Good Morning, PVR

I've been thinking about your proposal. I haven't completely digested all its implications, but would like to offer a few comments. I'll start with the George Sagi quote:

"He thinks that the only way to go is to concentrate on local issues, and to run for office within the established structures (parties) and if elected to try to achieve some change from such positions."

I think Sagi (and you) are correct; the place to start is with local issues. I do not agree with Sagi that it is possible to do so within the established political parties, but your suggestion offers a different approach that can succeed. Before continuing to discuss your proposal, I'd like to explain why I don't believe change can occur by working within the party structure.

The problem is that political parties are insidious. Their corruption seeps into everything they touch, and it starts at the local level. The parties find their recruits among the mayors and town councils. Those willing to follow the "party line" are supported for higher offices, those who don't are frozen out. It is really that simple.

During my lifetime, I've seen a never-ending parade of reformers and reform parties. These were good, honest people who genuinely believed in their cause and fought hard to improve the politics of their time. Without exception, they failed.

They failed because, in every case, the reformers relied on a "cause" to rally their supporters. When the cause faded, it left no residue. The difference with your suggestion is that it is not a "cause" (even though it seems to be), it is a change of method. When the "cause" that gives the impetus to use your process fades from people's memories, the mechanism will remain for continued use.

Your suggestion is very similar to the town hall concept. It offers a gathering place for the people of the community to express their views. Like you, I do not favor anonymity when expressing points of view. Those who wish to influence the views of others must do so publicly. Voting is a difference situation.

I'm less optimistic about your expectation for implementing the troika concept. It seems to me those who express their opinions will attract supporters. The process, itself, will tend to sort out the participants. Those who have no wish to be elected will reject offers of electoral support, those who seek office will seek supporters. That does not seem a bad arrangement.

It seems likely the local media will be pressed to cover the points made during the discussion(s) and this will give added support to the concept by popularizing it.

I understand (but can not confirm of my own knowledge) that several communities in the U. S. have devised non-partisan methods of selecting their local public officials. Those communities would make ideal testing platforms for PVR's suggestion (If someone can find which they are) because it will allow more thoughtful and greater in-depth discussion of the matters that concern those communities.

My greatest reservation about the idea is whether most people will express their views in writing. On the other hand, it is possible your approach will stir an interest in careful thought and expression. We might actually become the kind of thoughtful society we believe ourselves to be. Those types of changes occur slowly.

I'll have to think more about this topic,

Fred