Can our party pick your brain?

[Kevin Morais]

Hi Mike, I live in Toronto / London...long story, when I am in Toronto
I am hard to reach by internet as I do not have internet in the City,
in London I have internet.  I have been in the City for the last 2
days which is why I have been off line.

I will try and give you a quick call Tommorow Mike, Between 2-4 pm,
after 6 pm my phone is shut down.  Hey Mike, I understand you like to
write is this true :)  I love writing as well.  Oh here is my phone
number just in case 416 669 4997

Peace Mike I will print and read everything here tonight,

Kevin


On Feb 17, 11:23 pm, Michael Allan <m... at zelea.com> wrote:
> 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, +1 416-699-9528http://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/