Good Evening, PVR

I am a bit late to the discussion of the 'mechanism of partyless governance within elected houses', so I'm anxious to confirm that I clearly comprehend the concept. To this end, I will outline my understanding of your suggestion and offer a few comments on what I believe you intend. If my understanding is muddled, please clarify the ideas so I can participate intelligently.

I think you are proposing that WDDM maintain a section that would appear something like this (to me, at my location):

Level 2, United States

_Level 2-01, Alabama
_Level 2-02 to 29 xxx
_Level 2-30, New Jersey

With this system, if I have a view concerning a public question in Middlesex County, I would go to 2-30-12, review any existing discussion on the topic, and add my opinion. In the same way, if I wish to offer a comment on a state issue, I would go to 2-30, review the topic and add my comment. Then, as you say, "... the views expressed by voters of a particular constituency can consolidate and pave the way for action at the local level, either directly or through pressure exerted on the elected representative of that constituency ..."

This suggestion raises several issues:

1) Presumably, the method will be backed by enabling legislation requiring elected representatives to base their opposition or support for legislation on the will of the constituency, as expressed by their input.

2) The method may not accomplish the desired goal because the representative must exercise judgment as to which view of a given topic to follow. As an example of the difficulty, take these two points of view, extracted (in part) from another site, on the question of "Should it be required that the United States have only one language?"

Response FOR: "By requiring education in English, the United States defends its unity and cultural roots against those making a willful effort to overwhelm and replace the United States with... something else."

Response AGAINST: "The 'English Only' movement is utter crackpottery propounded by people who seem not to have noticed that their native language happens to be the first choice of the rest of the world to learn as a second language."

Each of us may have an opinion on this question, but how is the representative to decide which side of the issue expresses the will of the people? The probable answer is that each member of the electorate participating in the process must also provide a "Yes" or "No" vote on the issue. Then, the representative can simply vote as instructed by those who participate. However, even that is not quite as cut and dried as it appears at first blush. Two objections that come to mind are:

a) responses to yes/no questions can be influenced by the way the question is posed, and

b) the method offers no protection from what Tony Simpson (http://www.initiativesamendment.org/) referred to as "... the impact of media's ... extremely persuasive technologies." In other words, public votes are easily (and effectively) swayed by the media.

3) A possible enhancement of the concept would be to have the representative involved in the dialogue with the participants. In this way, there is a better chance the subtle nuances of the issues will be examined.

4) Is there not a danger that the 'partyless mechanism within the elected house' will not be partyless, at all? The parties, at present, maintain their power by concerted action. Although trade unions are the easiest example to cite, they are not the sole operators of "get out the vote" machines. There can be little doubt they will use the same mechanisms to get their partisans to express their views and vote in the proposed method, just as they do now. It is true that the lay citizen has the option of expressing his view and voting, but will he? When he goes to the site and sees it flooded with partisan comments and a heavy one-sided vote, will he not feel just as ineffective as he does now?

5) The method envisions continuation of 'rule by representatives' until it can be tapered down to the extent possible. During this tapering down period, would we not be best served by public officials with integrity and good judgment?

These issues are raised, not as reasons for rejection of the concept, but as matters worthy of thought which may lead us to a more complete solution.

(I must qualify these remarks by stating my opinion that it is not representative government that creates our problem. It is the poor quality of representation which results from allowing political parties to control our political process and dictate who our representatives will be.)

I will now try to respond to your questions about the troika system:

re: "how are the electors going to be divided into groups of three?"

My suggestion is that the Election Commission create the groups randomly, from the entire electorate. The process that assigns participants to groups should have a geographic bias so the people assigned to a group live near each other but be sufficiently random that no three people are assigned to the same group more frequently than once in (say) five election cycles. (This is a mechanical question that can be honed as desired.)

re: "Leadership is a natural quality of humans; the above system by dividing the entire population into groups of threes may not allow the leadership quality to be harnessed fruitfully."

When three people must select one of their number to represent them, the person with the best leadership qualities is the most likely to be selected. As the levels advance, the person with the most desireable qualities is the most likely to advance. It is true that the two people with the best leadership qualities in the nation might be assigned to the same group at level 1, in which case, one of the two would be lost for the election cycle. However,

a) the chance of such a juxtaposition is infinitesimal.

b) the concern implies some of us are irreplaceable, which is the antithesis of democracy, and

c) it can not happen (at level 1) in successive cycles, so one lost in one cycle will have an opportunity in the next.

re: "Ideologies and political philosophies are also natural to the human mind. The troika system does not seem to take this into account."

Dealing with the fact that ideologies and political philosophies are natural for the human mind is the entire purpose of the troika method. Our goal is a government that represents the will of the people and serves the public interest. Ideologies and political philosophies are, by definition, the opposite of that. They represent what someone proclaims is best for the people. Such proclamations are never devoid of self-interest and are only good for the subset of the public that the ideology or political philosophy represents. Our purpose is to de-emphasize (not eliminate) ideology and emphasize the public interest.

The troika method sets ideologies and political philosophies face to face in very small groups where they must persuade (not coerce) two other people (who also seek selection) that their view of the public welfare is better than that espoused by others, and they must do that ... not once ... but repeatedly. This process insures, not only that those who are selected are persuasive, but that they are able to present a rational basis for their selection. This is not a matter of swaying a crowd of people with glibness and inflaming public passion, it is a matter of explaining the value of one's point of view in a compelling manner ... so compelling that even those who also seek the same position accept the presentation.

re: "Any better alternative that is suggested should be capable of competing with the existing system and coming into power on its own."

B-I-N-G-O!!! You are absolutely correct. That is the weakness of the concept. It can be branded as radical, even though it is nothing more than allowing the people to select the best among themselves to serve as their leaders. It can be called "complex", even though it is almost primitive.

All I can say in its defense is that it is simple, it eliminates political campaigning, it eliminates the cost of campaigning (and the power that goes to those who finance the campaigns), it eliminates the atmosphere of cheating, lying and obfuscation that characterize politics (in America), and it makes integrity an important trait for those who wish selection to public office.

I hate to leave this exchange at this point, but I am going away in the morning and will be gone for about a week. I hope you will continue to critique what I write. I genuinely appreciate your ideas and believe we can merge our approaches into a viable method of improving our political existence ... but we have farther to go than we've come.

Sincerely,

Fred