Formal Training in the TDG
Combining political experience and training
I have heard rookie Canadian politicians spending a few days training to understand the many legislative rules of Canadian Parliament or the provincial legislatures. These legislative rules make Robert’s Rules of Order look like elementary school. So training is required for these new politicians to navigate better in their legislative deliberations.
But I think that is the last formal course that politicians ever take in politics. They are just too busy with 80-hour workweeks to become more enlightened about the complex nature of our society. They can’t afford the time to plop on the couch to read books of past and current thinkers. They rely on the knowledge gained prior to entering politics.
I encourage my alternative democracy — Tiered Democratic Governance — to take a leading role in TDG education. Elected TDG representatives should be spending some time learning new things.
Courses
I have prepared a workshop on consultation. This is a Power Point presentation that takes 110 minutes (in six parts) to work through. I believe it has about 200 tidbits on how to bring more consultation into your life.
https://www.tiereddemocraticgovernance.org/education.php
I have a few ideas on more Power Point presentations on the TDG. But life has other priorities. I may or may not get to these projects in the near future.
So I have opened up the TDG for others TDGers to create their own courses on TDG governance. There is no need to get my permission or from an institution within the TDG. TDGers can use their creative skills to make more powerpoints, videos, podcasts, websites, and books about the TDG.
For example, the TDG could be translated to other languages. If the courses are valuable to fellow TDGers, they will find their rightful popularity.
Here's the link explaining the proper usage of the TDG copyrights.
BTW, I will be available for print or podcast interviews. I am getting older — and a little slower—if you know what I mean.
Conventions
Small conventions — in person and online — could start happening in the Early TDG stage. Builders from different TDGs may come together to share ideas and TDG situations. For example, they might compare constitutions and electoral procedures.
More serious conventions should start happening in the Middle TDG Stage. More successful TDGs should be showcased, where other TDGs can learn from. Maybe professional psychologists and sociologists will provide a more scientific analysis of what is happening in the TDG movement. And ideas could be exchanged to help the TDGs move into the Maturing TDG phase.
The Maturing TDG phase is when the TDG movement starts interacting with the non-TDG world. We will find good ways and bad ways of this interaction. We can all learn from each other. Maybe plenary sessions on media relations and preparing an effective communique would be good topics. Maybe this would be a good time for experts of various fields educating TDGers about issues of today and the future.
The last stage is the TDG-in-waiting. The TDG has gained necessary skills for TDG governance, but it needs more time for the public to come on side. These conventions can focus on how to move the TDG into societal governance, using existing constitutional laws to effect the transition.
All TDG conventions provide opportunities for participants to network and exchange ideas and learn. By comparison, today’s political conventions are about championing the current ideas, not finding new ways to solve problems.
TDG Advisors
The TDG advisory board can have many functions. One of them could be educational. Maybe the advisors will establish the courses and conventions to provide that education, leaving the elected TDG bodies with more time to govern.
Conclusion
Unlike representatives of western democracy, the TDG representatives will not be dealing with political infighting, re-elections, or the needs of a political party. They will be in a better position to get more education about the world around them — as they are serving in the TDG.
In essence, the TDG representatives are enhancing their skills in TDG governance with both experience and formal education.
Political Training in the TDG
Lower tiers give experience for the higher tiers
The “check engine” light on my car’s dashboard flashed. I took a quick look under the engine to see if anything was leaking. No leaks meant I could run my car for a while longer.
Next day, I took my car to my mechanic. I hung around the office while he was probing the car’s computer. There were about 10 certificates on the wall with mechanics’ names. The shop owner employed a handful of licensed mechanics. All of them went to school and followed the apprentice rules and obligations to get that piece of paper.
Mechanics must prove their worth to society before they are allowed to work as a licensed mechanic. Most professional and technical occupations require licensing . . .
. . . except for politicians.
Politicians do not have to show any qualifications that they know anything on how to run a society.
They only need to do three things. First, they must join the political party that mostly matches their political inclinations. Being a volunteer for the party gives them experience and a network. Second, they must win the internal party election to become the party candidate. Usually, they need a small team of knowledgeable party workers who know how to run an internal campaign and are willing to do the drudgery tasks to win that election. And often, future favors are expected. Last, they need to win the general election. Many times, the voters have already decided which party they will vote for. So the quality of the candidate is usually irrelevant in the general election. So winning the internal party election is the most important step to gaining a seat in the legislature.
Political Scientists
Mechanics must prove their qualifications to society before they can practice mechanics.
Pilots must prove their qualifications worth to society before they can fly airplanes.
Cardiologists must prove their qualifications before they can operate on our hearts.
But politicians. Well, they just win the internal party election, as if that contest has something to with establishing highway laws or dealing with the homeless or fighting racism or licensing mechanics, pilots, and cardiologists.
If there was an education for politicians, it would be “political science.” The Ph.D.’s in this field seem to know how governance actually works. But have you noticed that few political scientists ever cross from their commentary roles and into the actual fray? Instead, we get lawyers, business people, and activists.
Right now, there is no qualification to be an elected representative in the TDG. It’s almost a case of having a warm body.
Well, not quite so. The only people who would assume this job must have these two qualifications:
1) They realize that western democracy is broken and cannot be repaired.
2) They are willing to invest 10 hours a month to build a new democracy.
For sure, 99% of citizens do not have these qualifications. But for the 1% who do, the job of TDG builder is theirs.
The 1% will teach, mostly by example, other citizens how this new democracy will work. More citizens will join later. Some of those new people might quickly grasp the skills of TDG governance. Others need training.
Soon there will be enough members to hold “competitive” elections. These elections will select the more capable people to lead the way forward. Some early builders will stay in TDG governance. Some will be happy that someone else has replaced them. Some will be disappointed but should be accepting of losing their position.
Eventually the local TDG will grow bigger. Big enough to set up a second tier.
Think of the tiers as an apprentice program. The first tier is at the neighborhood. To get elected at this tier requires earning the trust and respect of one’s neighbors. How many of today’s politicians have earned that attribute?
About five to 15 neighborhoods will be gathered into a district. Once a year, the neighborhood representatives will gather to elect the district representative. This district representative will have earned the trust and respect from the other neighborhood representatives.
Think about this rise to the second tier. First the citizen had to earn the trust of respect of his/her neighbors. Then that citizen works with other neighborhood representatives who have also earned the trust and respect of their neighbors. So people who have earned trust and respect are working alongside other people who have earned trust and respect. These people, with all the trust and respect they have, elect one of them to rise to the second tier. The district representative has passed a second test for trust and respect.
How many of today’s politicians can claim this kind of achievement? How does that two-tiered test compare to “winning the internal party election” as proof of competence?
When the third tier is added, that means another test of trust and respect. Third-tier representatives will stand out for their skills for TDG governance, would you not say?
Apprenticeship
As alluded earlier, the tiered nature of the TDG is an apprenticeship.
Being elected to the first tier allows neighborhood representative in the field of TDG governance. As an actual player, this representative will be in a better position to learn about TDG governance. If the right lessons are learned, that person should retain the position at the next annual election. If more right lessons are learned, that person might move to the second tier. Just like an apprentice mechanics goes through several stages of first-year apprentice, second-year apprentice, etc. Skills improve as one advances.
If the representative ever finds him- or herself unelected, that representative can take whatever skills he or she has learned in the TDG back to their family, community, and workplace. For example, if a mechanic spends three years as a neighborhood representative, he will enhance his skills in collaboration and consultation. With these skills, his mechanic shop will be more efficient and more customer oriented. And, by example, this mechanic will train his co-workers to be of a more collaborative nature. The training gained in the TDG goes beyond the TDG.
Conclusion
The “check engine” light of western democracy has been flashing for at least nine years. Maybe longer.
No Parachuting
Far too often, political parties place candidates in electoral districts where the candidates do not reside. This is called “parachuting.”
Parachutes are usually star candidates. The parties want them in the legislatures: they might be a celebrity who can get votes, great communicators, or have a recognized life experience.
Parachutes are approved by the party leadership. When the party leadership wants a parachute in a certain electoral district, the local party association usually acquiesces to that demand. In essence, this internal party election is not open.
Parachutes are often put into “safe” seats to better their chances of winning the election.
With the parachute in the legislature, supposedly the party benefits from whatever attributes the parachute brings. Parachutes seem to be more valuable than those party members who have worked their way up in the party ranks.
Here’s the drawback. The parachute has had little history with the people in the electoral district. So it is questionable whether the parachute can represent the district well. And some voters and party members feel betrayed with this outsider.
Usually the disaffected voters and members are small in numbers. So the parachute still gets elected to the legislature. This then comes back to my theory that the first loyalty of any elected politician is the party, not the people. But that would be for another article.
When I was in politics, there were laws in Canada that addressed the parachuting issue. But to get around those laws, the parachute rents an apartment (flat) in the electoral district — and thus has a residence. But the parachute hardly ever uses it. I often wondered who paid for that apartment.
Solving the parachute issue
I solved the parachute issue with my alternative democracy Tiered Democratic Governance (TDG).
In the TDG, electoral districts will be about 200 voters who live close to each other. And the voters will be voting one of their own into governance. To be eligible to vote and be voted for, primary residence is a must. If only neighbors can be elected, then there can be no parachutes.
If a neighborhood is mostly working-poor people, that neighborhood will likely be sending a working-poor neighbor into TDG governance.
If a neighborhood is mostly of a certain ethnicity or religion (let’s say Chinese or Muslim), the neighborhood will likely send a neighbor of that group into TDG governance.
If a neighborhood is rural in nature, the neighborhood will likely send a rural person into TDG governance.
I could go on, but I think most readers will see my point. The TDG is going to bring in many more perspectives into TDG governance. People who never had much say in politics will now have some say.
Let me say this in a different way. All TDG representatives will have had a history with the voters who first elected them into the TDG. There will be no outsiders.
Conclusion
Parachuting? It ain’t gonna happen in the TDG.
And the wealthy people, whose current political influence is beyond their numbers, are going to have to deal more with people who aren’t so wealthy in the TDG.
Voting Age in the TDG
Younger, younger!
Western democracy grants citizens 18 years old (or thereabouts) the right to vote. Supposedly such citizens have acquired the life experience and knowledge to vote wisely.
Hmmmm.
I subscribe to the theory that our critical thinking skills do not mature well enough until we are 25. I would consider my youth as a good example of that theory.
How to Vote
Western democracy kind of asks its citizens to know the issues and then sort out the rhetoric of which politicians have better solutions.
The TDG, on the other hand, will have a direct request to the voters. They will be reminded to:
1. vote for someone of good character,
2. vote for someone of capacity for governance, and
3. not vote for someone who is or seems to be campaigning for the job.
Remember, that each voter is instructed to figure out these traits for themselves and cast a vote for the neighbor who best exemplifies their criteria.
With the TDG criteria, we can reduce the voting age to 14!
Dave at 14
Going back to my days of adolescence, I could have done a reasonably good job with voting Criterion #1. If an adult did not seem to respect me, no vote going that way.
Imagine a 15-year-old woman who tolerates the oogling stares of an older man in her neighborhood. If she has the TDG vote, she can vote for someone else. Young women voting this way mean fewer misogynists in TDG governance. And fewer misogynists in governance mean better decisions in all sorts of matters to run society.
I may or may not have been able to discern Criterion #2 at 14 years old.
And I think Criterion #3 was out of reach at 14.
But I still could do a good job of #1. In other words, I would be casting a wise vote at 14 years old, by TDG standards. Probably wiser than my 65-year-old Canadian vote of today.
And by starting to vote at 14, I would likely be getting some experience to understand #2 and #3 better for when I become 16. The annual TDG elections mean my young vote will get wiser within a few years!
Age Eligibility to Serve
While 14-year-olds should be eligible to vote, I don’t think they should be cast as representatives or serve on executive committees.
As I have alluded earlier, maybe 25 years old is a good time to have these responsibilities.
Having said that, I will let each TDG decide on its own “age of service.” I suspect 18–21 will be the range.
Having said that, I will encourage any TDG-inspired adolescents to start their own local TDG. If the adults in the neighborhood are dragging their feet on building this new democracy, then let’s have the 14-to-18-year-olds build this new democracy.
We, the wise yet so dumb
Our youth must be confused as all hell.
We, the older and supposedly wiser, are leaving them climate change challenges, economic instability, a diminishing middle class, silly wars, and authoritarian or impotent statesmanship — and still insist that the youth must use the same system that got us into this mess. A big paradox here indeed.
If you belong to the older and supposedly wiser generation and have no interest in building a new democracy, then let the youth in your life know of this possible opportunity. If you can get a few youth involved in TDG, then you have contributed to building a better political system.
If you belong to the 25-and-under group and wondering what kind of world the adults left you with, the TDG is yours to build. The adults are dragging their feet.
And when you are 40 years old, that democracy just might be built for you.
Now that is long-term planning.
Options to the TDG Elections
Many experiments in a new democracy
Moving from plurality elections
Much of my “TDG election” writing assumes a pluralistic electoral structure. This means the neighbor with the most votes earns the position of neighborhood representative for the next year.
Plurality elections often find a representative that earns less than 50% of the vote. To many watchers of democracy, plurality is not democratic because a true majority was not attained.
Let’s use a future TDG neighborhood election as an example of plurality. About 100 voters cast a ballot. As the votes are counted, there are five individuals who earned votes: Peter got 32 votes, Paul 29 votes, Mary 27 votes, Emily 7 votes, and Herman 5 votes. If this is a plurality vote, Peter would get the position of neighborhood representative for the next year.
Critics of plurality systems would state that the 68 people who did not vote for Peter might prefer someone else. It’s not hard to see that if there were three rounds of voting, with the lowest contender being dropped, Paul or Mary could move ahead of Peter. In other words, a plurality election that produces this close result might lack some legitimacy in finding the “best” candidate because a majority was not attained in the first round.
Personally, I’m not overly concerned about this plurality result. If Peter, Paul, and Mary each garnered about 30% of the vote, that means each of them has earned the trust and respect of a significant number of their neighbors. And the TDG election has picked one of them to represent the neighborhood. The election is a success, in my books.
Having said that, I can see many TDG-like people not agreeing with me. So I say, “Go ahead with a different way as long as the four salient features are retained.”
I have alluded to multiple rounds of voting. While this approach would still fall within the four salient features, I do not recommend this way. A second round would require two or more elections instead of one, which would double the work of the executive committee and its loyal volunteers. To me, this extra work is not worth finding that majority vote. Plus, too many voters would drop out in the second round, which then questions the legitimacy of the election in a different way. And I think such a contest might lead the top contenders campaigning for the job. The TDG is not about suspenseful elections.
A better way would be to have a ranked-choice ballot. TDG voters could order their preferred choices. At the end of the first round of vote counting, the contender with the lowest votes has his/her votes cast toward the second preference. This process continues until one contender has a majority. In a 100-voter election, each round of vote counting would take another five minutes. So ranked-choice voting would find a majority vote without much extra effort.
So ranked-choice is an option worth trying, The only serious flaw I can see is that some TDG voters will be confused with ordering their preferences. I suspect a few TDGS will go in a ranked choice direction, and the other TDGs will learn from their experiment. It might work out well.
In summary, replacing plurality elections with rank-choice elections means a little extra work and some possible confusion. There is no free lunch with ranked-choice, so the TDGs will have to decide on which path is better for them.
Bigger Electoral Units
When I got my vision for the TDG in 1992, a voice said: “Reduce the size of the electoral units to about 200 voters.” This is much less than my provincial constituencies of 40,000 and federal constituencies of 100,000.
A few years later, I learned about the Dunbar number of 150, which is the number of people most of us can manage in our lives. Strange how close 200 is to 150. Was the universe speaking to me?
Without a lot of effort, we can get to know some of our neighbors a little better. Just start some chats when you see them outside. Consider these chats as the main reason to find someone of good character and capacity for governance to vote for later. Heck, we might even find new friends and support network.
But I can envision geographical situations where 400 voters would be better. In this electoral unit, the neighborhood should be electing two representatives, giving the positions to the first and second place.
Again, worthy of trying out to see what happens with this “going bigger” option.
Or maybe we want to “go smaller,” with 100-resident neighborhoods. This might increase the chance of having some neighbors in our Dunbar group. We would have to try “smaller” to find out.
Multiple Votes per Voter
Similar to ranked-choice voting, give each voter more than one vote. For example, a voter can write down two names on the ballot.
In this way, a voter is not so torn to voting for one of two preferred candidates. He/she can write down both names, giving both preferences their support. Some voters may have a definite candidate in mind—and they can cast both votes to that candidate.
The only disadvantage is multiple votes would mean more votes to count. This is a bit more complicated but not as complicated as RCV. If a TDG goes this way, I recommend keeping the multiple votes to two or three. Three votes should find and ascertain the “will of the voters.” Four votes would complicate more than legitimize.
Advanced polls and mail-in ballots
In much of my TDG writing, I refer to using these two above tools to increase voter turnout. A higher turnout should increase legitimacy.
But, again, implementing these two tools will mean more time and effort required from the executive committee and its loyal volunteers. Rules need to be written and adhered to. Great care must be taken that the votes cast before election day are not tampered with.
So there is a trade-off that each executive committee must make. Keep the election simple with an in-person, election-day-only voting or provide the above features, at some cost of extra energy and greater chance of the election going wrong.
If the simpler approach is used and if the TDG membership seems happy with the result, even with a lower turnout, then maybe the election should stay simple.
Representatives serving multiple tiers
My TDG writing assumes that a representative would be serving in multiple tiers. In my hypothetical city I use for an example, a third-tier representative would also function as a first-tier neighborhood representative and a second tier district representative. If the representative loses his/her neighborhood job, he/she would serve out the remainder of term of the higher levels but would not be eligible for re-election to those higher tiers.
There are some advantages and disadvantages to this arrangement.
So maybe a representative moving to a higher tier means an automatic resignation of the lower tier position. The lower tier can be filled later. The constitution should provide for incumbents to be re-elected.
There are advantages and disadvantages to this arrangement as well.
Conclusion
As the TDG grows and matures, there will be experiments with this new democracy. Some new ways may be appropriate for local situations. Some new ways could be universally applied. Some early ways could be retained for generations.
There may be other ways that I cannot think of.
As long as the four salient features are adhered to, each TDG should experiment with new ideas. This experimentation would be great practice for TDG governance — because most actions to change society are also an experiment.
TDG Elections at the Higher Tiers
Simpler to conduct than neighborhood elections
At the higher TDG tiers, there will be fewer voters. So this electoral process is easier to conduct than the TDG neighborhood election.
Let’s say 10 neighborhoods are gathered into a district. This district should meet once a month to discuss affairs of the district. In these meetings, the neighborhood representatives are getting to know each other better. Once a year, this group will hold an election. One neighborhood representative will be elected to represent the district at the next tier.
Most likely, the election will be discussed in previous meetings. So there won’t be a need for a formal notice.
To start the election, there should be some prepared text about voting for “good character” and “capacity for governance.” Plus some wording about not voting for campaigners or factions. But remember, there is no enforcement of these rules. Let the neighborhood representatives figure out these terms for themselves.
Each neighborhood representative gets a ballot. I recommend that the ballot has the name of the 10 neighborhood representatives. Voters need only mark their preference with a simple mark, so that that no one knows who voted for whom. The ballots are put into a box. The box is opened. The ballots are counted to verify the correct number. Then the ballots are opened. Tallies for each representative are set up.
The neighborhood representative with the most votes is the district representative for the next year.
This election process should take about 10 minutes. So the election could be part of a regular district meeting.
The constitution or rules set up by the executive committee could provide a mechanism for absentee voting. Remember, all the neighborhood representatives, as part of their position, have earned the right to vote in this election.
As well, tie votes are more likely with these low numbers. The constitution or rules should specify a mechanism to handle tie votes.
The duties of a district representative will be more intense than the duties of a neighborhood representative. I estimate about 40 hours a month. I hope the district representative’s employer is accommodating to the demands the TDG will place on one of its employees. Having an employee who is a district representative is a good attribute for the employer’s operations.
But Dave, I can’t vote for the District Representative
Correct. Only the neighborhood representatives can vote for the district representative. The neighborhood representatives are in a better position to cast a wiser vote than the general TDG membership. This “tiered voting” is a salient feature of the TDG.
I realize many political junkies won’t like this tiered way. They like the drama around voting for the top dog. I will refute by asking: “How is the current way working for us?”
But I think many citizens will be accepting of assigning their “voting privileges” to their neighborhood representative, who are working more closely with the viable candidates than the neighbors. Political junkies are not the majority.
TDG Neighborhood Elections
The process to find capable representatives
The TDG elections are perhaps the most important activity the TDG undertakes. Proper elections at the neighborhood tier start giving the TDG its legitimacy to make decisions for society. This article will describe the various aspects of conducting a TDG neighborhood election.
The executive committees of the TDGs must follow the rules of their own constitutions. It is important to follow the “rule of law,” even in these early TDG days.
If the rules are insufficient or too cumbersome, the executive can change them with the proper amending process outlined in that constitution — but after the election has finished.
The executive committee may create other rules for the election — as long as those rules are not in conflict with the constitution. These rules can be changed with a proper meeting of executive committee.
The constitution should specify a window of dates for the election, like “the month of April.” The executive committee should probably define the location and hours of operation.
The voters’ list should be maintained. New neighbors moving in should be asked if they want to join the neighborhood TDG. Neighbors who move out should be taken off the list. If an error is discovered on election day, it can be fixed for the next annual election. Who is eligible to vote shall be defined by constitution and rules set by the executive committee—and these rules shall not be in conflict with the constitution.
The constitution should have a clause about proper notice of the election. Proper notice shall include the mechanism for delivery (e.g. post, hand delivery, email, social media) and the time to deliver the notice, so all members have reasonable knowledge of the election.
The notice should include some wordage about voting for “good character” and “capacity for governance.” As well, the notice should include warnings about campaigners. If these rules are specifically stated in the constitution, the executive committee shall follow these rules. If not in the constitution, the executive committee has discretion in these matters.
If the constitution specifies mail-in voting or advance polls, the executive committee shall abide by those rules. If not specified, the executive committee can create these options.
The executive committee should appoint at least two members as poll watchers. The duties shall be handing out ballots, crossing off names who have voted, verifying tallies, and physically counting the votes.
The first TDG elections will likely be in someone’s home. But as the TDG grows, it should move to a more public location. Maybe several neighborhoods could meet at the same time and place. I recommend turning the election into an opportunity for neighbors to socialize.
All voting is done by secret ballot. No member should know how another member votes.
The design of the ballot could be a constitutional requirement — or could be left to the discretion of the executive committee.
Counting of the ballots should be an open process. I estimate about 100 ballots per election. It will not be cumbersome to set up an open process where a few interested neighbors can watch the counting. It should take about a half hour to determine the neighbor with the most votes.
Nearly all neighbors will regard the process as fair. Many voters will agree that the elected representative is capable.
Neighborhood elections will sometimes go wrong
Conducting the TDG election will not always go smooth, especially in the first few years. Rather than make charges that someone(s) was inept or corrupt, the TDG should go with the individual that seems to have earned the most votes. Having a few representatives with questionable legitimacy will not hamper the overall operation of the TDG.
But after the election, the executive committee, with help from the advisory board, should analyze what went wrong. The idea is not to assign blame, but to fix the problem. Maybe the rules were not followed in the right way. Maybe the rules need to be written more clearly. Maybe the next election will require more supervision. Maybe the constitution requires changing. The goal is to ensure the next election is a fair election.
As more local elections are conducted, lessons will be learned. Better rules and more experienced executive committees will mean smoother elections. There will be fewer controversies as the TDG grows.
And fewer controversies give the TDG more legitimacy.
The Atlanta Approach
In 2014, a fellow from Cobb County, Georgia became excited about the TDG. We exchanged quite a few emails. He wanted to set up a local TDG in his neighborhood but was not getting much of a response. I then realized that it might be hard to find six TDG builders in any neighborhood — in these early TDG days. So I devised the “Atlanta approach.” Cobb County belongs to metropolitan Atlanta.
This builder should look for a bigger geographical area than his neighborhood, like maybe the entire Cobb County — or maybe even metro Atlanta. If he found six builders, they could write their own constitution for this big area, gaining skills in TDG governance. This group would elect its own executive committee. As membership grew, they would start setting up smaller local TDGs, especially where membership has the numbers to form TDG neighborhoods. When enough of these TDGs became self sufficient, the “Atlanta approach” group would dissolve itself — and let the local TDGs manage themselves. Part of their next tasks might be helping adjacent neighborhoods build their own TDG.
In my first TDG novel, the TDG members of Northwest Riverbend take the Atlanta approach. They are just too widely dispersed to be considered as belonging to one TDG neighborhood in Northwest Riverbend. In the next two years, these members elect their executive committee.
When this TDG group merges with Northeast Riverbend, the merged area has 14 defined neighborhoods, which is reflected in the new constitution. Instead of the members electing an executive committee, the members now elect their own neighborhood representative. And these representatives serve on the executive committee for “North Riverbend.”
Eventually in the novels, all of Riverbend is merged into this one TDG. The 35 neighborhood representatives elect seven members of the second tier, who are, in effect, the executive committee.
I suspect for the Early TDG stage, the Atlanta approach will be needed in many areas. As the TDG becomes better known, it will be easier to find four individuals in one neighborhood to start their TDG. And these new TDGs will probably have experienced TDGs to help them out.
Electing the TDG Executive Committee
In the Early TDG Stage, local TDGs will be electing their executive committees — and not a representative.
Some of the rules for this election should be in the local TDG constitution. The executive committee should follow these rules. If the executive committee decides to have additional rules, these rules should be agreed before election day and written down. As long as these new rules do not conflict with the constitution, they should be followed.
The constitution should specify how many members should serve on this committee. I recommend somewhere between three and eight.
The constitution should specify a window of when the election is held. For example, it might say “the month of October.” The executive committee will select a date from October 1 to October 31.
The executive committee shall select a venue for the election. In the first year or two, a member’s house should suffice. The executive committee shall also specify a time for polls to open and close.
The constitution should specify a “proper notice” of the election. While this local TDG would be small enough to not need the notice, the executive committee should practice for when the TDG is bigger.
The executive committee shall select at least two members as poll watchers.
The format of the ballots should be write-in names. The constitution should specify how many names the voter can write on the ballot. I recommend at least two names.
When a voter requests a ballot, the poll watchers shall hand a ballot to the voter and cross that voter’s name off the voter’s list. The voter takes the ballot to a private spot in the polling station to write in the names. The voter folds the ballot and deposits that ballot (and nothing else) in the ballot box, with the poll watchers watching.
The TDG is very much about secret ballots. No one should know who voted for whom. Admittedly, the few voters in these first elections may allow handwriting styles to identify voters’ votes. But as the TDG grows, it will be harder to connect ballots to specific voters.
When the polls close, the poll workers shall open the ballot box and count the ballots. This number should be equal to the record of the number of voters who had voted.
Given that the TDG is small, it would be appropriate and practical to allow all interested members to watch the vote counting process.
The poll watchers open each ballot, one-by-one. The names will be read off. Tallies will be set up to record the votes cast.
When all the ballots have been processed, the poll watchers shall confirm the total votes on the tallies are equal to the number of votes cast.
The members with the most votes, up to the number of executive committee members specified in the constitution, shall be deemed as the members of the executive committee.
The constitution should have some mechanism to handle a tie vote. I recommend a random lot.
An example
Let’s assume six TDG builders have written and ratified their constitution and are holding their first election.
This constitution specifies that the executive committee has four members. It also specifies that each member can cast up to two votes.
Obviously, four builders will be part of the executive committee — and two will not. I recommend all six builders prepare themselves mentally for not being selected. I suspect some would hope they are not the on executive committee.
All six members voted. Five members put in two names. One member put in one name. The one-name ballot should not be disqualified. So there are 11 votes in all.
The tally is as follows:
Fred: 5 votes
Wilma: 2 votes
Barny: 2 votes
Betty: 1 vote
Pebbles: 1 vote
Bam-Bam: 0 votes
Fred, Wilma, and Barny would be on the executive committee. The fourth member would be either Betty or Pebbles, based on the tie-breaking mechanism in the constitution.
Flaws in the Election
TDG governance will be a learning process. And we should expect some elections not to go smoothly. I recommend that this local TDG election go with the members who have seemed to have garnered the most votes rather than re-do the election.
If there were flaws in the election, then the new executive committee shall find solutions for the next election. Maybe the constitution needs amending; if so, the constitution should follow its amending process.
The executive committee will be in charge of most of the affairs of the local TDG. The only exceptions are amending the constitution and merging with another TDG. In these matters, the executive committee will be recommending and the membership will be deciding. While consultation with the rank-and-file members is encouraged, the executive committee shall make most of the decisions.
The second tier
When the TDG builds itself up to a second TDG tier, that tier shall take over the functioning of the executive committee. Then each neighborhood will then elect its neighborhood representative: just one name should suffice on the ballot.
Conclusion
The TDG is about creating a new political culture. These early elections may not seem important, but they set the culture for the future.
No Political Parties 2
The most important feature of the TDG is there are no political parties.
You see, political parties are the disease that is holding back humanity’s true potential. If we keep these political institutions as a necessary feature of democracy, we are more likely to regress than to keep our status quo.
Unfortunately, the political scientists are all for political parties. If we follow this branch of academia, we will not find the solution we are looking for. And that is for another article.
Reasons for No Parties
To get their positions in governance, our elected politicians ride on the election machine provided by the party. That’s why even Donald Trump chose to take over the viable Republican Party rather than be an independent candidate or start a new party. He needed a proven machine to reach his political goal.
So our politicians have an allegiance to the party that gave them their political job. This allegiance is stronger than to the nation, stronger than to the citizenry, and stronger than to the citizens who voted for the party. Have you ever noticed that when a politician is accused of corruption, the party usually comes around to protect that politician? The party knows most storms can be ridden out. So the allegiance is part of the deal between the politician and the party. Political parties will put up with crap if the politician has proven to win elections. A lot of crap.
So any decision within the realm of governance is “clouded” by this special relationship between the party and its elected representative. Every decision a politician makes is tainted by the allegiance to the party. The politicians are just as concerned about the retention and enhancement of their influence, advancement within the party, and re-election as they are about the outcomes of solutions to the issue. This grey cloud limits society’s potential for solving problems.
Think about a football coach who is coaching a big game and his mind is on his post-season ski trip.
Don’t believe me! So ask yourself this: How much time do your politicians put into studying the issues, talking to experts and stakeholders? How much time do they spend drafting and studying the bills that could turn into legislation? Compare that to how much time do they spend enhancing their influence within their political party. How often do they sacrifice principle to remain politically viable?
Why do parties form?
Factions were normal in our feudalistic times. The royal courts and aristocracy were rife with factions vying for influence. Wealth and opportunity often meant picking the right faction at the right time. Political parties are only modern-day factions.
Did you know that most of the founding fathers of the United States opposed the formation of political parties? They saw the flaws of British democracy — and wanted no part of it. The fathers envisioned a system that elected representatives would vote either their conscience or the will of their constituents.
Well factions started forming in George Washington’s tenure. Factions turned into official parties. And by 1820, the parties were running the USA. Independents stood little chance of being elected.
My hypothesis is that political parties allow second-rate politicians, in their quest for power, to unite and defeat independent first-rate politicians. In other words, political parties are about removing much of the competition for acquiring power.
Training for a No Party World
In Canada, most of our municipal systems of government are without political parties. Some municipal councillors are making alliances on certain issues, then making different alliances on other issues. Some councillors remain independent from any alliances, just vote after they have heard all sides. The councillors have no back-room people telling them how to vote. The bigger cities in Canada have big budgets and many social issues to resolves. Things seem to work no worse than being governed by provincial or federal parties. To say that political parties are necessary to making decisions in democracy is just plain wrong.
As I mentioned earlier, political parties allow ambitious people to unite to gain political power. Breaking that culture will be difficult. And that is why we cannot influence today’s politicians to build a democratic system without political parties. Our current politicians are already too busy and too vested in this system. The TDG will have to be built outside the current system.
Being on the outside means the early TDG builders will not be subjected to the toxic nature inherent in partisan politics. The builders will be in a better position to enhance their skills for collaborative TDG governance.
As we are building, we will learn how to govern and make decisions — without political parties.
