A New Party Dedicated to Implementing Public Voting

[Ed Pastore]

Hi, Michael.

I'll be putting forward a call for input to Metagov and E2D soon, to see where I can take this idea (Rhett and I discussed off-list and don't really see any conflict between my plans which are more party-centric and his which are more candidacy-focused).

I see success as nothing less than complete dominance of the US political system. Basically, it's a choice between one of the authoritarian-minded parties or the party of true democracy. There is no compromise there.

In the particulars of legislatures in the US, they vary widely (and I am only thinking of legislatures; I think it would be impractical to try for executive offices until society has adapted to the legislative shift). Winning office is usually one of two possible methods. Either it's a simple plurality (whoever gets the most votes wins), or it's a run-off between usually the top-two candidates in cases where no candidate gets a majority.

Control of the legislature varies somewhat, but I think the general rule (and certainly the rule in the US federal houses) is that a majority is needed for control of the house. So it would be possible for us to get 49% of the members of one house, but have the authoritarian parties band together in a coalition... something which currently never happens in the US because we are so locked into the 2-party system. So in any event, success in terms of numbers of seats means at least 51% of each legislature. Once we have control of a legislature, we can then start re-writing its rules to abolish some of the other party-entrenching/anti-democratic systems such as committees. Also, control of a house means we might potentially be able to switch from each member being a proxy for their district to all members being a proxy for all citizens in the aggregate... yet an additional step toward true democracy.

Yes, I'm thinking big :) But again... given the choice between a corrupt authoritarian politician and a democratic proxy citizen, many people just might see the benefit of the latter, even if it is fraught with flaws. I'm half-seriously considering tying into the very-commonly-spoken American idea that voting currently entails picking the lesser of two evils -- and referring to the new party as "the least of three evils." ;)


On Jun 11, 2013, at 10:14 AM, Michael Allan wrote:

> Thanks for answering Rhett, I have another question.
> 
>> In general, I have to compete with the Democrats and Republicans.
>> They are well organized and have lots of money and people.  I have
>> one person and an idea.
> 
> What would success look like in terms of this competitive landscape?
> Would there still be a duopoly?  Of which parties?  Or would the basic
> landscape be changed?  And how?
> 
> Maybe Ed has some thoughts, too.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> Rhett Pepe said:
>> In general, I have to compete with the Democrats and Republicans. They are
>> well organized and have lots of money and people. I have one person and an
>> idea.
>> 
>> At first I'm just running for city council Flagstaff 2014, so, near term, I
>> have to beat my competitors there.
>> 
>> I don't know of any other party that is doing what I'm attempting.
>> 
>> I have to organize both a party and a technology on donated money, so that
>> is a huge obstacle.
>> 
>> On the plus side, the people I tell about this are nearly all highly
>> supportive and say they would vote for it as they are tired of politics as
>> usual.
>> 
>> Does that answer your question?
>> 
>> Rhett
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Michael Allan <mike at zelea.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I'd like to work till I'm 83, too.  :^)
>>> 
>>>> ... I think after voters get a feel for this, provided they have a
>>>> good experience with both the party and the software, they will not
>>>> go back. ...
>>> 
>>> What kind of competition do you expect in this?
>>> 
>>> Mike
> _______________________________________________
> Votorola mailing list
> Votorola at zelea.com
> http://mail.zelea.com/mailman/listinfo/votorola