The Immense Possibilities of 'Association of Independents'

[Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan]

The years of brain storming on the WDDM site has thrown up several ideas, each of them being the distilled experience of people who have contemplated about the possibility of a better political system. The following 'back ground information' for a question posted in the Voting System link on the home page of WDDM summarizes these ideas into one workable plan. The problem is that it is difficult to appreciate the significance of this workable plan, a synthesis of several ideas, considered as a whole. I will try to bring out the many facets of this plan for setting up the 'Association of Independents' in this forum. Members are welcome to give their ideas and comments, which may lead on to an even better plan.

Those seeking True Democracy in the present day world would like to be governed by legislators who are 'Independent' and free from any party line of thinking. It is proposed that an 'Association of Independents Web Platform' be set up by the WDDM to facilitate this ideal by performing the following three functions, while acting as a nidus for action on the ground, throughout the world:
(1) To face political parties by putting up candidates on behalf of the ‘Association’ during elections at the local/state/national levels. This can be done by choosing from (among the willing) registered members of the 'Association' belonging to the respective electoral constituencies, through a fair process. [eg. Triplet system, which is briefly as follows: Suppose 10 candidates are willing to be considered for selection for contesting in an election. They are divided into 3 triplets. Each member of a triplet assesses the qualifications of the other two members and ignoring himself, selects one among them whom he considers is most suitable for the job. The member who gets 2 votes is the winner. From 3 triplets three winners are thus selected, from whom the final selection is made by a similar process]
(2) To familiarize the people about the procedures of Initiative and Referendum by practicing the same on the platform through two types of polls open to members of the Association: [a] the poll conducted on an Initiative (a new policy/program suggested by a member for his/her constituency and [b] the poll conducted on a Referendum (the question raised by a member regarding a policy/program already brought into force by the govt. of the day). The results of these polls pertaining to a constituency, arranged in descending order of approval ratings, would be the priorities of the 'Association', based on which the candidate posted by the 'Association' would seek votes in that constituency in any ensuing election. When the independent candidates put up by the ‘Association’ successfully enter the legislative bodies, the I&R results of the platform can actually influence the government of the day.
(3) To educate the younger generations (through the above two functions) about the possibility of a New Political System that stands for the best of values: freedom of expression, equality of all and the people becoming their own masters, not subjected to any ideology or line of thinking.

[Fred Gohlke]

The concept of an 'Association of Independents' offers hope for advancing democracy. Although there is considerable diversity of opinion on WDDM as to methods and goals, there is agreement that most existing governments do not represent the interests of the people. In spite of that agreement, the lack of unanimity defeats efforts to change the status quo.

Vijayaraghavan's suggestion offers a viable alternative by encouraging each proponent of improving their political system to step forward with the backing of the rest of the community. When a member of the community enters the political fray and is faced with the real problems of attracting public support, we, among us, can offer support and guidance. Some of what we offer might be helpful. During the process, the Independent participants will learn more about the difference between theory and practicality.

This approach will allow us to move from the relatively barren discussion of vague, if not vacuous, philosophical points to the very practical, and critical, contemplation of specific political concerns.

Fred Gohlke

[Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan]

Take the issue of Health care, which is a current topic in the U.S. but also is one of the several serious issues facing a country like India. The issue is no doubt debated on the electronic and print media but the direction of the debate is always controlled by political and business interests. An independent view from the perspective of the common man rarely finds the light of the day. A community of Independents, if it is formed, can express the truth of the matter in its perception.

A collection of such opinions in a community will have added teeth when it decides to post its own candidate in an election. People would now have a choice to vote for an "Independent" community candidate in addition to candidates belonging to the usual political parties.

[Parrhesia Joe]

If the majority of society believes there should be no health care system, is it the duty of representatives to obey the people, or to make a "better" decision?

Assume that you've just elected Chrisus Jest, an exemplary candidate that is beyond reproach. You did so in a system that was completely unbiased, and he represents no special interest whatsoever.

He asks you what criteria he should use when voting on new laws. What is the right answer? Should he embrace liberty and vote down most laws? Should he embrace democracy and try to mimic what the people would have voted themselves? Should he try to confer advantage on those who voted for him? Is he supposed to pick a special interest and use the government for their benefit? Should he try to make sure the government confers no special benefit on anyone? Should he try as many new things as possible or should he exercise restraint, resisting change? Should he target one new law every 4 months?

He says to you, "I have been told to use my best judgment, and I can do that. I have the best judgment in all the world, and I am completely unbiased. My keen judgment has helped me attain every goal I have sought. So, to what goal do I direct this masterwork of intellect?"

[Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan]

When the candidate for being the people’s representative is selected through a process that evaluates thoroughly the character of the individual as well his competence, then it can be reasonably expected that he would decide matters that come up to him, in the best interests of the people whom he would represent.

If he fails in this task he would naturally be eliminated in any future electoral process. Thus it would be politically prudent for him to stand up to the trust reposed in him.

[Parrhesia Joe]

So, to clarify your position...

Would he work in the interest of all society, or would he work in the interest of those who voted for him?

[Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan]

It would be morally and politically appropriate for him to work first in the interest of those who voted for him. The collective will of the people of his constituency, when truly expressed, would ultimately be beneficial for the state to which he belongs as well as the nation and the world. This is simply because every person, while having self-interest for basic survival would also be interested in peaceful co-existence with all, peace and harmony being the basic requirement of every soul.

[Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan]

Representation vs Direct legislation
Joseph Hammer in his eloquent post on the WDDM wiki mail list, has considered the pros and cons of representation as against direct democracy (meaning people legislating directly). To me Direct Democracy means True Democracy without the intermediary of political parties, which have unintentionally come to mean everything that is negative about politics. True democracy can have elements of representation as well as initiative and referendum, the key mechanisms used when people participate directly in governance. But some consider that WDDM should concern itself only with Initiative and Referendum and nothing else. What we need is improvement in Democracy. It is unnecessary to limit ourselves with definitions.

My answer to Joseph Hammer's concern about representation is that the best of representatives can be chosen by the Triplet system (the brilliant idea first enunciated by Fred Gohlke who called it as the 'Troika' system or 'Active Democracy' on the WDDM forum). This utilizes the quality of selflessness which is sine qua non for a true people's representative. This has been incorporated into the plan for 'Association of Independents' and forms the core of the idea for True Democracy.

Seeking to improve Democracy can be viewed as trying to tap human nature in a better way for common good. We cannot change the basics of human nature but we can devise ways to tap the best out of it. Arguments for and against representation can be endless. What is required now is to make the best workable plan out of the present situation.

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Morning, Vijayaraghavan

Thank you for your comments. It has been a couple of years since we looked at the 'troika' process, so I'll describe it again for those who are unfamiliar with it. At Roy Daine's suggestion, we now call it Practical Democracy, and we added a way to accommodate partisanship after Kristofer Munsterhjelm showed the wisdom of proportional representation. Following the outline is a work in progress that provides the rationale for certain aspects of the proposal.

Practical Democracy

This paper outlines a method of enabling the participation
of every member of the electorate, to the full extent of
their desire and ability.



PRACTICAL DEMOCRACY


INTRODUCTION

To improve our nation's government and our society, we can no longer allow unknown politicians to select our political leaders. Instead, we must select them from among ourselves. We must insure they are the best of our people rather than the worst. In other words, we must select our leaders FROM the people rather than allowing them to be selected FOR the people.

Our method must be democratic (i.e., allow the entire electorate to participate), egalitarian (i.e., give everyone an equal chance to participate), and harness our natures in a way that makes probity a prime concern of the participants. The following sections describe a way to accomplish these goals.

Although the process is continuous, it will be seen to have two phases. The first phase embraces the entire electorate; those who seek public office and those who don't. The second phase is characterized by an increase in the proportion of participants who seek public office. This change in the level of motivation is the 'magic' of the process; as it takes place, virtue becomes an increasingly valuable quality in aspiring candidates.


METHOD

1) Divide the entire electorate into groups of three randomly
selected people (triads).

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.

b. At any time up to one week before an election, people may
declare themselves members of any party and may create a
new party, simply by declaring membership in it. People
that do not declare party membership are automatically
assigned to a set of people with no party affiliation.
Triads will be created from members of the same party, as
long as more than two members of a party exist. When less
than three members of a party exist, the party's remaining
candidates are merged with the no-party candidates.

c. For the convenience of the electorate, triad assignments
shall be based on geographic proximity to the maximum
extent practical, subject to the foregoing restrictions.

2) 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 can not
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.

3) Divide the participants so selected into new triads.

4) 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.


DISCUSSION

An Election Commission conducts the process. It assigns the participants of each group 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 insures a careful examination of public matters and encourages a thorough discussion of matters of public concern.

* As the process advances through the levels, the amount of time
the participants spend together increases. At level 1, groups
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. They also need transportation and
facilities for meeting and voting. These are mechanical
details.

* 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.

The initial phase of the 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 the second phase. Here, participants that advance are marked, more and more, by an inclination to seek further advancement. Thus, a powerful human trait is integrated into the system.

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 wish to be chosen.

Each participant must make a choice between the other two people in the group knowing that they must rely on that person's integrity to guide their future actions and decisions. Since they are unable to control the person selected (except as otherwise provided to implement the bi-directionality mentioned below), they must choose the person they believe most likely to conduct public business in the public interest.

However, they do not make their choices blindly. Elections are a periodic process. The majority of those seeking advancement will do so each time the process recurs. Some will be successful. They will achieve public office and their performance will be a matter of public record. When they participate in subsequent occurrences of the process, their peers can evaluate that record to help them decide the candidate's suitability for advancement.

Furthermore, the names of advancing candidates are announced as each level completes. Members of the public with knowledge of unseemly acts by an advancing candidate can present details for consideration at the next level. Since, during the second phase of the process, the peers also seek advancement, they won't overlook inappropriate behavior.

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. The dissimulation and obfuscation that are so effective in media-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 integrity as well as the probity with which they fulfill their public obligations.

This 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.


BI-DIRECTIONALITY

The process is inherently bi-directional. Because each 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 referendum on selected issues and recall of an elected representative.


ELECTIVE AND APPOINTIVE OFFICES

The final phase of the Practical Democracy process, electing candidates to specific public offices, is omitted from this outline because it is implementation-dependent.

One possible method is to stop the triad process when there are approximately twice as many candidates as there are offices to fill. Candidates who attain this level then act as a council, charged with the responsibility for electing council members to the offices they are deemed most fit to occupy. Any members not elected to specific offices become a pool of validated candidates from which appointive offices must be filled.


COST

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. Thus, it removes the greatest single cause of corruption in our current system ... the need for funds to conduct an electoral campaign.


SIMPLIFIED ILLUSTRATION

This table is built around a hypothetical election in a community with an electorate of 2,000 people. For simplicity, we omit party considerations and assume each triad selects a candidate. The election is to produce a Mayor for the community, a Council member, and two candidates for state and national offices. The notes describe the rules for handling overflow situations.

(My apologies to all. I can find no means of entering tabular data. Those who would like a text version of the table may ask me, and I'll send one. flg)

Selected
Randomly
From
Full Previous Total People People
Level Candidates Triads Overflow Level Triads Selected Unselected
1 2000 666 2 666 666 1334
2 668 222 2 1 223 223 445 (1)
3 223 74 1 2 75 75 148
4 75 25 25 25 50
5 25 8 1 2 9 9 16 (2)

(1) If the number of candidates does not divide equally into
triads, any candidates remaining are overflow. Level 2 is a
special case. When there is overflow from 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.

(2) The nine people selected at level 5 decide which of the nine
will serve as Mayor, which will serve on the Council, and
which will advance to compete for offices at the state and
national levels. The remaining five constitute a pool of
validated individuals from which appointive offices must be
filled.

(3) In a state like New Jersey, with a 2004 voting-eligible
population of 5,637,378, the process will produce roughly
95 electors after the 10th level.


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. For the example, that would work out something like this:

Level Start Report Days
1) 07/09/08 07/14/08 5
2) 07/16/08 07/21/08 5
3) 07/23/08 08/04/08 12
4) 08/06/08 08/18/08 12
5) 08/20/08 09/08/08 19

The 9 people selected at level 5, would start meeting on September 10th and make their selections by September 29th, 19 days later.


CONCLUSION

The idea presented here will be considered radical. It bears little chance of adoption because it protects no vested interest. The only way such a process will ever be adopted is if the concept can be made a topic of discussion, particularly among students interested in achieving a righteous government.

Respectfully submitted

Fred L. Gohlke
30 Bernath Street
Carteret, New Jersey 07088
[e-mail]



Questions, Criticisms and Objections
This is a work in progress. It provides the rationale for
various aspects of the Practical Democracy outline which
have raised questions.



QUESTIONS, CRITICISMS AND OBJECTIONS


Question: "Could we use groups of 5 instead groups of 3?"

We prefer the smaller size because we want to ensure the active participation of the entire electorate. We want to guarantee that those who are not accustomed to the serious discussion of political issues are placed in circumstances that allow and encourage them to express their views. The larger the group, the less inclined most of us are to participate in the discussion and the more inclined we are to simply observe and form unvoiced opinions. To encourage broad participation, the discussion group should be of the smallest practical size.

Everyone who participates in the Practical Democracy process is affected by their participation. Many of us are unaware of our political talents because we are never placed in a situation which calls upon us to exercise them. When we are invited to discuss current and prospective political issues with our peers, some of us will blossom and thrive. Some, who start at the lowest levels unsure of their ability, will, when their reason is consulted and they learn they can persuade others of the value of their ideas, will, as they advance, gain confidence in their own ability to influence our political existence.

If we examine the dynamics of the process, we find that, when three members of the electorate, probably neighbors, meet for the first time to select one member of the triad to represent the other two, there will be three kinds of participants:

1) those who do not want to be selected
2) those willing to be selected, and
3) those seeking selection.

If none of the three participants are willing to be selected, the triad will not make a choice. The members of that triad will drop from the process in accordance with their own wishes.

Among triads that actually make a selection, those who are selected to advance will either be people who want to be selected or people who are willing to be selected. This is not to say that each person must be of one type or the other, but rather that each person will be somewhere on the continuum from those willing to be selected to those wanting to be selected.

For simplicity, we will assume that the desire to be selected is equivalent to a desire for public office 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 kind of people who are at the hypothetical extremes.

We must also note that the attitudes we've mentioned may not be static. Although, generally, a person seeking public office is unlikely to become a person willing to serve, a person willing to serve might be transformed into a person seeking public office, in this way:

If person-willing-to-serve (A) decides person-seeking-office
(B) is not a good choice, (A) may seek to persuade the triad
that (C) is a better choice. Such an effort moves (A) closer
to being a person-seeking-office because, if (A) will not
support (B), the chance that (A) will be chosen increases.

Based on this assessment, we can say that people who advance to the next level either persuaded the other members of their triad to select them or they relied on the other members to select them. The difference is the extent to which they used persuasion to achieve selection.

In a pyramiding process of the type under discussion, it is reasonable to think that active seekers of public office will succeed more frequently than those who only advance because they are willing to allow themselves to be selected. Thus, after several iterations of the process, we can anticipate that each member of a triad will be a person seeking public office. In other words, the art of persuasion assumes mounting importance as the process advances.

The essence of the activity at each level is that each member of a triad wants to select the person with the qualities deemed most desirable in a representative. Those seeking selection will try to persuade their peers they have the qualities sought. In this sense, a person seeking public office may be thought of as a 'persuader'.

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 alternative points about the topic under discussion. 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. They have fewer opportunities and are less inclined to question specific points or offer alternatives about the topic under discussion.

In such circumstances, the more assertive individuals will dominate the discussion and the viewpoints of the less assertive members will not be expressed. The assertive individual is unlikely to be persuaded of the wisdom of an alternative idea, because the view will not be expressed or discussed.

Viewed in this light, we can say that when selecting public officials, a system that encourages dialogue is preferable to one which relies on a monologue. Discussion can best be encouraged by having fewer people in the "session of persuasion". Because of the need for a definitive decision, we believe the best group size to encourage active involvement by all participants is three.

~~~o~~~ ~~~o~~~ ~~~o~~~

Criticism: "After several full cycles of the process, the
turnover of individuals who consistently reach the
upper levels will diminish. There will then emerge
a ruling class."

That is unlikely. Practical Democracy assigns individuals to triads randomly, starting at the lowest level, and insures that no two people are assigned to a triad if they served together in a triad in any of the five most recent elections. While nothing in this arrangement prevents an individual from advancing to the upper levels consistently, it guarantees that those who do so have demonstrated the qualities we seek in our leaders to a broad range of the electorate.

Moreover, the body politic is in a constant state of flux; people enter and leave the electorate, constantly. In addition, the desire to seek public office varies in intensity throughout one's life. These are not inconsequential matters. When coupled with the random selection of triad participants, they make the system dynamic from the very lowest level.

The dynamism of the method inhibits adverse factors. As an acquaintance once wrote to me, "One interesting property of the proposed system is that current top level representatives, even if very popular, have a high risk of not being re-elected." Re-election is difficult, not only because of the filtering effect of the method, but because the concerns of the electorate will change from election to election. By incorporating all of the people from the very first step, the method is always responsive to the current needs of the people and produces the leaders the people think best able to cope with current conditions.

These factors make the system robust and vibrant. They make it difficult for rot to find a sticking place. They also imply a relatively high turnover of elected officials at each election. That poses a problem for those who take time out of their lives to serve in public office. Their election provides no career guarantee. To ease their transition to private life, we must provide them with salary continuation, advanced education, career training, small business loans, and so forth.

~~~o~~~ ~~~o~~~ ~~~o~~~

Criticism: "Political parties replace democracy with oligarchy.
Allowing the people to declare party membership
gives the parties control over their candidates.
That will quickly make the process undemocratic."

Except in the case of major national movements like Communism and National Socialism, political parties rarely represent more than a small percentage of the electorate. When, as now, such parties vie with each other for power, there is no force to balance them. To create a counterbalancing force, Practical Democracy treats those who are not party members as a cohesive group. This no-party group protects the people from the excesses of the vested interests represented by parties.

By grouping party members, each ideology is given an opportunity to elevate its best spokesperson. When a party's representative reaches the highest level supported by the size of the party, the representative(s) are merged with the no-party group where they may try to advance their party's interest. If they do so, it is because the ideology they advocate wins favor among people who are not committed to it. In other words, because the cause has merit for the public at large.

Note that, in cases like Communism and National Socialism, this method provides a means for opposition to gain a voice they would otherwise be denied.

~~~o~~~ ~~~o~~~ ~~~o~~~

Criticism: "Yes, the new method has some properties that support
this [i.e., replacing emotion with reason]. It is
however not guaranteed that feelings, parties and
other differentiating factors will not find their
way in and play some role also in that method."

Of course they will, but the motivation for forming alliances will be much different than at present. Right now, parties, cliques and alliances are formed before elections, for the purpose of gaining power. Representatives selected by the Practical Democracy method can not make such arrangements. They are free of indebtedness to backers and are unbound by credo. When they form alliances, it is to solve problems.

When considering the problems of society, honest people will differ. It is essential that they should. We advance our common interest by examining conceivable options. To form a consensus, we seek out and align themselves with others who share our views and, through them, hone our ideas. This process gives breadth, depth and volume to our voice. In and of themselves, such alliances are not only inevitable, they are healthy.

The important thing is to ensure that the process takes place among 'honest people'. The best way to find 'honest people' is to subject candidates to rigorous examination. The most rigorous examination possible is by people seeking the same goal.

~~~o~~~ ~~~o~~~ ~~~o~~~

Criticism: [The following criticism refers to an example showing
municipal officials selected at the Level 9.]

"Consider a devious individual who wants to accede to
the lowest political office -- municipal. This is
level 9, which means that person would only have to
bribe a maximum of 18 individuals in order to obtain
such an office."

Actually, the devious individual probably won't need to bribe 18 people because, at any level ...

Among three participants, *A*, *B*, and *C*, *A* need only
bribe one of the other two. If *B* accepts the bribe, *B*
always votes for *A*, hamstringing *C* because *C* needs two
votes for selection. If *C* happens to vote for *B*, *B*, who
has been bribed to ensure *A*'s selection, simply alienates
*C*, driving *C*'s vote to *A*. It is only in the case of a
deadlock that *A* must try to bribe both *B* and *C*.

Even so, as simple as it sounds, the strategy can not be pursued successfully. When *A* advances, the triad at the next level has two new participants *D* and *E*. *D* and *E* reached the level either by bribery or on their merits. In either case, *A* has a problem.

If *A* propositions *D* and *D* is advancing by bribery, one may succeed in bribing the other, but only one of the two miscreants can survive.

If *A* propositions *D* and *D* advanced on merit, *D* has just achieved advancement on the strength of intellect, attitude about public concerns and power of persuasion, and is filled with pride and confidence. Under those conditions, *D* is a poor target for bribery.

This last case is worthy of closer examination ...

All corruption, including bribery, blooms in closed environments. The previously described dynamism of the process guarantees that the members of a triad are unknown until the triad is formed. This and the relatively short life of the triads denies those seeking to bribe a candidate the time to find the necessary leverage. At each succeeding level, the miscreant's risk of rejection and public denunciation increases.

Whatever happens at the lower levels, to achieve final selection, the miscreant must be chosen at the highest level (level 9, in this case). Those who reach this level have expended a great deal of energy in their avid pursuit of selection and are now on the brink of achieving it. They are unlikely to forsake their ambition, particularly by engaging in an illegal act.

Furthermore, the effectiveness of suborning a single individual is extremely limited. When legislation is passed by consensus or majority vote, the corruptor must be sure of buying a large block of votes. Doing so on a one-by-one basis, when the targets have been selected, in part, for their perceived integrity, one can not be sure of suborning enough votes to gain a desired end. It is not like a partisan-based system where corruptors buy the laws they desire by buying the votes of an entire party.

It is a mistake to think the corruption that pervades our government is inescapable. Those who focus on bribery ignore the breadth of ways in which we pursue our own interest. We are far more impelled by our sense of our own worth. For a thorough analysis of this issue, see Beyond Self-Interest, Jane J. Mansbridge, University of Chicago Press, 1990

~~~o~~~ ~~~o~~~ ~~~o~~~


Question: "Isn't it possible quite a large number of people
will want 'ordinary' elections with candidates
and campaigns?"

All attempts to change the status quo will encounter resistance from those who oppose change. In this case, though, the adverse effects of political campaigning are well known and broadly accepted. What is lacking is a viable alternative.

Most people are well aware that campaign-based systems are in thrall to money. Candidates, through their parties, raise the money for their expensive campaigns by selling legislation. Although the selling is done behind closed doors, we see the resultant domination of our existence in our daily lives.

Even worse than the inherently corruptive nature of soliciting funds to finance a campaign, which invites demands from the financial backers, is the corrosive effect of campaigning on the candidate's psyche. Candidates must appear to stand for something but, to attract support, they continually adjust their assertions to appeal to the diverse groups whose votes are required for their election. Their personal beliefs must be subordinated to the interests of their audience. By campaigning, they gain expertise in avoiding direct answers to questions and diverting attention from unwelcome topics. Thus, campaigning is primarily a training course in the art of deception.

Campaigning is the antithesis of open inquiry, it is one-way communication centered on deceit, misdirection and obfuscation rather than integrity and commitment to the public interest. That is why the term 'politician' is pejorative. The process of campaigning produces people adept at appearing to champion some idea while standing for nothing but the success of their party.

To make matters worse, candidates are incessantly lionized by their supporters. This, coupled with the insidious effect of repeatedly proclaiming their own rectitude seduces them into believing their own press clippings. These things have a debilitating effect on the candidate's character, and, since morality is a top-down phenomenon, choosing political leaders by this method destroys society.

We know these things but many people have come to believe them unavoidable. They are not. They are simply evidence of the moral bankruptcy of the system. If we wish to improve our government, we must select our political leaders from among ourselves, without subjecting ourselves to the deceit and corruption of campaign-based systems.

Fred Gohlke

[Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan]

Dear Fred Gohlke,

You have rightly brought out in your thoughtful paper how it is possible to ensure probity of people’s representatives, make the guile and glamour of media-based politics ineffective and to a great extent cut down the wasteful expenditure that surround elections. I would like to make a few observations:

The basic system of elimination where the member of a ‘Triad’ or ‘Triplet’ may not vote for himself, but only for one of the other two is simple and sound. However to expect the election commission of a nation to conduct the process is presently unrealistic. To expect members of political parties to subject themselves to this selfless system of elimination also seems far fetched. As you have said – ‘The only way such a process will ever be adopted is if the concept can be made a topic of discussion, particularly among students interested in achieving a righteous government’.

Perhaps this novel system of elimination has more chance of being adopted at a smaller scale that I have suggested. It can be adopted as the basic electoral process of the ‘Association of Independents’ for selecting candidates to contest elections on behalf of the ‘Association’. It does not require sanction from any higher authority. If its success is demonstrated by the ‘Association of Independents’, through the quality of work done by the candidates posted by it, then the popularity of this novel system may force the political parties to adopt the same for selection of candidates from within their group to enhance their credibility among the people.

When several political parties adopt the same then there is more chance of adoption of the system at the governmental level. If they continue to ignore this righteous system then there is every chance that people will start ignoring the political parties when an alternative system of selecting people's representative is shown to be effective. In this way a true democracy has more chance of coming into being.

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Afternoon, Vijayaraghavan

re: "However to expect the election commission of a nation to
conduct the process is presently unrealistic."

I'm not sure why it should be unrealistic. All jurisdictions maintain a list of voters. The process simply requires random selections from those lists. That is the trivial part. Having the method adopted is the part that's presently unrealistic.


re: "To expect members of political parties to subject themselves
to this selfless system of elimination also seems far
fetched."

That is a certainty. We can safely assume the parties will never support such a system. It can only come to pass when the people demand it and that won't happen until they realize it will let each and every one of them participate in the political process to the full extent of their desire and ability. If we want that to happen, we must examine and challenge the concept, publicly and frequently. We must be certain it is sound.

And, now, to the most important assertion in your post:

"Perhaps this novel system of elimination has more chance
of being adopted at a smaller scale that I have suggested."

I absolutely agree. There are several reasons for using this method in the 'Association of Independents'. One, of course, is the importance of an actual implementation. Another is to protect ourselves from attempts by vested interests to take control of our efforts.

Before his passing, Roy Daine was in the process of petitioning his local Council to adopt the method as an additional means of nominating candidates for the City Council. He felt the people should have an alternative to the nominees of the political parties. His attitude was supported by the parties own report on their failure to meet the needs of the people, as they reported in ... "The Report of the Commission on Candidate Selection" ... which you will find at:

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/downloads/Candidate%20Report.pdf


Fred Gohlke

[Douglas Nixon Everingham]

I have read only a small part of the 'triplet' etc. discussion and find it less likely to appeal or succeed than the SimPol initiative www.simpol.org and the Sociocracy movement http://www.sociocracy.info , both of which are gaining support.

[Fred Gohlke]

Thank you for your comment, Mr. Everingham, but it's hard to assign much value to your opinion when you "read only a small part of" the method you condemn. Your assertion would be more convincing if you studied the material and offered cogent reasons for denigrating it.

Now, regarding the 'movement' and 'initiative' you think will succeed:

SOCIOCRACY
The Sociocratic method is said to be an 'empty' method (i.e., can be applied to any kind of organization), but is described in terms of business applications. Attempting to evaluate it as a political methodology must be done by considering its operation in businesses. It is a more issue-oriented than character-oriented approach to governance. That is to say, it is more concerned with the business problems to be solved than with the integrity of the people working on them. That is not a good basis for a political system where the people charged with resolving issues in the public interest must be trustworthy.

Sociocracy assigns significance to the 'consent' principle, as opposed to the 'consensus' and 'veto' principles. That implies a subtlety that must be understood. Determining the applicability of the 'consent' principle to a political situation will require analysis and discussion.

Another distinction to be considered is that Sociocracy provides decision-making capability for people who have a 'social relationship' with each other while political systems provide governance for 'the general mass of people', who have no such relationship. That is a major difference. In a political system, the character of the decision-makers is more important than in an issue-oriented one where participants who work in the same enterprise are known to each other.

Sociocracy is said to be organized in a hierarchy of double-linked, semiautomomous circles where the operational leader of a circle is selected by the next higher circle, providing one link, and a member of a circle is selected to represent the circle in the next higher circle, providing the second link. This arrangement vests a control capability in the higher circle, and that crushes any claim of democracy for the process.

Sociocracy can be likened to a Suggestion Box, formalized and broadly enhanced. It encourages examination and reinforcement of issues raised at the lowest levels of the enterprise and lets management acknowledge the potential of all employees.

In general, the positives for Sociocracy in business systems seem to outweigh the negatives. Suggestion boxes, for all their shortcomings, were modestly productive. Given the relatively fixed nature of the leaders of a business, like the founders and executives, formalizing an operational method built around employee participation is an excellent way to identify and correct weak spots in the business. However, these positives are no guarantee the method will work in political systems where problems do not arise within easily identifiable limits, and where the social relationships between the people of the electorate are undefined.

In summary, Sociocracy is a good system that may be gaining broader acceptance in business applications. In terms of political systems, though, the control the 'upper' circles exert over the 'lower' circles shows the process will not result in a democratic environment.

SIMPOL
The following citations from the Simpol site describe the organization's objectives and means of attaining them:

~~~o~~~
"The Simultaneous Policy (Simpol) aims to deliver social justice around the world, resolve global problems like environmental destruction, and regulate the economic power of international capital for the good of all. Simpol seeks solutions to problems that individual national governments cannot resolve by acting alone."
~~~o~~~
"Simpol aims to achieve these objectives by encouraging ordinary people around the world to oblige their political representatives and governments to move toward co-ordinated international resolution of global issues for the good of all."
~~~o~~~
"All you need to do is sign up as a Simpol Adopter which costs you nothing. By so doing you agree in principle to vote at national elections for any candidate, within reason, who has signed a pledge to implement Simpol alongside other governments. Alternatively, if you have a party preference, your Adoption signifies you will encourage your preferred party to make this pledge. This is the simple mechanism Adopters use to advance their cause."
~~~o~~~

These are clearly desirable objectives and I encourage everyone to support them. However, nothing in these objectives seeks to make our governments more democratic. Simpol reacts to evils that exist but makes no effort to prevent them.

A problem is a symptom. It is the visible evidence of an underlying fault. We can discuss problems ad nauseum, but the only way to prevent them is to eliminate their cause. Simpol makes no effort to do that.

Fred Gohlke