is too easy
to slip into the capture mentality of zero-sum thinking.
So, my 10 constituency proposal is intended to be a compromise between
no constituencies and a few constituencies by having enough
constituencies to prevent easy capture.
Now, some people claim that my scheme is to ridgid. Well, I did not
address the issue of defining new constituencies over time, or of
cancelling some existing ones over time. Clearly this needs to be
addressed, but lets first try to decide whether we want none, a few,
or many, and then work on the the adjustability thing.
Cheers...\Stef
>From your message Fri, 29 Jan 1999 03:08:16 -0500:
}
}
}
}Hi Stef,
}
}I know that there are many who would
}support a public interest constituency.
}
}My question was really the opposite --
}is there anyone who feels that there
}should *not* be a public interest
}constituency?
}
}If so, why?
}
}Jay.
}
}
}At 1/31/99, 12:28 AM, Einar Stefferud wrote:
}>Please check for me to make sure that my 10 constituency proposal
}>still includes a public interest constituency! I belive it was there
}>in MTY and in all the versions since, so please check to be sure I
}>have not somehow removed it with some weird key strokes!
}>
}>Cheers...\Stef
}>
}>From your message Thu, 28 Jan 1999 23:13:25 -0500:
}>}>This is why I continue to be for the flat membership.
}>}
}>}If we ignore the question of membership model,
}>}and we assume a constituency based Names Council,
}>}are there any objections to adding a public
}>}interest constituency?
}>}
}>}Jay.
}>}
}>
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
