The TDG Neighborhood Representative

Breaking the link for corruption

A few critics have dismissed the TDG concept because corrupt, inept, ambitious people will always find a way into the high echelons of democracy — and somehow rule over us. So there is no reason to look at a new democracy.

I have responded with: “Then why should we invest political time and energy into somehow rooting out these individuals because — if we are successful — new corrupt, inept, ambitious people will replace them?

No one has yet tried to answer this question.

Anyways, I will now take this article from bashing the current system to building a new system. I like building better than bashing. What about you?

TDG is the acronym for “Tiered Democratic Governance,” the system I invented back in 1992. In that year, I was in my sixth year of being an active volunteer in a Canadian political party. I quit because I realized that politics was inherently dysfunctional — and there was nothing I could do to change that. Somehow, my ponderings led to the TDG.

In short, the TDG has these features: no political parties, voting based on good character and capacity for governance, a consultative decision-making process, and an advisory board as a positive check-and-balance. The TDG website has more details, so I shall move on to the topic of this essay, focusing on the neighborhood TDG representative.

In the link below, I describe a hypothetical city of 100,000 residents with their possible TDG structure:

A Glimpse of Our Future Democracy

This TDG will have 500 representatives at the lowest tier, each representing their own neighborhood.

The TDG critics have been quick to say that society cannot afford this many representatives. Let me reassure readers that each neighborhood representative (NR) will not be earning a six-figure salary and commanding an office of four political staffers. Rather the neighborhood representative (NR) will be mostly a volunteer position and will require about 20 hours a month to serve well in this position. The NRs will have to keep their current jobs to pay their living expenses.

The NR’s work will be mostly chatting with neighbors in informal social situations in the neighborhood. With such chats, the NR will be conveying concerns of the neighborhood to the higher TDG tiers and conveying the happenings of the higher tiers to the neighborhood. Most neighbors will know the NR, who will be available for discussions related to governance. The TDG is a more organic system of governance.

The position of NR will not be regarded highly. Not paid well. Not much status. Not much influence. Not much power. People who do a great job at being an NR will be doing so mostly to serve their community. But not having a switch to effect big decisions, the NRs will not be tempted into corruption. So the NRs will not be thinking in a corrupt way. They can approach their 20 hours a month without the cloud of corruption affecting their judgement.

And if an NR does get involved in corruption — or is perceived to have done so, the annual TDG should fix this problem. Some citizens will enjoy their role as a long-serving NR — and will not jeopardize their position to lose the next election.

The culture of the TDG will teach the neighbors how to vote in a TDG way. Before each annual election, the TDG will remind voters to vote for “good character” and “capacity for governance.” Most voters will define these terms for themselves — and vote for the neighbor who best exemplifies those traits. With most voters voting in this way, the neighborhood is likely to find someone of character and capacity. If not, the next annual election will allow the neighborhood to replace an ineffective representative with another neighbor.

The reason why this will work so well is that TDG neighborhoods will be limited to about 200 residents. In most neighborhoods, neighbors are unlikely to know all 200 neighbors. But if a neighbor is chatting with 15 neighbors, there is probably one of them with enough character and capacity to be worthy of the vote.

Some NRs will get 100 or more votes from their neighbors. Other NRs might gain their position with only 20 votes. But even getting 20 votes is a sign of credibility. Many of today’s elected politicians could not get 20 votes in their own neighborhood.

Along with the education about voting for character and capacity, there should be education about not voting for campaigning. Rather votes should be cast to previous service to the community, not on promises for the future. Again, enough voters will take this advice into consideration such that campaigners will not get enough votes to win TDG elections. More will be said in the next section.

With only 200 neighbors to serve, most NRs should be able to fit their NR duties within their 20 hours a month.

Dave, But What About Political Parties?

The political parties will be against the TDG. They will provide many reasons why political parties are the only way to govern. They will not go away easily.

In my six political years, I served on several political constituency boards. Each board had about 25 party members who had shown a certain dedication to the party. These meetings were well attended. While we mostly discussed the next election, the meetings were a great place to network with movers and shakers of society.

The boards met monthly. But when the internal party election and general election came around, meetings were more frequent.

These 25 party members “represented” 40,000 residents provincially and 100,000 federally.

If my 40,000-voter provincial constituency breaks up into a TDG, there will be about 200 TDG elections — each year. There is no way a 25-member board can manage party affairs for that many elections. While some workarounds can be developed, the party will need many more party members to manage these TDG elections. At least 100. My experience is the parties will not be able to find enough capable people willing to serve in this way.

I have already alluded to “no campaigning.” This is another hindrance against the political parties. If a party is promoting a slate of 200 party members in all these TDG elections, they will shout slogans like “the best” or “better than the independents.” If many TDG voters have adopted the no campaign culture of the TDG, they will not vote for a neighbor with a party affiliation — even if that neighbor has good character and capacity for governance.

Here’s one more TDG feature to discourage the formation of political parties. All TDG constitutions must specify that the NR must live in the neighborhood. It will be difficult for the parties to find credible party candidates in most of the 200 neighborhoods. We should assume that the parties will select turkeys to represent the party at the TDG neighborhoods — because today’s parties are already selecting turkeys to represent the party in the much bigger electoral districts. But local turkeys can’t hide behind party banners. The neighbors will know the turkey is a turkey — and vote for someone else.

It will be difficult for political parties to integrate themselves into the TDG.

BTW, Chapter 6 of the TDG book explains how we move from western democracy to the TDG. The political parties will eventually comply.

Duties of the Neighborhood Representative

I have alluded the main task of the NR is to chat with neighbors. These informal social interactions keep the connection between the people and the government active and organic. If the NR is not chatting, the neighborhood should elect someone else. Elections are annual. NRs will be held accountable each year — for being friendly and listening to neighbors.

I recommend that NRs hold one or two town hall meetings a year. Maybe several neighborhoods can share this meeting. Start the meeting with administration and communications topics. Hold a Q & A session. Later have a social gathering. Let’s turn neighborhoods into better communities, with neighbors getting to know each other a little better.

If an NR finds a few neighbors have the same concerns, the NR should bring that finding to the district tier. Maybe other NRs are observing the same trend. In this way, the political concern is dealt with early, rather than waiting for a pressure point to explode.

I recommend that NRs fill out well designed surveys to get the pulse of the people. These surveys will be more useful to the City Council than today’s polling or supposedly inclusive surveys.

Polling in the TDG

Neighborhoods will be gathered into districts. In my Glimpse article, I have set up 60 districts with about eight neighborhoods each. Each district should meet once a month. Attending these meetings is part of the NR’s job.

The City Council should assign some budget for these districts to spend as the district decides. These decisions can be small civic repairs or donations to local agencies. These decisions will provide practice with TDG governance for the lower tiers. If an NR becomes the district representative, in the TDG, he/she has already had some training to participate well in that higher tier.

With the culture of consultation at the district level, neighborhood representatives will get more exposure to this collaborative way. They can take that TDG experience to their workplaces, communities, and families. In essence, the TDG will be teaching society-at-large to collaborate.

As the NRs are working together, they will be getting to know each other better. Each NR should be assessing the good character and capacity for governance of the other NRs. Later, they will vote for one of them to represent the district.

The NR can help their neighbors who are dealing with the civil service. Knowledge of various programs and bylaws, how to apply, finding appropriate expertise, and challenging the civil service decisions can be part of an NR’s service. And because TDG elections will be by secret ballot, the NR never knows where a helped neighbor casts his/her vote. The NR will be guided mostly by service, not by an exchange of favors.

Learning Civics by Experience

With electoral districts of 40,000 or 100,000 residents, few citizens will ever have the opportunity to serve in government. And that opportunity requires first navigating through a competitive political party landscape — and then being accountable to that party. Most people will avoid that competition and its future loyalty.

The TDG electoral districts of 200 residents will break this relationship. Many more residents will serve in TDG governance. Some will serve for a long time; some for a short time; some will rise higher; some will stay at the neighborhood tier. Some will move into the advisory board. Regardless how a citizen spends his/her time in TDG governance, they will develop a deeper understanding of how TDG governance works. And having more experienced people outside of the current TDG governance will improve the functioning of that governance.

In other words, TDG civics will be taught more by collective experience than by lofty theories.

Conclusion

The large electoral districts of western democracies are often cited as a cost-saving for government. However, these large districts work better for the political parties than for the people.

The granulation of TDG electoral districts will change the relationship between the governors and the governed. Like the fungi in our soils, citizens will be more connected to their political leaders with more organic ways.

More citizens will be called into TDG governance and get important experience in this new way. Many of these citizens would have never been called by western democracy.

The position of neighborhood representative is not a position of status, influence, and power. Yet many NRs will enjoy this volunteer work and regard it warmly as their service to their community. Serving as an NR in the TDG will be a productive use of many citizens’ free time.

The NR is a position that will not generate opportunities for corruption. Therefore the NRs can deliberate at the district tier without corruption clouding their judgement. With corruption being rooted out of the neighborhood tier — which will affect how the higher tiers operate.

The political parties will not be able to take over the neighborhood TDG elections.

It is time for the TDG way, is it not?

Polling in the TDG

Asking better questions in a better system to make better decisions

My hometown, Brooks, Alberta, puts out an annual survey for citizens to give their opinions to City Hall. Somehow the decision makers use this information to make better decisions.

From my perspective, these surveys have two basic questionnaire styles. The first style asks relevant questions. It takes me 30 to 60 minutes to answer. I happily fill it out, for I believe my insights will be useful. I do not consider this time as an excessive sacrifice to let city councillors know my thoughts and concerns.

But I am well educated. English is my first language. And I have an above average understanding in civic affairs.

Brooks is more blue-collar than white-collar. Oilfields and agriculture have been its economic engines. A beef packing plant employs 2,500 people in this city of 15,000. Many of its employees are immigrants, with lower English abilities and lower education. Many are struggling just to survive in Canada. And much of Brooks Caucasian population have other life priorities than local governance.

These two blue collar demographics are likely not to show much interest in the surveys I like to fill out. So turnout is low for these advanced surveys. These survey results are not representative of Brooks citizens.

So to get more response in the next year, the city offers its second style of survey: simplified — a lot. The last survey had only three questions. One question listed the 15 or so departments (like policing, street repair, community center, etc.). The question asked was: “What department should have its budget cut?”

I had no idea on how to answer that question. I kind of doubt the two blue-collar demographics would either. But it was quick to fill out, and I gave my best guess.

I have no idea how City Council would respond if 40% of survey takers said to cut the snow removal budget. If City Council followed that “advice,” it would be berated in the next big snowstorm.

Such a pointless survey — even if more people are filling it out.

But Polling Should be Useful

I have struggled with pollsters ever since I became “politically interested” about 40 years ago. I have written about my frustration.

Are Polls Believable?

In case you don’t read this article, the main arc is my aunt who had strong opinions on most things. She was a TV addict; she was not a community-minded citizen; she was not a social person; she never voted in her life. For several years, pollsters interviewed her because she was so easy to talk to.

In a sub-arc, I also talk about my refusal to spend time with phone pollsters and answer their silly questions. Many political junkies would be aghast that I so easily dismiss polls and surveys. How could I reject an opportunity to be a sample of our population that can shape society? And I might be passing my opportunity to someone who is not in my demographic — which then distorts the findings of the poll and survey.

In theory, polls and surveys should provide useful information for politicians and decision makers. And maybe that is why we still conduct polls and surveys. In practice, I have my doubts the pollsters can find a reliable sample that represents the population.

I have a way to make polls and surveys more reliable, credible, informative, and efficient.

But first we need to build a new democracy.

Polling in Tiered Democratic Governance (TDG)

The TDG is my main reason for being on Medium and other internet forums. The main features of the TDG are 1) No political parties, 2) voting based on good character and capacity for governance, 3) decisions are made by consultative process, 4) the elected bodies are guided by an advisory board.

Let’s assume the TDG is built. This is how I envision polling will work in this system.

I will use my hypothetical TDG city as my example.

A Glimpse of Our Future Democracy

This city has 100,000 citizens. It has 500 neighborhoods, and each neighbor elects its own first-tier representative.

I say: “Let these 500 representatives fill out the survey!”

Here are the advantages:

The neighborhood representatives have been selected by their neighbors. Many will take that responsibility seriously and give voice to their neighborhood.

Most of the 500 representatives will be community-minded citizens. They will have the pulse of their neighborhood. They will not be avid TV watchers or pollster pets, like my aunt.

The surveys can be designed to get the opinions of the neighborhood representatives or to get the representative’s take on the opinions in his/her community. Maybe the neighborhood representative can do a little polling in his/her neighborhood. We will learn better survey techniques using neighborhood representatives.

Giving the survey only to neighborhood representatives saves the expense and frustration of trying to promote the survey to the general public.

The 500 representatives come from all parts of the city. The 500 neighborhood representatives will represent all sorts of demographics.

Five hundred voices should be enough to tell the Council what the citizens are thinking.

Surveys can be conducted once a month.

The same question(s) can be asked a few months later. Trends will be observed.

Professional sociologists will design the surveys to obtain and collate the information the Council is looking for.

The survey writers can also assume a higher ability to fill out a more complex survey.

With continual practice, the neighborhood representatives will get better at filling out these surveys.

The results of the surveys will be frequently cited in district and Council meetings.

When necessary, the TDG advisory board will be reminding the elected bodies of the survey results.

The Council may or may not take recommendations of the survey. But it will gain more perspectives which lead to better decisions.

Conclusion

The 500 neighborhood representatives earned their legitimacy from their neighbors. They will be a trustworthy, efficient, and credible source to fill out these surveys.

The representatives at the District and Council tiers will find the survey results useful to guide their deliberations, especially if the surveys are monthly.

TDG Leaders Making TDG Decisions

Last August, Dylan Combellick’s daily update on the Ukraine/Russian war went on a different path. The latter portions of Dylan’s article were critical of critics of the Ukraine Army. I’ll just bring back one paragraph:

Armchair generals and eternally angry Lvivites [citizens of Lviv, Ukraine] don’t have the information that Syrskyi [Ukraine’s top general] and his team have. The generals know better than any of us what is happening. They are human and make mistakes, but they are more knowledgeable than we are, more experienced than we are, and feel the weight of command far more heavily than we do. Do you doubt that they would love to put air defences at every training base to protect the soldiers there? Sure. Does Ukraine have unlimited air defence resources? No.

When reading that article, I could not help but think: “That’s the kind of attitude that future citizens around the world should have of their future TDG (tiered democratic governance) governors.” They will not be too critical of the decisions coming from the TDG — just because TDG leaders are capable people making good decisions (most of the time). Following politics will not be a serious activity.

Here is the link to Dylan’s entire article.
The above link is not likely to work if you are not a Medium member.

Western Democracy

While Dylan gives the Ukrainian military leaders the benefit of the doubt, his writing is very critical of the American political leadership. He often cites geopolitical mistakes made by Obama, Trump 1.0, Biden, and Trump 2.0. He gives no benefit of doubt for these leaders.

It seems he was right: the Russia’s plans always were to reconquer Ukraine. Appeasement was never going to work.

So there is a paradox here. Why do some leaders deserve extreme scrutiny and criticism and other leaders get a free pass? Who decides who gets the free pass? And who decides who decides?

Why should future citizens under a TDG give their political leaders the benefit of their doubt?

A Glimpse of Our Future Democracy

Here is how a hypothetical city of 100,000 people would build a TDG structure.

If you don’t want to read this “schematic” article, I shall summarize the three TDG tiers of this city:

1) The 100,000 citizens will elect 500 neighborhood representatives. Each representative lives in the neighborhood they were elected in.

2) The 500 neighborhood representatives elect the 60 district representatives.

3) The 60 district representatives elect the 10-member Council. The Council makes the big decisions.

In most municipalities today, the citizens directly elect the members for the council. In contrast, the TDG has indirect elections. Why is that?

Inspiration for the TDG

In my last days of being an active member in a political party, I realized that we voters know very little about the people on the ballot. Not many of us have ever had to work face-to-face with even one of the names on the ballot to see how they approach life, people, meetings, ethics, and accomplishment.

In essence, we are voting for: 1) stated ideology, 2) self-interest, 3) promises made, 4) tradition, 5) charisma of the party leader, and/or 6) ability to put together a noisy campaign. These are not wise ways to cast a vote, are they?

I spent a couple of weeks pondering about this serious flaw in western democracy. Ponder, ponder, ponder.

Then, while out on a walk, I got the inspiration for the TDG. Somehow, I concluded that we needed to reduce the size of electoral districts to about 200 residents. In other words, a neighborhood.

These neighborhoods would allow neighbors to get to know each other. With this knowledge, they would be more likely to vote for a neighbor of good character and capacity for governance to represent the neighborhood. The TDG neighborhood elections would be a better filter to find quality in politicians than whatever filter western democracy has.

As the neighborhood representatives are working on district issues, they would be assessing each other for good character and capacity for governance. As they get to know each other, the more able of these representatives would be elected to be the district representative.

And then the district representatives would elect the Council in the same way.

Council members will have passed three important tests to be a Council member: the neighborhood election, the district election, and the Council election. In each tier, they were voted for by people who knew them reasonably well.

Legitimacy of Representatives

Let’s imagine the 10-member Council. Each member knows all Council members got to the Council by the same path: the elections at the neighborhood, district, and Council. They all earned the right to be in Council because they had proven competence and trustworthiness. They should not assume that some Council members got this position by nefarious means so common in western democracy.

So, rather than being suspicious of their colleagues, each Council member can assume the other members are worthy of working together. This creates a level of cooperation so they can start working on the issues that face society.

In western democracy, elected representatives often spend more time manipulating and degrading each other than solving actual problems.

If a turkey gets elected at the neighborhood or district level, the turkey traits will become better known as the turkey assumes a public profile. The next annual TDG election will most likely find someone else to serve, thus solving the turkey problem without much drama.

There will be very few turkeys finding their way to the third tier: the Council. Even if a turkey shows up there, the other nine members should have the skills to work around the turkey. But they might have to wait for the next election to see the turkey no longer serving on the Council.

A Culture of Consultation

The TDG will develop a culture of consultation. In essence, consultation is combining the knowledge, experience, and wisdom of all the participants into reaching one decision.

This might seem too utopic to many readers, but the early TDG builders will be deliberately and consciously be building this culture. But the time this hypothetical city has its TDG Council, the culture of consultation will be well in place. Consultation will be the normal way to work through issues.

With this assurance, citizens will know that all decisions are based on a lot of frank discussion — with some very capable people to work through that discussion. Alternatives are considered; pros and cons of each alternative are evaluated. As the discussion moves forward, a decision will materialize. Almost by magic. If the magic does not happen, most, if not all, of the Council members will approve.

And if the decision does not work out, the Council will change that decision. It is not bound by ideology, fear of election loss, or ancient legislative processes.

Perhaps a good example of a consultative culture is the Ukrainian Army. Dylan and other writers of this war praise the adaptiveness of the army (and Ukrainian economy) to change tactics while working with limited resources. I would say that there is already a high degree of consultation happening in this army. General Syrskyi has set up this culture to allow local leaders find their own innovative solutions. And lessons learned on one part of the front give those experiences to other parts.

I suspect many front-line Ukrainian soldiers believe General Syrskyi is more of a dictator than a collaborator, hence the criticism. However, many of us in less stressful occupations cannot tell the difference between decisions made by consultation and decisions made by power or democracy. I have a consultation workshop that helps learners see these differences. When we understand what consultation truly is, then we can work to make it better . . .

. . . instead of complaining.

Avenues of Organic Complaint

The Council in this hypothetical TDG might be seemingly given god-like powers, with only the input of the 10 Council members. However, there will be connections to ensure the Council is not making decision on its own.

The Council will be connected to the 60 district representatives. There will be much communication between these two tiers. And the district tier will be communicating with neighborhood representatives. And the representatives will be communicating with their neighbors. As well, the TDG Advisory Board will be giving a different perspective to the Council. There will be much discussion before any big decision is reached in the TDG.

The average citizen has two avenues of complaint. First, he/she can approach the neighborhood representative who does not live too far away. If the representative gets a few complaints like this, he/she will take it to the district level. If other neighborhood representatives have similar complaints, the issue should rise to the Council. Second, the citizen can approach the advisor assigned to the neighborhood. Again, if enough people are complaining to the advisory board, it will force the elected side of the TDG to deal with the issue.

The media will be different in the TDG. Maybe more like the Walter Cronkite philosophy, where the media provides the facts and the media consumers make up their own mind. The media will assist in helping the public finding a better understanding, which then filters up to the Council. No, the Council won’t need to control the media. Nor should it want to.

Here is my most recent article on Financing the New Media

An Example of a Controversial Issue

Let’s assume the TDG Council has appointed Adam Indychka as chief of police. High profile positions are likely to generate a few complaints. But these complaints seem to be growing.

Rather than wait for the situation to get critical, the Council could conduct a little investigation into the workings of Chief Indychka. It can interview the complainants, members of the police force, and other government departments. Within a few hours, the Council can determine whether there is a problem worthy of a deeper investigation. If the deeper investigation reveals some serious concerns, the Council can help Chief Indychka with some constructive criticism or messaging. If the temperature comes down, Chief Indychka can keep his job.

This is a proactive way to deal with small problems before they become big problems. By not having so many big problems (and re-election considerations), the Council has more time to deal with other issues.

The 10-member Council has a much bigger picture than 1000 complainers of Chief Indychka’s performance. So the Council should be the final arbitrator. Yet the 1000 complainers had an important role to make this work. Most of them will accept the Council’s handling of this matter, knowing that their complaints somehow had a hand in the final resolution, which could conclude that the police force is working well under Chief Indychka’s leadership.

But sometimes a police chief needs to be fired. The Council will have tried all it can before this action is taken.

Conclusion

For western democracy to work well, many citizens are required to be vigilant with the political world around them. Some politicians are inept; others are corrupt; others are trying to force their rigid agenda on everyone else. If these politicians are not watched, they will take their society in a bad direction.

With the TDG, a lot of this vigilance can go away. Citizens have confidence that their leaders are competent, trustworthy, and open-minded. The structure and culture of the TDG takes care of that, almost as if governing is on auto-pilot. The citizens can put that time and energy to other societal endeavors, like maybe volunteering at local NGOs. But it all starts with citizens voting for good character and capacity for governance at the neighborhood elections.

Let me summarize:

1. The TDG elects capable people.

2. Both elected representatives and the citizenry regard the elected representatives as legitimate, allowing cooperation instead of fighting for the higher political chairs.

3. There will be a culture of consultation, which opens up the discussion, leading to better decisions.

4. The organic connections in the TDG allow citizens to make their concern(s) known to the elected representatives. The higher tiers are not disconnected from citizens.

In these politically turbulent times, we should be looking at different ways. Right?
Thanks

Thanks to Dylan for the inspiration for this article. I’ve been wanting to write this article for a long time but could not find the right beginning.

And thanks to Dylan for his almost daily reports on the Ukraine-Russia war. For the past four years, Dylan has somehow mastered researching for these daily articles to weave a consistent story line. A fabricated story line would be difficult to maintain.

The Early TDG Builders

The recent PBS documentary The American Revolution spent some time in the life of the Continental soldiers. This was not an easy task. Armies moved mostly by walking. They faced adverse weather and terrain. Rations were poor. Clothing was poor. Weaponry was poor. Then there were the usual battles with all their gory aftermath. Yet if these soldiers had not accepted this challenge, American history would be much different. Strange that the founding fathers deemed these men not worthy of the vote.

I have been promoting Tiered Democratic Governance (TDG) for almost seven years on Medium. For the lukewarm fans I have encountered, I get a sense that: “You have some great ideas, Dave. But call us when you get this democracy built. We will join you then.”

Building the TDG is much easier than being a Continental soldier.

And you need not be a young or strong person to be an early TDG builder.

Starting off

The early TDG builders need not have much experience in governance to start building the TDG. Just a desire to build something new — and better — and learn some new skills for this future democracy.

In brief, this new democracy has no political parties, elects people of good character and capacity for governance, and employs consultative decision-making techniques.

I have written an essay about the six steps to start this new democracy.

In brief, the early builders can learn about these new skills by reading my books and blog. And they can read for free from my website.

This current essay will take those initial six steps into putting those skills into practice.

So let’s assume that you found three or more neighbors to work with you on this new democracy. Here is what you do next.

Writing the Local TDG Constitution

Set your living room for the meeting. Plan to meet one evening every two weeks. Set about 90 minutes for these meetings.

Download and print the sample constitution of Riverbend USA. Some early TDGs will plagiarize the template, changing only a few parts to fit their neighborhood. Other early TDG builders will use the sample constitution as a guide — and rewrite the 50 or so clauses after serious discussion, using mostly their own words. And others will build something totally different. And that is OK as long as they follow the four salient features of TDG governance.

Designate one person as the writer. The writer will gather the thoughts of the meeting — and put the words on paper. The writer will submit a draft by email. Two weeks between meetings should be enough time for the writer to prepare and send the draft. I recommend an email discussion before the next meeting.

If you are a Medium writer, you have the skills for this constitutional writing. If you have some college training, you have the skills for this writing.

The template is good example of the style of wording. You can adapt to this quasi-legal style.

Remember that this constitution is about your local TDG governance. You need not get into any discussion about the Supreme Court or a Senate or how the police arrest a citizen. Those details will come later in the TDG’s evolution. Just think local for now, getting the rules to define membership, electing the executive committee, and setting some boundaries for that committee. The 50 or so clauses around local TDG governance will be a sufficient challenge for these first months.

While the constitution is important in itself, the more important purpose is to build your group’s consultation skills. So writing the TDG constitution becomes the forum to practice and enhance consultation skills for TDG governance.

Unlike so many other political issues, you and your fellow builders should not be hung up on any of the constitutional clauses as a being life-or-death or the-sky-is-falling. There won’t be fistfights about whether the annual election is in the spring or fall. You won’t threaten a my-way-or-the-highway to get your recommendation of a 60% supermajority implemented. The clauses in the TDG constitution should not generate that kind of passion.

Rather that passion will go into acquiring the skills for TDG governance. Have a good discussion about each clause. Everyone gives their opinion. See where it goes. Here are my guidelines:

1) If consensus is attained, great. You can move forward.

2) If not, can the minority give consent to try out the majority’s direction?

3) If consent is not given, let some reflection time transpire to see if minds will change. Move to the next clause to allow for reflection for the current clause.

Let me explain “reflection” with this example. Your group has been finding consensus on Clauses #1 to #6. Just when you think you have acquired this new consultative culture, Abigail puts up resistance on Clause #7. Three of you want to go a certain way; Abigail wants to go another way. There does not seem to be any meeting of the minds.

Have some civil discussion around Clause #7. When the discussion seems to be going around in circles, maybe it’s time to postpone #7 for further reflection. The writer can draft both positions. Move onto Clause #8.

And maybe after reflection, a new solution might come forth that addresses the concerns of Abigail. No one saw this solution during the previous discussion. Consultation is often magical when you let it work.

4) If minds are not changed after reflection, then have a vote. A majority vote will provide the decision. Please realize that neither the majority nor the minority have any special powers to know how a decision will turn out. In some cases, your group will need to try some new things out and see how they work. If they don’t work out, have confidence you will fix things.

I estimate it will take you about six months to get your TDG Constitution ready. Take your time for you are also building a culture. That culture will be passed down to future TDG workers.

Ratify your constitution

You will know when the constitution has reached its final draft. It is time to try out this TDG governance idea out. It is time to officially ratify the document as your local TDG’s charter.

“Official” is perhaps not the word we should use. At this point, the TDG has no legal standing. But have a formal gathering anyways, a little vote from the builders, and a celebration. It is important to acknowledge the work that went into this document. Now the rules are in place to hold your first election.

The group that put this document together should be its first members. Do not look to increasing members after the ratification and before the first election. Remember, the TDG is about the members knowing something about the people they are voting for. Working together on the constitution is a great test of how people will approach the next stage of TDG affairs.

After ratification, some TDG builders will reflect on the last six months. They might see this ratification as a sign that the TDG is no longer some theoretical concept. Ordinary people can indeed build this new democracy.

Hold your first election

However the rules were constructed, they should be followed. Make sure all the props (i.e. voters’ list, paper ballots, ballot boxes, etc.) are there to conduct a legitimate election.

Hopefully, the early builders are holding to the “no campaigning” culture the TDG requires. If you think a TDG builder seems to be campaigning, there is no need to mention it. Just vote for someone else.

When the voting is done, count the ballots as per the rules. Determine those members who will constitute the first executive committee.

Preparing oneself for the electoral result

I have prepared a 2x2 paradigm for this first election. All builders should mentally prepare themselves for the results of that election before the election.

IMAGE WOULD NOT LOAD ON THIS FORUM. ORIGINAL ARTICLE IS HERE:
https://tiereddemocraticgovernance.org/blog_details.php?blog_cat_id=31&id=555

The first axis of this paradigm is the builder’s preferences for further involvement in the TDG. Some builders will want to continue this kind of volunteer work. Other builders will be happy to assign this work to someone else.

The second axis of the paradigm is the election results: either the person is elected or is not.

Working on the Executive Committee

After the election, much of the affairs of the local TDG reside with the executive committee. By now, the new executive committee should have established a reasonable consultative culture — because all or most of them have worked on writing the constitution.

The executive committee should assess how the first election went. What went right? What went wrong? Can the wrongs be fixed with decisions solely from the executive committee? Or does the constitution need to be changed? If a constitutional change is required, the executive committee will provide a solution, then set up a formal meeting to ask the membership for approval, using the due process in your constitution.

As well as the post-election analyses and reforms, the executive committee should also embark on a couple of other paths.

First is to increase membership. How should the TDG approach your neighborhood? Should it be quite open as to what is happening? Or should it be more subtle, with casual conversations with select neighbors? I bring this up because the world has many toxic people — and bringing in too many toxic people might upset the peaceful nature the TDG has acquired. Each local TDG will have different challenges in this matter, so each executive committee will make their own decisions. In time, the entire neighborhood will be brought into the TDG, but a slow increase in membership might be a better path.

Second is to assist neighboring TDGs. Your experience could save them a few months of development time. This help will be the beginning of the TDG Advisory Board which will become more formal later.

The electoral analyses, increasing membership, and assistance are all important. But these activities also give more practice for learning consultation, for we still have so much to learn. The goal is to make consultation a cultural trait of the TDG, not something that whimsically comes and goes — as what happens in the non-TDG world.

BTW, I have prepared a consultation workshop.

https://tiereddemocraticgovernance.org/education.php
Time commitment for the TDG executive committee will increase to 20 hours a month. Some members of the executive committee may have this time and willingness to work these volunteer hours (and maybe more). Some will find attending meetings enough of a challenge. No one should be forced into more TDG activities than they can handle. There might be other TDG members who want to volunteer with the decisions made by the executive committee. This committee will learn how to recognize its resources and how best to implement them.

Merging TDGs

Many stand-alone TDGs are great. But the ultimate goal is to bring all these TDGs under one TDG umbrella. This will be done by merging TDGs.

When two adjacent TDGs have acquired some stability, they should consider merging. Each executive committee will appoint TDG members to the merging committee.

The two merging committees will meet as one committee. One of their first tasks will be to understand the constitution and culture of the other TDG. Because the two TDGs started independently, there will be some differences that need addressing. Ideas can be exchanged and reflected on.

Eventually the merging committee should start drafting a new constitution to reflect the merged area. They will present their draft to the two executive committees for refinement. If the two executive committees approve, they should offer the final decision to their membership. There should be a formal meeting and vote of the membership, as per the rules of the respective TDG constitutions. When the membership of both TDGs approves of the new constitution (with some transitional clauses), the current constitutions will no longer be applicable.

Criticism of the Mergers

To many readers, this merging process might seem a daunting task. Making these kinds of rule changes is not exciting to many people. And, too often, those who get involved in rule changes tend to fight for their own ideas, making the process a burden on the other members. Rule changes are something most organizations tend to avoid, even if changes are needed.

I will just make the following points to address this valid criticism:

1) The more toxic people will not be part of the TDG at this time. They won’t be bringing their rigid ways of thinking into TDG deliberations.

2) The TDG issues are seemingly inconsequential to the non-TDG world. So the merging details should not entice life-or-death, sky-is-falling, or hair-on-fire approaches to resolving TDG issues.

3) The TDG elections will already be finding its more capable members to lead the TDG. The TDG members will trust this leadership.

4) By the time mergers are considered, the consultative culture will be somewhat in place in both TDGs. It’s likely that most issues in the differing TDG constitutions will be resolved and worked into acceptable wording.

5) And this new constitution will be experimental. Nobody knows for sure how it will work out. The new executive committee will deal with any rough edges later.

When these five attributes, the merging will happen much quicker than our current democratic culture can imagine. I estimate that each member of the merging committee will spend 20 volunteer hours drafting the new constitution.

I will elaborate on #3 a bit more. I’m a realist: many TDG members will likely have not read the new proposed constitution, let alone studied it well. Yet they will vote in favor because they trust the executive committee to conduct the negotiations that led to the merger and its new constitution. This trust was earned, not freely given. This is so important.

Occasionally, the membership will not accept the new merged constitution. In these cases, it is important to understand that this setback is an excellent example in applying TDG governance. The executive committee needs to understand the reasons the merged constitution was not approved. In many cases, it will only be a few things that need addressing, so the merger needs a little extra work. Always follow your rules about due process.

In some cases, maybe the next election might find more capable people for this task.

After the first merger, I believe most early TDG builders will realize that this TDG is something much better than western democracy. And it is possible to govern a society in a TDG way. They will finally find the internal reasons to continue to work on the TDG.

And remember, each merger is an opportunity to practice consultation skills. These skills will be so important later in the TDG development.

The first TDG stage

I have described the first of four stages of TDG development. I call it the Early TDG.

Many of the early TDG builders just want to do democracy differently. Building the TDG gives them this purpose.

These people will come from different economic backgrounds, occupations, economic classes, educations, races, religions, genders, and whatever else separates us. They will learn how to find unity in many TDG issues, despite their differences.

Here are the characteristics of the early TDG builders:

1. An understanding of how broken our democracies are, especially the American version.

2. An understanding the popular suggestions for democratic change will not give the results we want, even if they can be changed.

3. A willingness to put 10 hours a month to build a new democracy.

So how do you fit in with these three criteria?

Is not 10 hours a month an easier sacrifice than being a Continental soldier?

Executive Functions in the TDG

When, why, and how does an American president execute an executive order?

I never paid much attention to executive orders until President Obama. I was under the impression that there were some constitutional restrictions to an American president using them, and Obama was perhaps stepping over those restrictions. But I also thought Obama was someone who would vet his ideas with people around him before issuing the order.

Of course, Trump 1, Biden, and Trump 2 governed a lot by executive order. But if this tool is to move political issues though a dysfunctional congress, then what is the purpose of congress?

I did a little study of Franklin Roosevelt. It seems his New Deal was constructed more by executive order than by votes in Congress. From what I can understand, executive orders are more restricted by political culture than by legislation around executive orders. In other words, American presidents can issue executive orders if they think they can get away with it. FDR had the support of the people to make the New Deal happen — and he used that support to behave kind of like a dictator.

The Canadian Executive Order

On March 9, the Liberal Party of Canada elected a new leader. Although Mark Carney had great experience in government, he had never served in Canadian Parliament. The polls said his party was heading for electoral defeat.

Yet he immediately made two “executive orders” after winning the leadership of the Liberal Party. First, he repealed the Carbon Tax legislation. Second, he reduced the tax rate for the middle class. Now, he could have promised to do these things after he won the election. But he used his powers to “make it so” immediately. While these two acts probably sealed his narrow victory, his success was more tied to Mr. Trump’s help.

After many years of being a Canadian political observer, I already know the 50 or so unelected people working in the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) have more political power to shape things than the 100 or so elected back-bench MPs on the government side. To me, the proper way to rescind the Carbon Tax and reduce individual taxes is through the same mechanism that brought these features into law: an Act of Parliament. It seems the PMO can bypass Parliament.

John Egelkrout is confused about what constitutes a legal executive order. I am confused about the real power of the Canadian PMO. We both thought we understood the systems that govern us. But it seems not.

Executive Function in the Tiered Democratic Governance (TDG)

There is no president or prime minister in the TDG.

The top tier of any TDG will be composed of six to 15 individuals who have earned their position by good character and capacity for governance, tier-by-tier. They will be working with a consultative approach to decision making, bringing different perspectives together. This institution will be providing the directives for society.

While the top TDG tier members will be working fulltime on their political jobs, they may not always be available to meet. They need their vacations. They may have family or health issues. And they do need to travel out of the capital city to have a first-hand interaction with the people they govern.

So situations may arise that require a quick resolution from the top tier but the full top tier is not available. Here’s how I would design the emergency executive committee (EEC).

At all times, there must be three top tier members available in the capital city. They shall constitute the emergency executive committee (EEC). They will be on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This will be a rotating position; a schedule should delineate which three members of the top tier have emergency powers at any time.

A fourth member should also be on stand-by, in case one of the three designated members cannot serve in an emergency.

When an emergency situation happens, these three EEC members will meet. Other attendees could include the fourth member, a senior member of the TDG advisory board, and senior managers of the relevant government departments. This group will discuss the situation. This group will review relevant policies that have been put in place. But it is only the three designated members who have the vote. Hopefully the three will find consensus. If not, a majority of two out of three shall decide.

In some cases, the EEC may defer action until the full top tier can convene. In other words, the situation is not a big emergency.

In many cases, the EEC will mostly be overseers of what the appropriate government department wants to do. I think there is value for the department to justify its actions to a sound authority. Sometimes, the EEC might offer some guidance to that department.

In other cases, there might be competing government departments with different suggestions. The EEC might decide one department over the other.

In a few cases, the EEC might decide to manage the crisis directly.

The EEC can reverse its decision a few hours or days later. Sometimes, the nature of the emergency changes or new information can change the outlook.

And when the full top tier does convene, it can reverse the EEC decision. A reversal should not be regarded as the EEC as being incompetent. Rather the committee was faced with an emergency, and difficult decisions had to be made quickly. Most people would understand a better decision was more likely with the full top tier, but the top tier sometimes cannot provide a timely directive.

The Middle TDG

Before the TDG assumes responsibility and authority for governance, it will go through four distinct stages. The second stage — the Middle TDG — is when the TDG should look at implementing constitutional procedures for emergency decision making. It will put in the clauses that delineate how an emergency is to be handled.

While this article provides a reasonable structure for a EEC, its wording should be fine-tuned. That fine-tuning will require some constitutional thought and writing. I will leave that writing to the local TDGs.

And there might be other ways to construct this committee.

When the Middle TDG moves into the Maturing TDG, its emergency rules should have been tested a few times — and improved.

Credibility

While I believe TDG decisions will be much better and more acceptable than decisions from western democracy, these decisions will not get universal approval from the citizenry. Decisions in emergencies are likely to generate more dissatisfaction.

Amateur political pundits like John and I will not always agree with the decisions from TDG governance. But we can look at the rules to see if they were followed properly. If we can see that three top tier representatives — Peter, Paul, and Mary — were scheduled to serve on the EEC and they handled the emergency, we can’t say their decisions were arbitrary.

Right now, USA’s executive orders look arbitrary to John. Decisions from the PMO look arbitrary to me. We really have no idea whether due legal process was followed to make those decisions.

Maybe the rules are too complex for amateur political pundits to understand. So the political scientists would tell John and I the rules were properly followed and we should just accept their position. But something tells me that the rules are loose — and subject to interpretation and manipulation. And loose rules bring distrust that the system does not work for the people (or some of the people), thus eroding the credibility of government.

I recommend that the TDG constitution provide simple unambiguous rules for making emergency decisions. Who gets to make the decisions? What checks-and-balances should they run through?

When people like John and I wonder about emergency decisions we may or may not like, we shouldn’t need a constitutional lawyer to tell us that the rules were followed properly. Keeping this process simple provides credibility to the decision. These decision makers were tasked to make a decision; here are the rules they had to follow; we citizens can see they followed the rules.

Credibility Part 2

I will provide another angle to show how decisions from TDG governance is more credible.

My experience in Canadian politics is that about half of Canadian elected representatives had accomplished great things before they entered politics. They were well regarded by their peers in their profession. The other half were partisan workers who spent much of their early life in the lower levels of politics; they did not accomplish much outside of politics. Rather they learned the ropes to climb higher and seized the opportunities that became available to them.

Now don’t get me wrong here. Some competent non-political people do not do well in politics. And some partisans are competent in their political rise. But western democracy is not much of a test to prove the political mettle or not — until elected representatives actually get the job of being an elected representative. Western democracy has had its share of turkeys being in government.

TDG representatives — on the other hand — have proven their abilities as they rose tier-by-tier in the TDG. They don’t get to the top tier of the TDG unless they have proven their skills in the lower levels of TDG governance.

So when the top tier allocates emergency powers to three of its members, those three members will have the skills in place to handle emergencies — in a TDG way. Not only did these members follow the rules, they proved their competence beforehand, they listened to experts, they discussed multiple options; they made their decision with more resources information than outside people had.

In other words, there won’t be any foolish decisions in the TDG emergency executive committee.

Conclusion

Like the rest of the TDG, the EEC won’t have partisan considerations to affect its decision. The members of this committee can focus on what is best for the emergency, not what is acceptable to the backrooms of the political party.

However the emergency executive function is constructed, the TDG constitution should be unequivocal as to who has the authority and responsibility to make this emergency decision.

John and I still might not like that decision. But we cannot complain that the rules were arbitrary. We will let the decision play out to its natural outcome. We believe if the decision is wrong, the top TDG tier will eventually see the mistake — and fix it.

But most of the time, the decision will be sound.

Because the structure behind that decision is sound.

The Rules of the TDG

I entered the back rooms of politics in 1986. This was my reward for helping with the previous election. A few inside people thought this young man was someone worthy to bring to the inside. I believed I was going to become a person of influence.

I had some exposure of Robert’s Rules of Order. So I kind of understood what was happening in these political meetings. But sometimes things were a little fuzzy.

I had political ambitions in those days. But my public speaking was “wooden.” To improve my political future, I joined Toastmasters (TM) in 1988. Coupled with TM’s public speaking training is training for Robert’s Rules of Order. Being in politics, I could see the relevance of this skill. So I took some additional TM training and read some books. With maybe 20 hours of study, I was able to see the purpose for all these seemingly rigid rules. The rules were a great balance to provide fairness, discussion, and a decision. The rules did not seem so rigid to me anymore.

When I returned to the political backrooms with this training, I was more influential in shaping the direction of my constituency association.

After politics and after Toastmasters, I served on a few community boards. Ostensibly, these boards were governed by Robert’s Rules of Order. But practically, Robert’s was seriously watered down. We could dispense with most of the rules and still make decisions — without people getting mad at each other.

And Robert’s Rules do allow for “suspension of the rules.” The meeting can bring back the rules when someone gets unreasonable.

But it seems if the people are reasonable, the rules are not that necessary. But I often wonder how much of our exposure to the rules — even if we are not that good with the rules — helps us make collective decisions today.

Are young people getting this culture today? If not, how do they come to group decisions? I don’t know.

Meeting rules in the TDG

While my improved knowledge of Robert’s Rules helped me gain influence in my political party, I also saw other people being disenfranchised by the rules. They were somewhat lost in the meetings (like I was before my training) and relegated to being mostly spectators in the discussion.

While the rules serve an important purpose, the rules are somewhat complex for many people. They could have taken the same training as I did. But their more likely choice is not to participate, which means their voice is not heard. For this reason, I have been reluctant to introduce any set of rules for meetings in the TDG.

As well, TDG meetings will be a much different culture than today’s political meetings. In political meetings, some people have a natural inclination to dominate the discussion and implement their solution. Robert’s Rules allows other people to offer their perspectives and challenge the perspectives of the “leaders.”

In contrast, TDG representatives are looking to find a solution. So all viewpoints will be listened to, and somehow a better decision is found than any one individual could have found by him- or herself. In other words, differing input will be welcomed. In this new culture, it is feasible that the TDG can function well without so many rules.

So I suggest the early TDG builders start their first meetings without any formal rules for meetings. If the builders apply fairness, respect, and practicality in their deliberations, they won’t need rules — just like my community board meetings.

In other words, let the TDG start with no rules for meetings. If there is a need for a few rules, the early TDG builders will figure them out. As the TDG gets bigger, more rules could be necessary. I suspect whatever meeting rules come into the TDG will be much fewer than what we have now.

The TDG elections
I need to digress a bit. While I suggest that the early TDG builders should dispense with formal rules for meetings, I should make it clear that the TDG elections should have clear rules. These rules will be part of the local TDG’s constitution or set by the TDG’s executive committee. These electoral rules should be written such that most people will come to the same understanding of how the votes are delivered, cast, and counted. These rules will also spell the authority and responsibility of the executive committee. So when the TDG election has found the TDG decision makers, there should be no dispute between rational readers of the election rules.

Back to the TDG meeting rules
Start with no rules. Add rules if only needed.

We can get some ideas from known systems. Take, for example, the “agenda” in Robert’s Rules. This topic occupies a few pages of the Robert’s manual. But these rules have been in play for decades, so many of us know how to work with the agenda without ever reading these rules.

My experience is that the agenda is initially written and introduced by the chair, secretary, or executive director. It is assumed the agenda is not complete. At the start of the meeting, members, can add new items to the agenda, remove items, or reprioritize items. It usually takes only a few minutes to finalize the agenda. It is a routine for many meetings.

When the agenda is approved, the chair has the map to guide the meeting item-by-item. Many community-minded people have been cultured into using the agenda; even those who do not understand Robert’s Rules very well are comfortable with the few minutes to set up the agenda.

Many TDG meetings will start with an agenda. That skill need not be re-invented or deliberately taught or officially formalized. In essence, it is cultured, not enforced. Nothing wrong with that.

Robert’s Rules has several other valuable rules that could be useful in the TDG. For example, “Refer to committee” and “postpone to the future” could prove valuable in TDG deliberations. But common sense and a practical spirit might be all that is needed to effect these intermediate decisions.

Sociocracy
Another source for TDG rules could be sociocracy. Sociocracy is an organic way for workers to make decisions around their sphere of the workplace. The key of sociocratic “circles” is to gain consent from all members of the decision-making group. Trying to get that consent requires a more thoughtful process than a majority vote. Supposedly, decisions are better implemented when sociocracy finds that consent.

While Robert’s has president, secretary, and treasurer as its main positions, sociocracy has leader, secretary, delegate, and facilitator. While Sociocracy for All (SOFA) has training for all four positions, I believe the training for facilitator would be useful in so many places where sociocracy is not fully employed. I should take this training.

I recommend early TDG builders study sociocracy to make their TDG better. The TDG may even take on some of the sociocratic rules and concepts to conduct its meetings.

Implementing a “few rules” culture

As alluded earlier, Robert’s Rules provides a forum to manage unreasonable people in a meeting. But with the TDG electing more reasonable people, such rules may not be necessary.

The early TDG will not be dealing with such high stakes. So the early TDG builders can experiment with no or few rules to find that new way with open discussion and intense listening. As the consultative culture becomes more established, these early TDG groups will be more able to handle bigger challenges with fewer rules.

Guidance for future TDG rules for meetings

I will let the future TDG builders design their rules for meetings — if such rules will be helpful. If so, here are some guidelines to build those rules.

1. Understand that we have been taught to acquire power, so we can inflict our agenda onto others.

2. Understand that we have also been taught to participate more democratically. But this often involves skillful manipulation of the rules — to inflict our agenda onto others.

3. Understand that we have come to different opinions because we have acquired different knowledge, experience, and wisdom.

4. Consultation is about bringing all that knowledge, experience, and wisdom into one voice. So it is important that we “seek first to understand, then be understood.”

5. Allow sufficient time for discussion.

6. When practical, allow sufficient time for reflection

7. Try to find a consensual decision.

8. If not consensus, try to find consent from the minority.

9. If not consent, have a formal vote. The decision belongs to the majority.

10. All participants should strive for that decision. If the minority will not strive, then it should get out of the way and let the majority implement the decision.

11. If the decision is wrong, the majority and minority will find out later. Then they will make changes.

12. Even with the best consultation skills and the best minds, we are only making our best collective guess. Neither the majority nor the minority is always right in knowing how a decision will turn out.

13. Every failed TDG decision is actually an opportunity to learn.

Future TDG rules for legislatures

Some of my TDG writing is about streamlining legislative processes. Our current legislatures are designed for the 19th century and were built to force power-inclined decision makers into behaving more democratically. Many, many rules.

The consultation skills learned while building the TDG will be the culture of a future TDG legislature. These legislatures will be more able to deliberate more issues more thoroughly than legislatures of today. In other words, we will have proper discussion in legislatures about the issues, not legal games played by political parties trying to get advantage over other political parties.

As well, our legislatures will be more able to amend or rescind legislation that is no longer effective.

And the TDG elections will not send too many disruptive representatives into these legislatures.

I believe TDG legislatures will have some rules. But they will be much fewer than the legislative rules of today.
Conclusion

The TDG gives us a great opportunity to redesign our rules around societal deliberation.

A decade after the TDG is fully implemented, we could discover than we need fewer rules for society to function well.

The Blog for a New Democracy

Most people think I’m a fool for working on my alternative democracy for 28 years and not having anything to show for it. Well, there is something driving me forward. I can’t explain it.

Two years ago, I started a new TDG project. I have been copying my TDG writing from Medium and other places to the TDG website.

My shorter TDG writings are now collected in one place for the world to see. They bring a different angle to TDG education than my TDG books. And I think they help explain “Dave Volek” a little better to my future audience.

And my shorter writings are now preserved. Being scattered around Medium, other internet forums, and my computer was not a good place for the future to find them.

Boring, Boring, Boring

Moving text around platforms was not fun. The word processor for my blog came from the 1990s. It was rather finicky. It did not like text straight from MS-Word or Medium. So I had to filter text through MS-Notepad to remove all formatting and links. Then I copied the Notepad text to the blog processor. Then reformat and relink.

Graphics were another challenge. The blog processer liked graphics only when I went through a seven-obtuse-step process to move a graphic.

This transfer of Medium articles was not work I enjoyed. Writing is so much more fun.

I had only enough patience or energy to sit with this project an hour at a time. Getting five articles done was a usual session. Life and Medium writing got a higher priority.

I hadn’t seen some articles for a long time. So I could see some improvements. When I did a little editing, the pain became a little less painful.

Mastodon

Marketing on Mastodon was another purpose for the TDG blog. I was creating a library of Mastodon posts.

When I had 50 articles on the blog, I started promoting the TDG on Mastodon. I introduce each article with a sentence or two, plop in the link, and post. That takes one to two minutes. In essence, I get more mileage from my previous writing with only a little extra effort.

When I reach the end of my library, I just start from the beginning again. For two years, Mastodon has been getting several TDG posts every day. I’ve cycled through my library 10 to 15 times.

Admittedly, my Mastodon marketing has not borne any tangible results yet. Still no TDG builders!

Circular Learning

As an educator, I am often thinking about student prerequisites. When students start a course without the proper prerequisites is place, the outcome is often not good.

But I’ve always thought we need to move away from linear learning to circular learning. In circular learning, students enter the syllabus wherever they want and move around wherever they want. In essence, a circle with no defined start and end points. I think this blog has achieved some degree of circular learning.

Internal combustion engines have many small parts. Pistons, connecting rods, crankshafts, valves, etc. have important parts to play in delivering power of exploding gasoline to the car’s wheels.

Office buildings have their own small parts. Boilers, HVACs, ventilation shafts, elevators, electrical conduit, lighting, etc. have important parts to play in keeping office workers comfortable and productive.

The TDG also has its own small parts to make it work. Unfortunately, these small parts are mostly unknown to many political watchers. Also unfortunately, our 2020’s attention span is lower than a generation ago. “Too long, didn’t read” becomes the reason not to investigate, especially when celebrities are ignoring the TDG as well. Trying to learn all these TDG parts seems to be too much for many political readers. They prefer the known ways, which are not working so well these days.

But the blog changes that dynamic between the TDG and its potential audience. One section of the blog is called “TDG Mechanics.” It has 45 articles, each describing one feature of the TDG. Each article is about a three-minute read. As the reader goes through some of these articles, he/she gains a sense the TDG is a well-designed machine. Different parts have different functions, but when all these functions are working well together, they should produce the democracy we so yearn for.

Remember that our current democracies are also machines of many different parts. Free speech, free press, periodic elections, check-and-balances, separation of powers, etc. etc. all contribute to western democracy elevating a society above other societies with inferior systems. We could argue that some of these parts are now wearing down, right?

Maybe my TDG book is too long for today’s readers. But TDG Mechanics will provide a good understanding of the TDG with about an hour of reading. And the reader chooses which parts to read!

So I invite readers to spend one hour with TDG Mechanics.

Pick a title that interests you. Click the link and read. Then return to the table of contents to find another title.

After an hour of such reading, you will have a better understanding of how this TDG works than you did before. Yes, the TDG has many parts. But like internal combustion engines, office buildings, and western democracies, it is not that difficult to understand the individual and collective functions of the parts.

You may even find the TDG is a better option than voting, protesting, and hoping the Democratic Party actually governs for the people. You might even become TDG builders!

Conclusion

The TDG blog transfer project is done. There are 520 articles in this blog. A small victory in the many steps to make the TDG better known.

I’m still writing articles for Medium — and eventually the new writings will find their way to this blog. But, for now, I’m glad not to be moving text from processor to processor to processor any more.

Well, maybe not.

My next TDG project is to build a TDG wiki, using the software from Wikipedia. This should find a different audience. And maybe the wiki format can get past the TLDR crowd.

Most of the future wiki articles are already written. So I will mostly be moving text around — and formatting, linking, and adding graphics. Hopefully the processor of the wiki is easier to deal with.

TDG Advisor 3

More Possible Responsibilities

The first part of this series describes the main function of the advisory board. It provides the elected bodies with additional insights as decisions are being made. Having an outside, trusted, and respected voice in these meetings can steer the elected bodies to better directions.

But there are other functions the advisory board can perform.

Administer the TDG Elections

Elections at all the tiers will require some administration. Voters’ lists need to be maintained. Ballots need to be handled and later counted.

While I believe the TDG elections will be conducted honestly and fairly, having the advisory board manage the elections will create another layer of clean elections. There is a big disconnect between how the representatives get their elected TDG jobs and how the appointed advisors get their advisory jobs. It will be difficult for the two sides to “exchange favors” to keep and enhance their TDG jobs. So if the advisory board is handling the elections, there should be less perception that elections are somehow rigged to give certain TDG positions to certain individuals.

Another Avenue of Complaint

If a citizen is unsatisfied with the neighborhood or district representative, that citizen can turn to the local advisor. That advisor can do a little investigation as to whether that citizen’s concerns are valid and worthy of consideration.

Providing a more Global Perspective

Each advisor will be interacting with multiple parts of the TDG. They can bring the workings of these parts together. For example, if an advisor is assigned to Neighborhood E, F, G, & H, the advisor can provide these neighborhoods with what each other are doing. Good solutions in Neighborhood E might be useful in Neighborhood H.

As well, the advisors will be meeting amongst themselves. They can share knowledge of each other’s assignments, and good ideas from one part of the TDG can be introduced to other parts. For example, a good solution in Neighborhood E might move through two advisors to find a home in Neighborhood T.

In essence, the advisors are in a good position to learn about the bigger picture of the TDG.

Conveying Decisions to Citizens

We should not expect the TDG to get universal approval for all the decisions it makes. There will always be a few unhappy citizens. The advisory board can play a role in getting an understanding of the thoughts and efforts made by the elected bodies to make their decisions. Advisors can assure dissatisfied citizens that their concerns were given appropriate consideration.

Conveying Citizen Concerns to the Elected Tiers

While neighborhood representatives should be bringing concerns of their neighbors to the higher tiers, the lower tier advisors could be doing the same. The advisory board could be another mechanism for the elected side of the TDG to learn about overall attitudes and concerns of the citizens. Trends can be spotted quickly and brought to the attention of the highest tier.

Interpreter of the Constitution

If elected representatives come to different interpretations of the TDG constitution, the advisors could form a committee to resolve this issue. Then the elected bodies would know a wise source has looked at all the facts and come up with a reasonable decision. The elected bodies can move on with that decision.

In a like manner, the elected bodies should form a similar committee to resolve any disputes within the advisory board.

Teaching the TDG Way

Advisors could play a critical role in how citizens vote. The salient feature “voting for good character" and "capacity for governance” is something that citizens need to be constantly reminded. Advisors, who have no personal stake in the elections, would be a good source of constant reminders.

Remember, the citizens decide on their own criteria, then decide which of their neighbors or fellow representatives best fit that criteria.

The Cult of Celebrity

Unfortunately, human nature still has an attraction for celebrities. I kind of doubt this part of human nature will go away when the TDG is implemented. It must be managed well.

If the TDG gives more of the celebrity status to the top advisory tier rather than the highest elected tier, the elected tiers will not be subject to the demands of being a celebrity. With fewer of these demands placed on them, the elected tiers will have more focus for their job, which is solving society’s problems. And they can make those decisions without having to worry about gaining or losing celebrity status.

In other words, the members of the top advisory tiers can be the ceremonial leaders of the TDG, attending many functions of state, allowing the elected side of the TDG to focus on the problem solving.

Remember that the advisors do not have a direct role in the decisions.

Conclusion

All these extra responsibilities for the advisory board will be something for each TDG to figure out for itself. The more responsibilities of the advisory board, the TDG will need more advisors. And a more complex constitution arrange these advisors.

The advisory side is a unique position in governance for the 21st century.

TDG Advisor 2

Finding the advisors

In the first part of this series, I described how the TDG advisors will be sources of new perspectives for the elected TDG bodies. With these new perspectives, the elected side of the TDG will be making enhanced decisions.

A likely next question is: “Where do these advisors come from?”

The TDG Constitution

The constitution will provide rules for the advisory board. These rules will include the number of advisory tiers, the number of advisors in each tier, and the responsibilities for the advisors.

As well, the TDG constitution will stipulate that the top elected tier appoints the advisors to the top advisory tier.

The top advisory tier then appoints advisors to the next tier (down). And that tier appoints its advisors to the next tier down.

Ideally, advisors should have some experience on the elected side of the TDG, especially for the top advisory tier. When the top elected tier is making the appointment for the top advisory tier, it can draw from these sources:

1. An elected member of the current top elected tier

2. An elected member from a lower tier

3. A long-serving TDG member, who is no longer elected.

4. An advisor from a lower tier

One side, the other side, but not both

One rule is that a citizen cannot serve on both sides of the TDG.

Current advisors are allowed to vote in their neighborhood elections. And they are allowed to be voted for.

So if an advisor is elected as a neighborhood representative, he/she can choose between the two positions. If the elected position is chosen, the advisory position must be resigned. If the advisory position is kept, the constitution should have a provision to find another neighborhood representative, hopefully without redoing the election.

If an elected TDG representative is appointed to the advisory board and wants to serve in that position, that representative must resign his/her position on the elected side. The constitution may have a provision to find another representative — or maybe not until the next election.

This electoral/appointment separation better ensures the elected side and appointed side do not support or appear to support each other’s position in the TDG. It will be hard for an elected member to attain his/her TDG job because of an advisor’s influence — and vice versa.

The separation also delineates the much different responsibilities of the two sides of the TDG. An elected or appointed citizen needs to focus on his/her responsibilities.

Decision making

While advisors can take an advisory role in decisions of the elected side, the advisors have no vote or veto in these decisions. The elected representatives should listen carefully to what their advisors are saying but are not obligated to take their advice.

When the elected representatives make that decision, the advisor should respect that decision and work toward its implementation.

Independence of the Advisory Board

The rules that govern the advisory board could be defined in the constitution. Or the rules might be set up by the highest tier, which can more easily be changed. Each TDG will figure this balance for itself.

But outside those rules, the advisory board can make its own decisions, free of input from the elected side. For example, the assignment of specific advisors to specific elected TDG bodies shall be made by the advisory board, not the elected side.

Term of office

I recommend a three-year term for each advisor.

However, given this longer term, the constitution should have a provision to remove the advisor, probably with a super majority vote.

Conclusion

Advisors are appointed, not elected. The process of appointments shall be governed by the TDG constitution, with the highest elected tier making the appointment to the highest advisor tier. Lower tier advisors are appointed by the next highest advisory tier.

The responsibilities of the advisor are different than the elected representatives. To minimize conflicts of interest, a citizen cannot serve on both sides at the same time. The citizen will choose which side to serve on, if elected and appointed at the same time.

TDG Advisor 1

An important check and balance for the TDG

Have you ever had a life situation that posed a challenge for you?

You pondered and pondered. The right answer was just not coming to you. You were uneasy about choosing a path that didn’t sound quite right.

Then someone comes into your social bubble — and makes a little comment that turns all your pondering into a much better path. Have you had this experience?

I’ve recently had such a life situation. Being a little wiser than I used to be, I deliberately sought out the opinions and perspectives of about 15 credible people. As I listened, the better answer came more and more apparent. I made my decision. I implemented that decision with confidence.

Had I only stuck with the ideas already in my head, I would not have made that good decision.

The Advisor

Tiered Democratic Governance (TDG) finds people of good character and capacity to serve in governance. The TDG encourages these people to work consultatively to find their decision. In contrast to western democracy, the elected TDG representatives do not champion their own ideas but talk through their opinions and perspectives to reach a better decision than any one of them could have attained by him- or herself.

But even with the advanced electoral process and a culture of consultation, elected TDG bodies can get themselves into errant or indecisive thinking. Or maybe there is some friction between certain members. In these situations, the TDG advisor can be called into the meeting.

As the advisor is observing the progress of the meeting, he or she will be a set of fresh eyes and ears for that elected TDG body. The advisor will be able to see things the elected representatives were not able to see. Or maybe the advisor has perspective outside the TDG body. The advisor will show a new perspective on what is ailing this TDG body.

The advisor will likely have experience in TDG governance. And this person was appointed, directly or indirectly, by the highest tier. So the elected body will have the respect and trust for this advisor. In other words, the elected TDG representatives will seriously consider what the advisor is saying.

And with this trust and respect and with this different perspective, the elected TDG will come to better decisions than what it could have without the advisor. The decisions will be more unified and more confident.

Note that the elected TDG bodies are required to listen to the advisor. But they are not obligated to take that advice. When the consultation is working well, the final decision will often be better than what the elected body or the advisor could have done themselves. In other words, the advice of the advisor can lead to a new path no one saw before.

This “credible new perspective” is the primary function of the TDG advisor.