Can our party pick your brain?

[Michael Allan]

I sent you my skype handle Kevin.  It's hard to reach me from Europe
right now because I'm keeping odd hours (2200-1000 GMT or so), but
please call as you are able.

Thomas and I spoke yesterday about your party-style DD and the problem
of whether it could work.  We had spoken previously about this problem
in connection with another party, and Thomas said he was looking for a
"synthesis" (as Ed Pastore often puts it) of our positions.

The problem is simple to explain: If the MPP hopes to be re-elected in
her riding, then she must take guidance from the online votes of her
riding, not those of her party.  The residents of the riding are the
sole electors to parliament.  She will therefore listen to those
residents and not to the party.

It seems to follow that the party has no role.  My own position is to
accept the simplicity of a party-less democracy and get on with it.
But Thomas says no.  He says the party still has a role to play if
only (here is his synthesis) as a kind of midwife, or husband to a
party-less future.

Maybe Rohan is following a similar tack, when he says:
> ... I find this [Transparency Party] very exciting because it might
> work.  It doesn't try to change a political structure that is
> resistant to the idea of its own elimination (a weakness of most
> proposals I see for reforming democracy), and it provides a
> gathering point for the "early adopters" who are a necessary step in
> transforming any isolated interest into widespread adoption.

I have a further synthesis to propose.  It follows from the fact that
the MPP must bear allegiance to both her riding constituents (if I am
right) and to her party (if you guys are).  The necessary synthesis
that follow from this is that the riding consitutents and the party
members must be the same people.  The result is something we might
call the "un-Party".

The un-Party is an organization with one foot in today's party system
and the other in tomorrow's party-less democracy.  It is not, in fact,
a party and this fact it trumpets as a kind of un-platform.  All
residents are eligible to vote in the un-Party's primary, which runs
24x7.  The current vote leader is the un-Party candidate for the next
general election.  If the previously elected incumbent has remained in
favour with the voters, then he/she might very well be the vote
leader.  Otherwise, it will be a rival.  (Our MPP keeps a close watch
on these primaries, as she cannot win re-election by other means.)
That's for Anglo-American states with FPTP assemblies.

In states with PR assemblies, the ranked result of the primary is
submitted as the party list for the next general election.  The
un-Party must therefore register as a formal political party in these
states.  In all other regards, it remains un-like any party.

The tools for this are already coded.  I think it could work.
What do you think?

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
http://zelea.com/


Kevin Morais wrote:
> Sorry Mike I am not a leader or like a representative that can give
> answers as I am not the leader of the party, there is no Leader. I am
> looking after starting it and I do need your help.  The Answer to the
> question below I will not be able to answer tonight I do not believe
> BUT There is an Answer and a way around many things.
> 
> I will try and call you Tomorrow if that is OK with you, just to chat
> for a bit.  What would be a good time to call you?
> 
> On Feb 16, 5:06 pm, Michael Allan <m... at zelea.com> wrote:
> > Suppose you hadn't asked us to probe for "weaknesses" in the first
> > place, or for any sort of "knowledgeable feedback".  Suppose instead
> > that an unprompted onlooker is simply curious about how it works.  In
> > complete innocence, he asks:
> >
> > > > A party candidate must first win office, if I understand.  Let's
> > > > say she is elected to Queen's Park where she sits as an MPP for
> > > > one of the Toronto ridings.  Suppose that a particular issue
> > > > subsequently arises in the legislature, and the party members
> > > > reach a rough consensus on a course of action.  The MPP is now
> > > > expected to follow that course of action?  Is that how it should
> > > > work?
> >
> > Would you reply to his question as you replied to mine?
> >
> > With all goodwill,
> > --
> > Michael Allan
> >
> > Toronto, +1 416-699-9528http://zelea.com/