TDG Executive & TDG Members

Each TDG will be governed by a written constitution. This constitution sets out the various electoral rules for the executive committee. These elections will be held every year.

The executive committee will be communicating with the members about the date, time, place, and method of voting. And there might a reminder for members to be wary of campaigning—and not to vote for a member who seems to be campaigning. The members of the executive committee should be good examples of the no-campaigning culture. While their office has given them a higher profile in the community, they should meekly rely on their past work to keep them in that office.

As well, the executive committee should be reminding members to define what constitutes good character and capacity for governance and then cast vote to the neighbor that best defines those characteristics.

All TDG members residing in the TDG are eligible to be voted for. Voters write in the name(s) of their preference on a ballot.

The votes are counted. Based on the vote tallies, the local TDG constitution determines the members of the executive committee.

The executive committee will have almost full control of the affairs of the TDG until the next election. The only things they cannot do are: 1) amend their local TDG constitution and 2) merge with an adjacent TDG. The executive committee can set up the processes for these actions to happen, but these actions will require a majority vote from the membership at a specially called meeting.

The executive committee will assign officers and sub-committees as it sees fit.

The TDG constitution recommends that executive committee members strive for a unanimous decision on all their matters. If the members are in a good consultative mindset, this should happen quite often. If not, a majority vote shall prevail, with the minority backing the majority decision. If too many votes are required, more study of consultation is probably in order.

How will the executive committee find this consultative nature? Well, it goes back to the elections.

Let’s imagine this voting result in a particular TDG neighborhood. Barney gets 25 votes, Betty gets 17 votes, Wilma gets 32 votes, and Fred gets 16 votes. Three other neighbors get three votes each. The four highest votes are people who have built rapport with some of their neighbors. These four people are likely to be of a consultative mindset. In essence, the TDG election picked “from among the best.” Wilma, with her 32 votes, became the neighborhood representative.

But what if Wilma is not of a consultative mindset? In the next year, Wilma will have a higher profile in the neighborhood. If she is showing an arrogant attitude, some of the neighbors who voted for her will cast their vote to someone else in the next election.

But what if Wilma really doesn’t want the neighbor representative job, which will require about 20 hours a month. If she doesn’t or can’t put in this effort into the position, the neighbors will elect someone else in the next election. A year of a few ineffective neighborhood representatives does not stall the workings of the TDG.

What if Wilma likes the neighborhood representative job and serves well? Chances are good that she will be elected again. But all neighborhood (and higher tier) representatives should anticipate their service might end at the next election. The TDG has ways of moving people in and out of governance.

And this movement is good. The executive committees will always be a combination of old guard with knowledge of the past and new blood with new ideas, perspectives, and energy.

There is no parachuting of candidates in the TDG. Only residents can vote and be voted for in any neighborhood election. In the higher tiers, all representatives must also be residents in the area of those electoral units.

Some neighborhoods may keep the same representative for 10 or 20 years. Other neighborhoods may change out their representative every year.

Some neighborhood representatives won’t advance any higher in the TDG. They will stay at this low level. That is OK.

A few neighborhood representatives will find their way into the highest tier. But their starting place will always be earning the trust and respect of their neighbors.

Some rank-and-file TDG members may aspire to be the neighborhood representative. But the neighborhood elections will make this decision, not a well-run campaign.

And many rank-and-file members will be happy that they are not elected. Some people just don’t like meetings that much. That’s OK. They can still vote wisely.

Some representatives will have a flair for TDG governance. The TDG will become a bit of a career to them. They will consider their TDG service as an important part of their life. As long as the neighbors keep voting them in, there is nothing wrong with that.

Some representatives will not have this flair. They probably won’t go much higher.

Many TDG members won’t have the lifestyle to serve well as representatives. The lower-tier positions will require free evenings and weekends and being close to home to attend meetings. Many occupations are not designed for this public service. Ideally, employers should schedule an employee’s time to serve on the TDG; but this may not happen. Even though many of these TDG members likely won’t get elected, they still have an important role to play: attend TDG meetings when possible, send a little money, and—most importantly—vote wisely in the annual elections.

Some rank-and-file members might find themselves elected but can’t understand why. Their neighbors may have seen something in them that they cannot see in themselves. These representatives will serve as best they can. They might be reelected next year. Or might not.

Many citizens will get a little experience in TDG governance sometime in their lives. This experience will give them an innate understanding of why the TDG works so well. They will be good ambassadors for the TDG when they are out of office.

Published in Medium 2021

Merging TDGs

Initially, each local TDG is an independent entity, employing the principles of Tiered Democratic Governance. The eventual goal is to join all the TDGs together.

Early TDGs should be looking at TDGs adjacent to them to merge with. If there is no TDG in these areas, the TDG should put some resources toward starting them. They should find citizens in these areas willing to start their own local TDG. The “old” TDG can provide their experience for the “new” TDG to learn about TDG governance.

When two adjacent TDGs have matured, they should consider joining into one TDG. So the executive committees of the two TDGs should set up a joint committee to discuss a merger. Most likely, the two TDGs will have enough differences in their constitution that some issues need resolving. For example, one TDG may have its election in April and the other in September. When should the merged TDG have its election? The merging committee should discuss the merits of both systems and come to some agreement. Because the merged TDG is bigger, this might be a good time to add another tier to govern this larger area. In essence, the merging committee is writing a new constitution for the merged area.

When the merging committee gets its draft together, that draft goes to the executive committee- of the two TDGs. The executive committees might have some suggestions, which get sent back to the merging committee. That committee then refines the draft. Eventually the draft reaches a state where the executive committees of both TDGs approve.

Then both TDGs have to get approval from their members to approve of new constitution. When both memberships agree, the two local TDGs are now merged into one bigger TDG.

After the TDGs are merged, the builders should be monitoring the merger. For example, there might have been some small glitches in the elections because the members were voting with a slightly different electoral system. Maybe some constitutional changes are required. Or maybe only more education is needed. Solving all these problems is good practice for TDG governance.

If a merger between the two TDGs is not possible, the two TDGs should be looking for a different adjacent partner. The merger can be tried again after time and elections will replace a few executive committee members who may have been a hindrance to the earlier merger.

Starting a local TDG, writing its first constitution, amending that constitution, and now merging TDGs are going to give a lot of citizens practical experience in TDG governance. As the TDG gets bigger, many more citizens can relate to TDG governance because they have had an actual hand in developing that system. Having many members with first-hand experience is going to build credibility and legitimacy for this new system.

Published on Medium 2021

The First TDG Constitution

Riverbend is a fictional small town in the United States. In its northwest quadrant, a former Republican worker, Rich Riddell, gathers some neighbors together to build a new democracy. Rich and his neighbor Len Pash have just been laid off from their factory and have some free time. They are joined by several other neighbors. Holger Peters is approaching his final years as a high school teacher. Stacey Mabrall has finished college and is not employed in her field. Thelma Delgers is a receptionist at an accounting firm and taking distance accounting training. Rich and Len’s wives—Emily and Jackie—are welcoming these TDG meetings into their homes and taking part in the discussion. Eleven residents of Northwest Riverbend are building the USA’s first TDG constitution.

This document takes several months to develop. Meetings occur every couple of weeks. In between meetings, emails are exchanged. New ideas discussed. Holger keeps everyone talking. Stacey takes on the role of writer of the document, organizing the content and working in the changes. Rich uses his political experience with due process to move the group forward to the document’s ratification. This culmination of the document constitutes the first three chapters of “Diary of a Future Politician.” Eventually, the new constitution is ratified, and Northwest Riverbend elects its first executive committee.

My purpose of this novel is to show how average people can build this new democracy. When going through this document, ask yourself “Is this something I can help with?”

Here is the first constitution of Northwest Riverbend:

SECTION 1: TDG PRINCIPLES

We members of this TDG group believe that American democracy is failing us. We are striving to build a new replacement system of governance based on the TDG principles of (1) no political parties, (2) democratically elected representatives based on good character and capacity for governance, (3) no electioneering, and (4) a culture of consultation. We believe that we can build this system of governance to peacefully assume authority and responsibility of our current elected institutions.

SECTION 2: HUMANISTIC PRINCIPLES

We members of this TDG group believe in:

1. The equality of the male and female gender.

2. The equality of all races in America.

We, as individuals and as an organization, will strive to eliminate prejudice and discrimination on these fronts.

SECTION 3: BOUNDARIES

This TDG district shall encompass the northwest section of Riverbend. Exact boundaries shall include:

1. Battenor River to the south

2. Interstate I-XXX to the east

3. Riverbend’s municipal boundaries to the north and west.

This TDG district shall include the Riverbend neighborhoods of: (1) Creighton, (2) Davidson, (3) Grenfall, (4) Gull Lake, (5) Loon Lake, (6) Nipawin, (7) Oxbow, and (8) Senlac. We plan to eventually have these neighborhoods elect their own representatives.

SECTION 4: MEMBERSHIP

1. All members of this TDG shall have a primary residence in the district.

2. Members shall provide a mailing address to the executive committee for mailing purposes.

3. Members shall be at least 17 years old.

4. Members must be American citizens.

5. Members must affirm their acceptance of the principles in Sections 1 and 2.

6. Members cannot vote in TDG affairs until they have been members for at least 30 days.

SECTION 5: ELECTORAL RULES

1. The executive committee shall schedule an annual general meeting in the month of April. This meeting shall be the election of the executive committee to serve in the next year.

2. The executive committee shall keep a record of members.

3. The executive committee shall send by US Post official notice of this election meeting to all members.

4. All members attending this meeting shall be given a blank ballot.

5. Prior to voting, the current chairperson of the executive committee shall give a short speech about voting for good character and capacity for governance.

6. When voting, each member can write the name of one or two members as their choice for the executive committee. All ballots shall be placed in a ballot box.

7. When voting is finished, the ballot box shall be opened and votes shall be counted.

8. The four members who tally the most votes will constitute the new executive committee.

9. If there is a tie vote for fourth and fifth place, another round of balloting shall be conducted with these two as the only candidates.

10. The fifth place shall be recorded and may be called to serve the remainder of the term if another executive committee member can no longer serve.

SECTION 6: EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

1. The executive committee shall have authority and responsibility for all affairs of this TDG except amendments to the constitution.

2. Quorum for the executive committee is three members.

3. The executive committee is encouraged to attain a consensual decision. If consensus cannot be attained, a majority vote shall constitute the decision. If there is a tie vote, the member with the most votes at the annual meeting shall have the tie-breaking vote.

SECTION 7: ADVISOR

The executive committee can appoint an advisor to this TDG district.

SECTION 8: AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION

1. The executive committee has the authority to formulate amendments to the constitution. When the drafting of an amendment is finalized and the executive committee approves the amendment, the executive committee shall send notice of the amendment meeting to all members by US Post.

2. Quorum of this meeting to amend the constitution shall be at least 10% of the membership.

3. Ratification of the amendment must be by a two-thirds vote of this TDG.

SECTION 9: MERGING TDGs

1. The executive committee has the authority to investigate and negotiate a merger with a neighboring TDG. When the draft of the new constitution for the merged area has been finalized and approved by the executive committee, the executive committee shall send notice of the merger meeting to all members by US Post.

2. Quorum of this meeting to merge the TDGs shall be at least 10% of the membership.

3. Ratification of the merger must be by a two-thirds vote of this TDG.

4. If the other TDG also ratifies, the TDGs will be considered merged and the new constitution shall prevail over this constitution.

Summary

I know you and neighbors can put a document like this together. Nearly all writers on Medium have the necessary writing skills.

You can even copy this document and make small changes for your neighborhood.

While I don’t like making political predictions because they are too often not right, I will make one right here: If no one goes through the process of writing local TDG constitutions, we will not get the democracy we yearn for.

Someone has to start building constitutions for this new democracy. It might as well be you.

Published on Medium 2021

Amending the TDG Constitution

When I published the first version of Tiered Democratic Governance (TDG) in 2000, I really didn’t have all the pieces together. The first version had a chapter on “Consultation,” which is a process where decision makers combine their knowledge, wisdom, and experience into one voice. This chapter has remained fairly intact into the fourth version.

One critic of the first version had a good question: “How do we move from HERE to THERE?” Well, I really didn’t have an answer for that question. But after some thinking, I surmised, “I need to give these early TDGers something to do—so they can get some practice making decisions with consultation.

So I let them write their local TDG constitution. The act of putting simple legalese together is great practice for building the culture that the TDG will require in the future.

After they have their first election, they are likely to find a few bugs with their electoral process or will see ways to improve the constitution. So, amending the constitution is also a great forum to practice and enhance consultation skills.

One of the advantages of the early TDG is that the stakes are not very high. There are no life-and-death issues. The sky won’t fall in if the constitution goes this way but not that way. Early TDGers need not hang their personal identity on a specific clause. They need only make their point clear, help other members make their point clear, have some good discussion about alternatives, pros, and cons—and follow where the consensus is taking the group.

Sometimes that consensus might put in some not-so-effective clauses in the constitution. The mistake will be realized as time passes. Then the local TDG will fix it. No one need get blamed or fired. The group just did its best with the knowledge, experience, and wisdom it had at the time. Now it has a little more knowledge, experience, and wisdom.

All these skills and attitudes will become cultural in the TDG. When the TDG moves into higher complexities of governance, it will have the tools to handle these issues much better than anything produced by western democracy.

So how will a local TDG amend its constitution?

The executive committee (the people elected at the last election) will identify a constitutional issue to be fixed. This issue could be membership requirements, ballots, electoral procedures, or several other facets of TDG governance. Then the executive committee should set up a sub-committee to address the issue(s). At least one person on this committee should be a good writer. There should be two members of the executive committee present plus three or four TDG members from the general membership. When this committee has its draft ready, the entire executive committee will review their work. The executive committee might have concerns that need addressing, so the draft gets sent back to the committee. Eventually the executive committee will approve the draft amendments.

But the amendment to the constitution requires approval from the membership. So, the executive committee shall call an amendment meeting of the membership. In the communique/notice of the amendment meeting and at the amendment meeting, the executive committee shall give its reasons for the suggested amendments. Members have the right to challenge the executive committee’s work at this meeting.

Finally, there shall be a vote. Some TDG members might approve of the amendment after studying and agreeing with the proposal. Others might approve the amendments just because of their trust in the executive committee to make the right changes. Some members may not approve, and the meeting should have a mechanism for them to explain their reasons to the executive committee.

If the amendment is approved by the membership, the amendments to the constitution are ratified and in force immediately after the amendment meeting.

If an amendment does not pass, the executive committee should have learned something from the objections. It can then make adjustments, rework the amendments, and hold another amendment meeting two or three months later.

Early TDG builders should plan on at least one amendment meeting a year. These meetings bring the executive committee and TDG membership together. These meetings require a lot of consultation beforehand to get amendments approved. And these amendments make the TDG constitution a little stronger. The future looks a little brighter when the TDG moves forward.

TDG Neighborhoods & Communities

My next-door neighbor Kathleen was a social butterfly. She was great at talking to neighbors. And her outdoor discussions led to a little social circle in our neighborhood. Eight houses somehow came together as a friend unit. We socialized. We helped one another out with childcare and moving furniture. We got to meet one another’s relatives.

The commonality was our neighborhood. Yes, we were all Caucasian and social drinkers. But there were different religions, different educations, different social classes, and different ages. It was a great, fun, and somewhat diverse group to belong to.

Kathleen’s group were not totally dependent on one another. We all had other communities we belonged to which were outside our neighborhood. For example, I was in Toastmasters and in politics. I made some good friends in those places. But it was still nice to come home and know some of my neighbors cared about me.

Tiered Democratic Governance (TDG) will delineate electoral units as 200-resident neighborhoods. Kathleen’s natural TDG neighborhood would be about two city blocks. Kathleen was well known to the eight houses. She was somewhat known to most of our block. Our block probably would have voted Kathleen as its TDG neighborhood representative.

But the block next to ours was not known to Kathleen. Would she still be elected when that block’s votes came in?

It probably doesn’t matter. Kathleen would have earned enough votes to be a viable contender. If someone from the other block had more votes, I’m sure that person was also a neighborhood leader and a good candidate for the position.

If Kathleen had been elected, she would have found ways to make that second block feel included. She would have been a good TDG representative.

One common criticism of the TDG is that many neighborhoods are not communities. So, the neighbors do not know one another well enough to vote wisely, based on good character and capacity for governance. Critics would say that Kathleen’s community is not normal.

To counter this criticism, I say the TDG will not be implemented overnight. It will start with a few neighbors recognizing that our current democracy is failing, and someone has to start building a new democracy. As these neighbors are building their first TDG constitution, they are also starting to form a little stronger community. The rest of the neighborhood will likely be disinterested in their initial workings.

But these early TDG builders will be gently letting the neighborhood know of what is happening. Invitations to join will be extended. A few more neighbors will join—and learn the TDG ways.

After a few TDG elections, members and non-members will start becoming impressed with the quality of the elected representative. Most of these people will seem capable. If not, the next election will replace them. “This TDG seems to be working,” neighborhood residents might muse.

Election Day will be an opportunity for neighbors to meet and become a little more known to one another. Neighbors will be meeting with vote tellers and fellow neighbors. There might even be a coffee pot and some pastries for voters to stay around and chat for a half hour or so.

These little connections will eventually form little groups of neighbors into social and helping circles. Just like Kathleen’s group. The TDG will be teaching neighbors the benefits of being a little nicer to one another—and more accepting of our little differences.

The TDG will be a source of community building in many neighborhoods. People will start caring more for people living next to them. People will now be living in communities. Maybe improved communities will be the best legacy of the TDG.

No Political Parties

I will start this TDG lesson with a little history. Most of the founding fathers of the American Constitution had a disdain for political parties. They saw how the British Members of Parliament were voting more for the benefit of their party than for their country. The fathers wanted to do away with political parties.

Rather, the fathers wanted the American elected representatives to think independently from partisan interests. They wanted to see representatives have a good discussion and debate, followed by a vote. The representatives would either vote their conscience or for the people who elected them. The minority would then yield to the majority decision.

As we know, non-partisanship did not turn out well in American early history. There were too many overly ambitious Americans wanting to run government than there were spots to serve in government. So, these spots became very competitive. Factions started forming in George Washington’s tenure. What these factions discovered was that when similar-thinking representatives unite—giving the impression of a common front—the factions had a much better chance of being elected than independent representatives did. So, the parties took form. They matured about 1820. The USA has not looked away from parties ever since.

The new American parties force elected representatives to consider the needs of the party before the needs of country or the needs of people that elected them—just like the founding fathers had predicted.

What the founding fathers could not create was a mechanism to prevent the formation of the parties. Democracy was fairly new at that time—and maybe it was just not possible to steer democracy in a party-less way in 1789.

Tiered Democratic Governance is an alternative democracy that does away with all political parties. But if history repeats itself, then it is logical that political parties will form in the TDG as it too matures.

The TDG has some unique design features to prevent the formation of political parties.

The first feature is the granulated nature of the TDG. The first-tier electoral districts will comprise about 200 residents, who will elect one of their own as their representatives.

In my part of Canada, federal constituencies have about 100,000 voters. Provincial constituencies have about 40,000. At both levels of government, the parties set up constituency boards to manage the affairs of the party in that constituency. These boards have about 20 committed party members who meet and discuss how to win the next local elections. These boards are important for electoral success.

In the TDG, it will be difficult to find 20 party members in those 200-resident TDG neighborhoods, let alone 20 experienced party members. In other words, the party’s resources are spread quite thin with smaller electoral units. It will be impossible for the parties to organize in all these local TDGs as they do in constituencies with tens of thousands of voters.

More importantly, it will be hard for the parties to find credible candidates in most TDG neighborhoods. If the party nominates a turkey to represent it in the neighborhood election, that turkey cannot hide behind the party banner and still have a good chance of being elected in the neighborhood. Neighbors will know the candidate is a turkey.

The best way to stop the formation of political parties in the TDG is to get a handle on campaigning, which I talked about in a previous article. Campaigning, if unchecked, will lead to political factions, which then leads to political parties. This is why the early USA could not keep its non-partisan system of governance. They did not have the voting mechanisms to cast aside those overly ambitious people who craved status, influence, and power—and campaigned like crazy to achieve those ambitions. The early American democracy did not make the lower-level electoral districts small enough.

Yes, there will be some TDG members who want the job of TDG representative a little too much. So, they will campaign. But rather than having some rules about campaigning and enforcing those rules, the TDG members themselves need to be educated about the perils of campaigning. They should not vote for members who seem to be doing that. In this way, the campaigners will not be rewarded with an electoral victory.

Yes, there will be a few campaigners who still win first-tier elections. If so, the TDG’s executive committee will need to take a stronger position in educating its members about not voting for campaigners in the next election. Yes, campaigners who won the elections will still have full right to attend and participate in first-tier TDG meetings. But they should still be in a minority and will not be able to turn the higher TDG elections into campaigning contests. Expect a little democratic conflict as campaigners try to get their way. But let education, not rules, be the predominate method of keeping campaigning away from the TDG.

There is one more tool to prevent campaigning, factions, and political parties from becoming too strong. Each TDG has the informal option to unofficially dissolve itself. Assume a factional takeover of a TDG. The faction has a majority of the executive committee. Many of the TDG’s members won’t like the factionalized TDG. They can resign their membership and build another TDG, covering the same geographical area as their rival. This new TDG will still have the TDG spirit intact and better experience to thwart campaigning and factions. With the more reasonable TDGers gone, the old TDG will just become a partisan cheer section. It will not attract new members. It will lose alliances with other TDGs. This old TDG will wither and die.

But it’s best not to resort to dissolving a TDG in this way. Remember, no campaigning leads to no political parties.

It is so important for the early TDG builders to set up that right culture. That is perhaps their most important job. Their work will last for centuries.

No Campaigning

Earlier in this series, I introduced the four salient features of the TDG. I’ll just repeat them again:

1. Tiered, Indirect Elections.

2. Voting Based on Good Character & Capacity for Governance

3. A Culture of Consultation

4. An Advisory Board

While each TDG is to design itself, it must incorporate these four features into its blueprint.

There are two other features that I could have added to this list. But they are negatives features that the TDG should strive to avoid. I wanted to keep my list positive.

The first negative feature is “No Campaigning!”

When the TDG executive committees are communicating with their members, some of that communication should center around voting for good character and capacity for governance. It asks members to define these attributes for themselves and then vote for neighbors who exemplify those attributes.

In a like manner, the executive committee could also educate members about campaigning. But what is campaigning—in the TDG sense?

Campaigning is self-promotion to become elected. If a neighbor is going from door to door in his/her neighborhood asking residents to vote for him/her (or maybe someone else), that is campaigning. TDG members should be trained to immediately put their vote to someone else. Find someone who fits their criteria of good character and capacity for governance—and isn’t campaigning.

“Whoa!” you might exclaim. “How do neighbors get to know the people who want the job of neighborhood representative?”

Well, “want the job” is part of the problem. If a neighbor resorts to campaigning, he/she is bragging--and will bring that attribute into the TDG. Is bragging a virtue for our elected representatives to have?

As well, this neighbor will "want the job" so bad, he/she is likely to continue campaigning (bragging) for a higher position. Or maybe this neighbor will make deals with other ambitious TDG representatives to move themselves higher. These are people who want the job a little too much.

But let me answer the question more directly. The TDG has much smaller electoral districts, of about 200 residents. Even with this reduced amount, it is unlikely that many neighbors will know all 200. But most neighbers will know a few of their neighborhood. From that few, they can vote for the one who best exemplifies good character and capacity for governance. The neighbors will already know someone in their neighborhood who fits those two criteria without any need for campaigning.

If a neighbor gets 20 votes from other neighbors, that is a sign that this neighbor has built up trust and respect with other neighbors. There will likely be other neighbors who get a similar amount. So what this local TDG election has done, is that it has reduced the pool of potential candidates from 200 to a handful. All contenders will probably do a reasonable job of representing the TDG in their neighborhood. It is not that important which one of them is actually elected. The TDG election will find someone from “among the best.”

After the neighborhood representative is elected, he/she will have a higher profile in the community. Neighbors have a year to watch how this person performs. They can vote him/her back in. Or they can vote for someone else.

But I have digressed. The rationale for a neighbor to cast a vote should be based on what the prospect has done in the past, not what the prospect promises to do in the future. The past is proven. The future is likely to be only an empty promise "to get the job."

The main message of this article: Do not vote for neighbors who campaign in TDG elections, even if you think they are of good character and have capacity for governance. It is that simple.

The above rule works well when the campaigning is obvious. However, there might be neighbors who want to be the neighborhood representative and will take their campaigning to the edge of the TDG norms.

Look out for these kinds of neighbors: (1) neighbors who seem to be friendlier than usual a few weeks before Election Day, (2) neighbors who have signed up some new TDG members before Election Day, and (3) neighbors who seem to be hanging around the voting station on Election Day. While it’s hard to prove that these neighbors are actually in campaign mode, you might use these observations to help you decide to cast your vote to someone else.

The higher tiers will have a better understanding of how the TDG needs to work than the rank-and-file members. So when “campaigners” are elected to the lower tiers, they will find their campaign techniques won’t carry them much further. To advance, they will have to learn a new way that isn’t self-promotion. So, it’s not a big loss if a little campaigning is done at the lower levels. It might even be a good lesson.

But the higher tiers still need to educate, educate, educate TDG members about good character, capacity for governance—and no campaigning.

Too much campaigning will eventually lead to political parties. We don’t want that! It needs to be minimized, not by rules, but by culture.

The TDG Advisor Board

Have you ever been in a situation where you were sure you were right. Then someone from far away from the situation says something that shatters your right-ness? You shift your direction, and then you find you are on a better path.

Democracy often has checks and balances to prevent one aspect of political power from behaving too arbitrarily. Sometimes these are quite official such as the separation of powers of the executive, legislative, and judicial. Sometimes they are not official. For example, Canada’s backbench Members of Parliament of the governing party are a check and balance of the governing party. The prime minister and cabinet, where the real decisions are made, cannot afford to alienate the backbenchers lest they withdraw their support for the governing party.

Tiered Democratic Governance (TDG) will have an important check and balance. It is called the TDG Advisory Board.

To summarize, the main side of the TDG is the elected bodies which make most of the decisions.

The Advisory Board is the second side of the TDG. Its function is to advise or assist the elected side.

Advisors will be appointed by the elected highest tier. They will likely have had experience on the elected side. They will have earned a good reputation as TDG representatives before they were appointed.

Advisors can sit in any meeting of the elected side. They can watch and observe and make comments. They may even champion their preference on an issue. But they have no vote or veto in the final decision.

The elected side should consider seriously whatever their advisor says. But the elected side doesn’t have to take that advice. The advisor only needs to be seriously listened to. By working together, there might be a better path that neither the elected side nor the advisor had seen before.

And sometimes, elected bodies can get into a bit of a rut in their deliberations. An astute advisor will notice this trend and make sound suggestions to help the elected bodies to a higher level of thinking.

A TDG member cannot serve on both sides of the TDG. If an advisor is elected, he/she can choose between the elected position or the appointed position. If an elected member accepts an appointment to be an advisor, that member must resign the elected position. The elected side makes the decisions; the appointed side guides the elected side.

In essence, the elected TDG representatives are the decision-making body. The advisors are more guiding the processes of that decision making.

The nature of the advisors will vary from TDG to TDG. Here are the basic functions of the advisors:

1. A source of outside, sound, second thought for the elected body’s deliberations.

2. A coach for reaching consultative decisions.

3. A coach for teaching citizens about the TDG.

4. A source of news about other parts of the TDG.

5. Overseers of elections.

6. A second conduit for non-elected citizens to address the elected side.

With no vote and no veto, advisors seem to have no power in the TDG. Yet they still have a lot of positive influence. “Positive” is a unique check and balance.

Consultation

One of the great lessons of becoming older is that one starts to understand a younger self. I see the 20-year-old Dave Volek, so full of energy, ideas, ambition, education, and strength. The world was his for the taking. I also see someone who made a lot of mistakes. He mismanaged his engineering career, despite a few good opportunities to advance it. His first business failed. His second business failed.

As my life moved on, it gave me more knowledge, experience, and wisdom I did not have before. I was starting to see the mistakes of my 20s and 30s. Why could I not have seen those mistakes as I was making them?

There is an axiom I heard many years ago that goes something like this:

“One makes mistakes if one does not have experience, and one gets experience by making mistakes.”

While this axiom has a lot of truth to it, we should ask ourselves: “Is there a way we could get experience by not making so many mistakes?”

Tiered Democratic Governance (TDG) is my alternative democracy that I have been working on for 24 years. If you take a quick look at the TDG, you will see a new and interesting electoral structure. If you were to say something like: “This electoral structure looks nice, but eventually it will become corrupted like our current democracy,” I would agree with you. The electoral structure itself is not enough to bring about the changes we are yearning for. This TDG needs new humanistic features.

The most important humanistic feature is “consultation.” Consultation is a process of collaborative decision making where we expect, accept, and welcome that other people around us have knowledge, experience, and wisdom we do not have. As we add that outside knowledge, experience, and wisdom to our own knowledge, experience, and wisdom, we should be utilizing a higher level of knowledge, experience, and wisdom—in the same way the 25-year-old Dave could have used the 62-year-old Dave to make better decisions when he was 25.

The combining of the knowledge, experience, and wisdom from others leads to different and better decisions than had we been thinking and working independently. In other words, I am gaining knowledge, experience, and wisdom just by talking and listening to other people. I need not make all those mistakes to learn important lessons.

In essence, I—and the other decision makers—won’t be making as many mistakes when we engage in TDG consultation.

Let’s contrast that TDG consultation with western democracy. In our current system, we have too many people who believe that they already have the right answer. They have no need to listen to other perspectives. Their task is to ally with similar thinkers and work the democratic system to implement their version of how the world should work. So, should we not be surprised that after the battle of competing strong wills, the winner of the conflict really has not enhanced his/her solution beyond what he/she had originally envisioned. He/she has only won the contest of democracy.

I have had quite a few life experiences where consultation was used. Not only was the final decision something everyone could agree to, it was also beyond the vision of any individual at the decision-making table. The process also brought a great sensation that the team, not individuals, put the solution together.

I will be the first to admit that consultation is not easy. I still fall too easily into individualistic thinking where I am right and they are wrong. Too often, I have to deliberately pull myself into a more consultative mindset. But for this TDG to work, we MUST make consultation a cultural trait, something that comes almost automatically.

The early days of the TDG will be mostly about governing itself. It will be asking things like:

How many executive committee members should we have?

When should we hold the election?

What are the boundaries of the neighborhoods to elect representatives?

These and maybe another 50 self-governing issues will need to be addressed and resolved. Yes, they sound trivial and unimportant and boring. But as the early TDG builders will assemble their TDG, they will be practicing their consultation skills. Consider this possible dialogue:

Bob: Next, we need to consider how many members are to be elected to the executive committee.

Fran: I think four. That should be enough.

Diane: Why?

Fran: Smaller government is better government.

Diane: But what does our TDG really need?

Marvin: Four might be enough. But what if one person can’t make the meeting?

Fran: Maybe five would be more appropriate. That means at least four should be there for each meeting. Four should be sufficient voices to discuss things and make a good decision.

In the big picture, it probably does not matter whether this local TDG has four, five, or six members on its first executive committee. But these are the kinds of discussions that provide the forum for the early TDG builders to practice consultative decision making—and make it part of their culture. Everyone brings in their initial viewpoint; everyone listens to other viewpoints; knowledge, experience, and wisdom is exchanged; eventually a consensual decision is reached. Then they try the decision out to see how well it works. Isn’t making early TDG decisions such great training?

The best part is that the stakes in building the early TDG are not that high. So nothing can be construed as a “life-or-death” issue, such that “it has to be this way or else.” Learning to yield to consensus will be a useful attribute to acquire.

Have a good discussion about each of those “trivial” features of the local TDG. Talk about alternatives. Express the pros and cons. Reach a decision. Then implement it. Let the decision run for some time and evaluate. Make changes if need be. If you still think something is wrong with the consensual decision, have confidence that it will be fixed later.

In the early TDG, consultation practice in these simple matters will mean be gaining experience for the more complex matters that will come later. Today’s early builders may be tomorrow’s serious builders. Or maybe the early builders of today will be teaching consultation to the serious builders of tomorrow. In essence, TDG is building that culture of consultation before it really needs it.

Now I’m going to give my readers a little challenge. I am asking, “How consultative are you?”

I bet most of you believe you already have a good consultative attitude. But really?

In Chapter 4 of my TDG book, I give a lot more detail of how to combine knowledge, experience, and wisdom from several people into one consultative decision. It will take you about a half hour to read this chapter to learn some new insights into collaborative decision making. Will you investigate Chapter 4 to gain some new insights into consultation?

What would a truly consultative person do?

Published on Medium 2021

Four Salient Features of the TDG

Fight, Fight, and Fight Some More

2024 Addendum

I published an online workshop on how our families, communities, and workplaces can reach consultative decision. The workshop is about 110 minutes long, but it can be taken at a time and place convenient to you. For sure, you will learn new things to improve your interactions with other people in your life. And the workshop is free.

https://www.tiereddemocraticgovernance.org/education.php

Voting for Capacity for Governance

When we vote in a western democracy, we have our reasons to cast a vote. Some of us vote on tradition, casting our vote for the same political party in the same way we have in the past. Some of us vote for the charisma of the party leader, even if we cannot elect him or her directly. A few of us vote on the quality of the candidates on the ballot. Some of us cast our vote for the party that seems to be willing to deliver the most goodies for people like us. And some of us are affected by the quality of the ground teams and negative advertising.

In Voting for Good Character, I stated that the TDG should educate its members to vote on this criterion. But it should also let each member decide what constitutes “good character.” As these members mature in their voting decisions, they will be casting their votes differently—and more wisely.

In a like manner, voting for “capacity for governance” is a mantra the early TDG builders should instill in its members. But, similarly to “good character,” the TDG members will define what “capacity” means to them.

For example, I would put “friendliness” high on my list of capacity for governance for my neighborhood representative. I would vote for a neighbor who I find approachable to discuss all sorts of things. My belief is that such a neighborhood representative will help turn my neighborhood into a more vibrant community. And with a more vibrant community, we will improve our local governance.

But this is just me. I would encourage all TDG members to determine what constitutes “capacity for governance” in their ideal representative. Then search out the neighbor that best exemplifies this characteristic.

All TDG members are eligible for TDG elections at the neighborhood level. There is no nomination process to get a short list of candidates to print names on a ballot. Voters write in the name of their preferred neighbor by secret blank ballot.

The TDG representative will be a volunteer position, probably taking about 20 hours a month. This means going to meetings at the district level plus conversing with neighbors about the TDG. Obviously, the representatives will need to do some time-and-life management to attend these meetings. Some people may find this easy. Other people have family and occupation constraints on their time.

For me, I would not put much emphasis on these constraints if I really wanted a certain neighbor as my representative. Give that person the job for the year and see how they adjust their time to attend TDG events. If they can’t, then I would vote for someone else next year.

I probably wouldn’t vote for someone with a serious health challenge. Even if my neighborhood representative has been a capable incumbent for several years, I would not vote for him/her. That person needs the rest; and a healthy person should take on the task. But you might think differently, and that would be your right.

If I was elected to the higher tiers, I would cast my vote toward the higher-tier representative who best knows how to reach consultative decisions. I would be looking for the person who asks other people for their perspectives—and to clarify those perspectives. Such a person is helping all of us to see the bigger picture. If someone demonstrates these skills to me, I will vote for that person to move him/her higher.

Notice that I had a different criterion for a neighborhood representative than I did for a higher-tier representative. That is OK. I defined my criterion for each election. Then I sought out the best person to fit that criterion. I will likely change my criterion with time and experience—and as the TDG matures.

Imagine that a local TDG has been set up in your neighborhood. You have been instructed to vote for good character and capacity for governance. Rather than just selecting the first neighbor that comes to mind, determine what constitutes your values of good character. Then determine what constitutes your values of capacity for governance. When you have established your criteria, then find which of your neighbors best exemplifies that criteria.

Just imagine hundreds, then thousands, of TDG members going through this voting process, finding the representatives at the local level. Then imagine these great people going through a similar process to find people for the intermediate tiers. What kind of representatives will we find at the higher tiers?

Published on Medium 2021