No Campaigning 2

Elections without campaigning? How is this possible?

TDG elections are annual. About four weeks before the election, the TDG executive committee should send out notice of the election: in particular, the place and time.

If the TDG has advance polls or mail-in ballots, the executive committe should provide instructions for TDG members to cast their votes in these ways.

As well, the communique should remind voters on how to vote more wisely. This article will focus on the message about being wary of campaigning in TDG elections.

The TDG executive committee will be tasked to find the words about campaigning. But the committee does not try to enforce the intent of that wording. In other words, the TDG members are free to accept this wording and how it will apply it to their voting decision.

What constitutes “campaigning”?

Here are the obvious signs of campaigning:

1) If there are lawn signs saying “Vote for Jack,” TDG members should not vote for Jack—even if they think Jack would be a capable neighborhood representative. There are other capable neighbors to vote for.
2) If someone is passing out pamphlets in the neighborhood that say “Vote for Jack,” TDG members should not vote for Jack.
3) If Jack is out in the neighborhood asking neighbors to vote for him, TDG members should not vote for Jack.
4) If Jack appears to be part of a slate of contenders in other neighborhoods, TDG members should not vote for Jack. It should not matter if the slate is promoting a specific mandate or is nebulous about its alliance.

The TDG voters should shun campaigners. Campaigners are not the politicians we want in governance. Campaigners have favors to pay off. Those favors will cloud the decision making. We will not be getting the best decisions.

Here are some subtle forms of campaigning:
1) Jack might dominate the discussion in town hall meetings.
2) Jack might become friendlier than usual a couple of weeks before the election.
3) Jack might be hanging around the polling station during election day, greeting all voters before they vote.

These intentions to campaign are more difficult to ascertain. So, in these cases, each TDG member should determine whether they believe Jack is campaigning or not. Other capable neighbors can be voted for.

Campaigning may still find electoral success at the neighborhood tier. But campaigners are unlikely to reach the higher tiers, where collaboration skills are better known.

Conclusion

The “no campaigning” aspect of the TDG will be more about educating and messaging, not enforcing.

Campaigners are not the politicians we want in governance.

When a neighbor believes someone is campaigning for the TDG neighborhood representative position, the neighbor should find another capable neighbor to vote for.

It is that simple.

Voting for Capacity for Governance 2

The foundation of the TDG is the neighborhood. It is from each neighborhood that a great neighborhood representative is found. This representative brings the right qualities into TDG governance.

In today’s democracies, we usually base our vote for three reasons: tradition, good feelings, and self-interest. I say the TDG voter should look for other criteria. One is “capacity for governance” of the viable candidates.

The executive committee of the TDG has an obligation to educate the membership about this voting criterion. Just before each TDG election, it should communicate “voting for capacity for governance” to the membership.

Here’s the catch! The executive committee really does not define “capacity” for the members. Rather the communiques should ask each member to think about what “capacity” means to each member. Then the member writes the name of the neighbor who best exemplifies that capacity on the ballot.

At the neighborhood level, I would consider “friendliness” as an attribute for capacity. I believe a neighbor representative needs to be chatting with neighbors. Some people are better at this social skill than others. A friendly representative is more likely to bring neighborhood concerns to the higher TDG tiers—and explain TDG happenings to the neighbors.

After the election, I would look at the current representative to see how well he or she is doing. If I see the representative out there in the community and holding town hall meetings, I would likely cast my annual vote to return him or her back into TDG governance.

If I somehow find myself in the higher tiers of TDG governance (to which I would have my doubts), I would look towards consultation skill as my voting criterion. For example, I would prefer those representatives who can bring out knowledge, experience, and wisdom of other representatives who are not that articulate. This skill would get my vote to move a person higher into the tiers.

Again, this is my criterion. I have the right to vote in this way. Other representatives may have a different idea in what constitutes “capacity for governance.”

But it all starts with the executive committee issuing annual reminders to vote for capacity for governance.

Let’s get everyone thinking about casting wiser vote with this criterion.

Voting for Good Character 2

The foundation of the TDG is the neighborhood. It is from each neighborhood that a great neighborhood representative is found. This representative brings the right qualities into TDG governance.

In today’s democracies, we usually base our vote for three reasons: tradition, good feelings, and self-interest. I say the TDG voter should look for other criteria. One is “good character” of the viable candidates.

The executive committee of the TDG has an obligation to educate the membership about this voting criterion. Just before each TDG election, the committee should communicate “voting for good character” to the membership.

Here’s the catch! The executive committee really does not define “good character” for the members. Rather the communiques should ask each member to think about what “good character” means to each member. Then each member writes the name of the neighbor who best exemplifies that good character on the ballot.

For example, I would cast my vote for neighborhood representative to the neighbor who is relatively free of addictions. My life experience is that addictions cloud the affected people’s judgement. So we should not bring addictions into political decisioning making (in my opinion).

If another neighbor has a different criterion, that would be that neighbor’s right to vote in this way. I cannot force my definition of good character on my neighbors, and they cannot force theirs on me.

And if my neighborhood elects someone who, I believe, is too far into an addiction, I will not lose that much sleep. That person will soon be more of a public figure. If the addiction dominates his/her TDG behaviour, we will soon see it. We can elect someone else next year. Or maybe this person has such a great talent for TDG governance that the addiction really does not impede the TDG work. We won’t know until we try this person out, right? If this person proves to be a really good representative, I could vote for him or her in the next election.

When most neighborhood representatives are indeed people of mostly good character, then the best of them will find their way into the higher tiers.

Kind of neat, eh?

What if my TDG Representative won't Serve?

The electioneering nature of western democracy does one thing well. It almost always finds people willing to put in the long hours politics requires. One does not win internal party elections or general elections by sitting on one’s hands and wishing and hoping. Elected politicians have proven they are ready to put in the hours, sacrificing their family and recreation to be a politician.

And that lack of balance should be a topic for another article.

In contrast, the TDG elections do not have this filter. It is possible for some citizens to become elected into the first TDG tier and not put the time into the job. Here are several reasons:

1. Their occupation may not allow them to participate in TDG governance.
2. They might have too much going on in their personal lives.
3. Their health is not good.
4. They even not want to serve society in this capacity.

For whatever reason applies, that TDG neighborhood will not have an effective representative.

The solution is simple. The TDG annual elections mean such a representative does not serve for too long. The neighbors can vote for someone else next year. The neighborhood can try out another neighbor to represent them.

And with TDG being so granulated, TDG governance will not come to a standstill if 20% of its first-tier representatives are indeed ineffective. There will always be many first-tier representatives putting in their 20 hours a month into the TDG.

And if an ineffective neighbor is elected into the first tier, for sure that person will not advance to the second tier.

The TDG has its own checks-and-balances. I invite you to check out the TDG as a possible solution for the political mess we are in.

I Don’t Like My Neighbors

One of the criticisms of the TDG is that it starts with neighborhood elections. But neighbors do not know each other. Hence they cannot vote wisely for one of their neighbors into the TDG. Certainly, there is no point in voting for any of them. It makes more sense to vote for a glossed-over image the political parties proffer for us, right?

I say: “Get out and talk to your neighbors once in a while.”

True it is that the automobile and internet have given us communities that are not so geographically connected. These communities have people that are more like us than our neighbors. So we enjoy these communities more. Well, the TDG does not want to take those communities away from you.

But if our society is to advance, we need to move beyond our echo chambers. We need to learn how to converse with people who think differently than us. Our neighbors might be a great starting point. And we do have a common goal with our neighbors: where we live affects our psyche. Most of us would like a functioning community around us.

If you are in a TDG neighborhood, join that TDG. Get to know five neighbors. You don’t have to be best friends, but your little chats outside your residence will improve your local connections. When it is time to vote (in a TDG way), give your vote to the neighbor who best exemplifies your definition of good character and capacity for governance. That vote has so much power behind it. More power than voting for an image coming from a political party.
And with the TDG asking you to get to know more neighbors a little better so you can vote more wisely, your neighborhood just might be a little stronger community. One side benefit of the TDG.

Again I say, “Get out and talk to your neighbors once in a while.” Voting for one of them is where it all starts. Even if you associate with only five neighbors. One of them deserves your vote.
If you continue to say: “I don’t like my neighbors,” that is a problem you can fix.

“Get out and talk to your neighbors once in a while.”

Too Many TDG Representatives

A few critics of Tiered Democratic Governance have taken a look at my hypothetical TDG. I estimate that a city of 100,000 citizens will have about 600 TDG positions.

It is logical to assume that each of those positions will come with a six-figure salary, an office, and a partisan staffer or two (or three or four). That is how our current democracies work. The TDG seems to be multiplying this practice. So the budget for governing will increase dramatically. So I need to address this.

About 500 of these positions will be neighborhood representatives.

A large part of their job is to chat with their neighbors, getting a feel for what their neighborhood is thinking, and convey those feelings to the higher tiers.
While informal discussions are important, I hope each neighborhood representative holds a town hall meeting once or twice a year. This will be a good chance for neighbors to express their concerns (and get to know each other a little better). The neighborhood representative will likely not have any power to do much about those concerns, but he/she can certainly convey them to the higher tiers.

As well, the neighborhood representative should be attending meetings at the district level. This group should meet once a month. With these meetings, the representatives will find out what other neighborhoods are thinking. Unified concerns should be passed to the higher tiers.

The neighborhood representative position should be about 20 hours a month. While there will be a little juggling of time to fulfill the TDG obligations, neighborhood representatives will continue to work in their current occupations and attend to their family needs as before they were elected.

At this level, there will be no office and no staffers. No six-figure incomes.

I recommend the neighborhood representatives receive a small stipend for the formal meetings that they attend. But that would be something for each TDG to work out for itself.
In essence, a neighborhood representative is a volunteer or mostly volunteer position.

Similarly, the district representatives and most of the advisory positions will be volunteer or mostly volunteer. Many more citizens will serve in the TDG, and that experience will be an important part of their lives.

So, there won’t be a big cost to all these “new” positions. Even the cost of some stipends will be covered by more effective governance.

Consultation 2

How to make better societal decisions

The early TDG must consciously and deliberately build a culture of consultation. This culture is one of the four salient features of the TDG.

So we should put in a clause or two about consultation into the local TDG constitutions. But we cannot enforce that clause. Consultation comes only when the participants want to engage in this process.

I have briefly summarized “consultation” as follows:

Consultation is the combining of knowledge, experience, and wisdom of the participants into one voice.

If this sounds too utopic to you, this is probably because our current political culture — at least displayed in the media — is exactly opposite of the above phrase. Our real-life examples are people who insist that they are right and the people they disagree with are wrong. The victors in such a discussion are the ones who can shout the longest and loudest. We have been inculcated that this conflict is the only way to resolve our differences.

The early TDG builders must recognize that we must replace this bad example of decision making with a better way, a more consultative way. A kinder way. A wiser way.

The writing of a local TDG constitution is a forum where the early builders can practice. A constitution will have 50 or so clauses. The nature of these clauses is such that none of them will be “life-or-death” or “the-sky-is-falling.” This gives the early builders the freedom not to be so bound into any one position. They can seriously consider what other builders are thinking. When every builder puts out their opinions and perspectives, there will be a little consultative magic that finds the best consensus.

Undoubtedly, some builders might not like some of that consensus. If they believe that they have had the opportunity to speak and believe they have been listened to, they will more readily consent to the will of the majority.

In this way, the 50 or so clauses will be built one-by-one. Each clause is a practice opportunity for consultation. By the end of this process, the builders will have enhanced their consultative skills. They will be better prepared for the next big TDG project.

With this first constitution, the early builders will gain a sense that consultation is not an unreachable utopia.

TDG's Humanistic Clauses

All TDGs will be writing their own local constitution. This writing and working collaboratively gives them important experience in TDG governance. This experience will build a stronger foundation for later.

I have a few recommendations. One recommendation is putting in two humanistic clauses into their constitution. Here they are:

1) Our local TDG believes in the equality of the races.

2) Our local TDG believes in the equality of men and women.

I’m not recommending these clauses to advance these causes. These causes already have lots of champions.

Rather I’m recommending that these clauses be put in the local constitutions to keep a toxic attitude away from the early TDG.

If a citizen is harboring such inequality as part of his or her identity, that person is also likely harboring a non-collaborative approach to decision making. They have a “my-way-or-the-highway” attitude. They will raise enough ruckus to get more reasonable people to quit the TDG. This leaves errant thinking to run the local TDG, which I don’t think will run much longer.

The TDG is looking for people who have (or want to have) a consultative, collaborative, and consensual mindset. They will have a more gentle approach to democracy. But they need practice with this gentle approach. Current forums of politics are not gentle.

If the “inequality thinking” is removed from the early TDG, the early TDG builders will not be encumbered with trying to deal with a toxic attitude. Without less toxicity in the foreground, the builders will enhance their skills for consultation, collaboration, and consensus.

As the TDG gains experience, the early TDG will evolve into the middle TDG. The middle TDG will have more institutional strength to handle new TDG members who may have a toxic attitude. The leaders of that middle TDG will have more skills to face the toxic challenge. When the middle TDG reaches the maturing TDG, it will face any toxic challenge with wisdom, logic, love, and kindness.

More than two humanistic clauses?

I recognize that many early TDG builders will want to add more humanistic clauses to their TDG constitution. And I would say that many of these clauses would be worthy.

For example, I am an advocate for Universal Basic Income. If we put such a humanistic clause in the TDG constitution, those citizens suspicious of “socialism” will too quickly disregard the TDG. They are less likely to give the TDG a fair hearing; they are less likely to join later; they are more likely to join the opposition to the TDG. In other words, making the TDG a vehicle for our favorite progressive clause will alienate many capable citizens we want to bring in later.

Some people with anti-socialist sentiments just might be good early TDG builders. They just might be more accepting of socialist thinking later — if they are working alongside with such thinkers in building the TDG. Or maybe they have insights that can convince us their way is better.

Rather, I recommend that the early TDG builders just focus on setting up the rules for governing ourselves — and have confidence that the TDG will eventually and properly address the intent of the many well meaning progressive causes.

Right now, let’s focus on keeping the more toxic attitudes away from the early TDG. The two above humanistic clauses should provide much of that protection.

We can deal with toxic attitudes later — after we strengthen our TDG mindset and our TDG institutions. And we will eventually win many people over to our way of thinking. There will be fewer people with a toxic attitude.

Remember, the two humanistic clauses are just my recommendation. If a new TDG wants to remove the two humanistic clauses or add another five, I would not argue with their consensus. We will learn something new if a few TDGs go in these directions.

The TDG is so Granulated

Why is 200 is better than 40,000 or 100,000 or 500,000?

I had a Medium chat with one of my lukewarm fans. PlainTalkBadManners (PTBM) has read a significant part of my TDG work. Alas, I have not been able to convince her to invest some of her spare time into the TDG.

She told me she worked for the Labour Party in the last UK election. I anticipate that she will eventually be disappointed with that party as it tries to govern. I hope that she will realize that her time would have been better utilized building the TDG. I must be patient.

But I digressed before this essay started. Here is the reason for this essay. In PTBM’s communication, she offered this insight into her understanding of the TDG:

Even though lobbying and campaigning isn’t part of the TDG system, sociopathic opportunists and bad actors would nonetheless use it to gain power. I imagine it would be yet another vehicle for those with political ideology to exploit.

There’s a lot to unpack here. Providing a quick answer to PTBM’s response probably won’t suffice. So I turned my response to a full essay — and put it where more people will find it.

Granulated?

First I should explain “granulated” a little better. In my part of the world (rural southeastern Alberta), I live in a provincial constituency of 40,000 people and in a federal constituency of 100,000.

I have written about the Dunbar number. Basically most of us can keep reliable social connections with only 150 people at a time. These are the people “we know.” People outside our Dunbar group, we don’t know that well.

So when my current ballot proffers five or so people — chances are these people are not in my Dunbar group. After all, 150 in 40,000 is only 0.4%. So I will likely not know much about these names, except for their party affiliation.

Since I became apolitical (not favoring any political party), I’ve gone through about 20 provincial and federal elections. In only three of these elections, I knew something about one person on the ballot. And that understanding came from people in my Dunbar group who knew one of the candidates, kind of in a Dunbar way. So my perspectives were not from seeing the candidates with my own eyes. For the rest of my elections, I really had no information to base my vote on good character and capacity for governance. I usually spoil my ballot.

Ballots in western democracy are set up to vote for party affiliation. Most voters have no other criteria to base their vote. Which justifies political parties. Which is good for the political parties. Which, heaven forbid, we just can’t have another way of voting!

The TDG Way

When the TDG came to me, it was like a eureka you hear of scientists having. The answer comes so quickly. Many insights into the current and a new way of governance tumbled into me in a few minutes. While everything was jumbled as the TDG poured into me, something said, “Dave, set up electoral districts of 200 voters.” And that number has stuck with me ever since.

A few years later, I learned about the Dunbar number. The number “150” is really not that far from “200.”

Two hundred is much more “granulated” than my 40,000 provincial and 100,000 federal numbers. As I mentioned earlier, I seldom know much about any of the names on those ballots.

Admittedly, I would not know much about most of my 200 TDG neighbors. But I would likely know about 20 of them. On voting day, I would figure out which of them best fits with my definition of good character and capacity for governance, and cast my vote toward that person. This would be more satisfying for me than voting for people I don’t know.

Any of my 200 neighbors who gets 30 votes or more has proven a good rapport with some of the neighbors. If four neighbors reach this threshold, maybe all four would be a capable neighborhood representative. The TDG election may not put my preference in place, but it will still select one from “among the best.” We should be happy with that result.

Nefarious characters

Let’s go back to PTBM’s original comment. She mentioned “sociopathic opportunists and bad actors.”

Nearly all of us would agree that western democracy allows too many of these people into governance. My treatise is that the large electoral districts allow these people to hide behind party banners. When the voters vote for party affiliation, these flaws are either unknown or cast as unimportant. So the sociopathic opportunists and bad actors move into the legislature, giving their negative effect to the legislative process.

One “rule” of the TDG is that there is no electioneering in TDG elections. But it won’t really be a rule. Rather it will become part of the TDG culture, built by conscious application of the early TDG builders. They will educate voters not to vote for a neighbor who appears to be campaigning for a TDG job. So campaigners will find fewer votes than the capable non-campaigners. There will be little point to campaigning.

Rather the neighborhood representatives will earn their votes by the rapport they have developed in their community — long before they were first elected.

Most neighborhood TDGs will find a capable representative. But a few sociopathic opportunists and bad actors will find their way into that first tier. When they get their position, they will be much more visible to their TDG neighborhood. They will show more of their flaws. It is doubtful that they will be elected in the next TDG election, which is only one year away. In other words, the TDG neighborhood is not stuck with a such a representative for too long. It will vote better next time.

Here’s another check-and-balance. The first-tier representative really does not have as much “status, influence, and power” as my provincial and federal representatives have. Rather the TDG representative will be a conduit between the higher tiers and the neighbors. The position will likely be volunteer, maybe consuming 20 hours a month. Ambitious people — like sociopathic opportunists and bad actors — will not like this TDG position. For them, it is much easier to climb the party ladder than to gain a higher position in the TDG.
The Second Tier

And here’s another check-and-balance. About four to 12 neighhborhoods will be gathered into a district. They will be meeting once a month to discuss affairs of the district and make decisions within their jurisdiction. Six months after the first-tier election, the neighborhood representatives will convene to elect, from amongst themselves, the district representative. This person will move into the next tier.

Because these neighborhood representatives have sat in the same meetings, they will get a sense for each other, kind of in a Dunbar way. Traits of sociopathic opportunism and bad acting will become better known to all the neighborhood representatives. They will be casting votes toward the more capable of themselves to move higher.

It is more unlikely a sociopathic opportunist or bad actor will be elected into the second tier.

Just try to imagine how someone like Donald Trump can move up the tiers.

Yeah, but Dave . . .

. . . most of us can not vote for that district representative.

So true. The TDG is structured around tiered, indirect elections. As a former political junkie, I understand how disconcerting not being able to vote for the top dogs must be. It seems the TDG means losing control of who governs us. Let me offer these insights:

1) My question would be “How is the current system working for us?” If you don’t like the sociopathic opportunists and bad actors in our legislatures, then we should look at a new way of electing our representatives, right? Remember, the political parties have proven not to be good filters.

2) Most people do not take their politics as seriously as the political junkies. Most people would be just as happy voting for a good neighbor, giving that neighbor their voting privilege in the higher tiers. The political junkies, a minority, should not be defining the rules to suit their quest for political drama.

3) When we see capable people moving higher in TDG governance — not sociopathic opportunists and bad actors — should not the political junkies just accept this new way as better?

Conclusion

Reducing electoral districts from 40,000 to 200 people will create a much different dynamic between the people and their governors. There won’t be many sociopathic opportunists and bad actors in TDG governance. When they do find a way in, they will likely be tossed out. They just won’t rise that high.

All because the voters know something about the people they are voting for.

Statistics, the TDG, and the Consultancy

In a recent previous article, I analyzed household incomes in Alberta with some primitive statistical tools.

My inspiration was that the Alberta government was using even more primitive tools to placate its own voting base that their economic life is getting better, when it is probably not.

You’ve probably heard this common phrase before: “There are lies. There are damn lies. Then there are statistics.”

While this phrase demeans the science of statistics (which is a subset of mathematics), there is a good reason for this axiom. Far too often, practitioners of statistics use statistics to bend the data to the conclusion the practitioners had before they got the data. One big reason for using statistics incorrectly is that our society has a certain level of dishonesty. Such practitioners are manipulating data more to maintain their career than to provide a good perspective for the world to move forward. When a few too many experts use statistics in this way, it degrades the whole science of statistics.

So when a certain conclusion was reached because of statistics, it becomes easier for those with opposing opinions to attack the concept of statistics, rather than whether the statistics were properly employed or not.

In other words, western democracy will throw aside statistics when it is politically inconvenient. Those with authority will just sell their version of the world to a public that has fewer skills in statistics than I have. And I only have a “learner’s permit.”

My Learner’s Permit

When I was taking my university statistics course, I remember using a mathematical template to analyze data sets of normal distributions.

Then my professor taught us how to convert the normal distribution into a t-test and a chi-squared test. I never really understood why we used one test over the other. When writing my statistics exam, I guessed on which of these two methods is appropriate. That is probably a good reason why my mark was a minimal pass.

We were also introduced to left- and right-skewed distributions. But the math behind these distributions was much more complex than normal distributions. So any rigorous analyses of these distributions was left to a higher-level statistics course — which I did not take.

Statistics is a wonderful science. But too often, it is too easily cast aside when it doesn’t fit a political agenda.

The Consultancy

Chapter 8 of my TDG book deals with options for the TDG. One of those options is “The Consultancy,” where the TDG acquires a pool of credible experts in various fields. The main objective of The Consultancy is not to find the expert of the experts, but to collate the findings of many experts. The elected TDG representatives will not have time and energy to for this kind of investigation, so it will rely on The Consultancy.

The Consultancy should employ professional statisticians. These people should overlook the workings of the other experts — scientific, economic, humanistic fields, et al — to ensure statistics have been applied in a proper way. In essence, these experts will vet the experiments that are leading to better public policy.

Nearly all professions have some subjectivity on proper ways to conduct that profession. For example, there are two kinds of dentists. The first kind like to fix every small thing. The second kind like to wait until some things get a little bigger. Both approaches have their pros and cons — and both approaches can keep our dental health in a good place. In a like manner, we should expect statisticians to have different preferred ways to analyze the same data.

So I would expect the statisticians working for The Consultancy to know of the various accepted statistical approaches. To make their report, they could apply these different approaches. Sometimes the approaches would agree with each other. This should allow the TDG to make its decision with more certainty. Sometimes the approaches would produce different conclusions. The TDG should know about this difference, and the decision would reflect more uncertainty.

And as the TDG representatives gain some experience with the expert statisticians, the elected representatives will gain a sense of the statisticians who are better at analyzing the numbers objectively rather than promoting their biases.

It should be noted that the elected TDG bodies are not obligated to use the recommendations of The Consultancy. Rather, The Consultancy will allow the bodies to see a bigger picture with statistics to make a better decision.

Conclusion

Today’s democracies have an unreliable relationship with statisticians.

In TDG governance, statistics will be better employed to find the better solutions.