Representatives moving within the TDG

Periodic elections of western democracy allow the citizens to show their pleasure or displeasure of the governing political party. If the displeasure is greater than the pleasure, the governing political party is replaced. Hopefully that new party is more in touch with the people.

In contrast, the TDG will be a gradual change of elected representatives.

A Hypothetical TDG

To explain this change, I’m going to assume a city of 100,000 people that has a TDG structure of governance.

There will be about 500 first-tier TDG representatives. These positions will be mostly voluntary.

There will be about 60 second-tier representatives. These positions will have more TDG duties than the first tier. They require more societal resources but still a far cry from today’s elected representatives.

And there will be about 10 third-tier representatives. This third tier will be the ultimate decision-making body of the city, similar to the city council. The representatives should be working on the TDG fulltime, studying and discussing the issues and meeting with stakeholders.

Let’s just say this city has 570 people elected into TDG governance. In comparison, most western cities of this size with have about 12 individuals elected into their municipal, provincial, and federal governments.

Every spring, the neighborhoods will elect one of their own to represent them in this system (no parachuting allowed). The neighborhood representatives should be meeting once a month with other neighborhood representatives in their district. They will be getting to know each other.

In the fall, these districts will convene to vote one of their neighborhood representatives into the second tier (the group of 60).

Also in the spring, this second tier will convene to vote 10 of them into the third tier (or the city council). The election of the tiers will be staggered.

The Annual Movement

In essence, this TDG will have three elections each year. After every election, there will still be many TDG representatives holding their current positions.

And there will be some citizens moving out. Sometimes there will be good reasons for this movement. And sometimes the TDG will have its own reasons that no one will understand.

Some representatives will be moving higher. They did a great job a lower level.


Some second- or third-tier representatives will not keep their high position. But they still might retain their lower position.

Some neighborhoods will elect the same representative for 20 years or more. Some of these representatives will remain as neighborhood representatives all this time. Others might rise higher.

Some TDG positions will change frequently. Maybe a neighborhood has trouble finding an effective representative. Or maybe a neighborhood has several capable neighbors for the job—and a few votes cast here or there puts a different, yet capable, neighbor into TDG governance. A similar dynamic could exist at the district or council level.

Some TDG representatives may become “unelected,” yet be re-elected a year or decade later.

Some newly elected neighborhood representatives will have a natural flair for TDG governance. They just might find their way to the third tier in two years.

The 570 members of this TDG will have a great combination of longer serving members and newly elected members. The longer-serving members will keep the knowledge, experience, and wisdom of previous TDG operations and decisions. The newer members will come in with fresh ideas and new perspectives—and can steer the TDG in a new direction. The new and the old will provide a vibrant discussion and deliberation for the issues of the city.

Annual movement within the TDG is a good thing. This is much better than an abrupt change of one political party replacing another political party.

How the TDG Handles Corruption

Power corrupts. Absolute Power corrupts absolutely

This famous 19th-century quote provides two important insights into our politics.

First, the quote implies that we on the outside would fall into the temptation of political corruption—if we were put into a political situation. Maybe there is some truth to that.

To minimize that corruption, our democracies have created certain checks-and-balances to deal with this failing of human nature. Periodic elections is one of those checks. Political parties have been thrown out of their government position when the corruption got out of hand.

Second, if the checks-and-balances are not there, the corruption will be much worse. The threat of some kind of punishment does curtail corruption.

For sure, all western democracies have had too many elected officials caught in the arms of corruption. Perhaps many more elected officials were never caught.

We should be asking whether these people had a corrupt inclination before they entered politics or became that way later. But that might be a topic for another essay.

Tiered Democratic Governance (TDG) will handle corruption in a different way. Much less dramatic.

TDG corruption at the Neighborhood Level

Reducing corruption starts with the neighborhood elections. Neighbors are asked to vote for neighbors of good character and capacity for governance. If a fellow neighbor has some inclination for corruption, the neighbors might see this beforehand—and cast their vote to someone else.

As well, elected neighborhood representatives have no campaign favors to pay off. So they cannot “become corrupted” for this reason.

And last, neighborhood representatives really don’t have that much power. They cannot pay off any favors even if there were favors to be paid off.

TDG corruption at the higher levels

Some neighborhood representatives will move up the tiers. But their advancement will happen because their positive approach to TDG governance, not because they made alliances with other TDG members. In other words, there is no way one TDG representative can help another TDG representative get elected. So another source of corruption has been removed with TDG governance.

Much of the decision making in the TDG will be done by committees rather than by individuals. Working alongside other watchful eyes has its own way of keeping people in balance. It will be much harder for several people to hide or join the corrupt inclination.

If a TDG representative puts him- or herself in a perceived corrupt situation, the other representatives have the right to ask some questions.

Let’s take expense accounts as an example. Representatives will incur out-of-pocket expenses in their TDG duties, which should be reimbursed. If one TDG representative has twice the expenses as the others, the others can ask why. If the explanation is not satisfactory, nothing further needs to be said. For sure, a suspected corrupt inclination is not moving to a higher tier.

Hopefully, the annual election would cull that representative out of the TDG. If not, that representative will be watched more closely. More infractions will increase the chance of removal. In other words, there is no need to get combative over the expense account. The situation is “out there,” and more eyes are watching more closely.

When an election forces a representative out of the TDG there is very little drama. The representative was serving the TDG. Now he/she is not. The corruption or perceived corruption has been removed from the TDG.

Of course, if the corruption is serious enough and coupled with sufficient evidence, criminal charges should be laid.

I believe many TDG representatives will have a flair for TDG governance. They will enjoy this aspect of their lives—and will not put themselves in a position where they can be unceremoniously “not elected.”

Conclusion

In essence, the electoral nature of the TDG removes much of the temptation for corruption. If a few TDG representatives still go down this path, there are forces—albeit undramatic—to remove those individuals.

Because corruption in the TDG will be less common than it is in western democracies, citizens will regard the TDG as an honest decision-maker for society.

New TDG Members

Teaching them to vote more wisely

The TDG will start with about 1% of the population. Maybe less. The people who accept the TDG project will realize that the world really needs a much different democracy. And to get that better democracy, they know they have to cast aside some outdated aspects of today’s voting—and apply the TDG approach.

So these early TDG builders will easily assume the new way of voting. Like voting for good character and capacity for governance. As well, the builders will eschew campaigning: any member that seems to be campaigning for a TDG job should not be voted for. The early TDG builders must base their voting decision along these lines.

The early TDG builders will also know they are building a new political culture. So part of their early duties are consistent reminders of how to vote. These reminders need only be short excerpts somehow placed before all members before the election. Just a few words. Maybe written. Maybe spoken. Maybe both. Just ensure the message gets out at the right time.

The TDG will grow. New people will join this social/political movement. But how will these new members vote? Will they bring in the former ways of voting? Like partisanship, self-interest, or flashy campaign tricks? Such voting could easily upset the good intentions of the early TDG builders—and the TDG becomes just like any version of western democracy. If TDG representatives become elected on these lines, nothing will have been gained by building the TDG.

Some of these new people will readily accept the new ways of voting. They just need to be taught once, and they are already voting similarly as the longer-serving TDG members.

Other new members will not be convinced into this new way of voting. Rather than taking seriously the wording of the voting reminders, they will bring their former ways of voting. They might be looking for a campaigner who tells them things they want to hear. That’s how they will cast their vote.

In the early and middle stages of the TDG, the number of members who have adopted the TDG way of voting will easily outnumber the members who are bringing in the old ways, at least 80% to 20%. So yes, these new members can still vote the way they want. But their numbers won’t overpower the wiser votes. Most TDG representatives will be elected on their character, capacity, and previous service to the community.

Remember that the TDG elections are annual. The errant voters will be getting more exposure to the TDG way of voting. As well, they are seeing the results of the TDG elections first-hand. When these voters see credible representatives are being elected, they will be more agreeable to following the guidance of the TDG voting reminders. If they see an ineffective representative being replaced in the next election, that too will build credibility for the TDG. I estimate it will take three or four election cycles for these voters to understand and internalize how the TDG elections actually work. These voters will now be mature TDG voters. And by joining the ranks of mature voters, the mature voters will continue to dominate any new errant voters.

So let’s expect that some new TDG members will not be voting wisely. But in time, they will be.

The TDG is about deliberately building a new political culture, starting at the bottom.

No Campaigning 2

Elections without campaigning? How is this possible?

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

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

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

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

What constitutes “campaigning”?

Here are the obvious signs of campaigning:

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Campaigners are not the politicians we want in governance.

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

It is that simple.

Voting for Capacity for Governance 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Voting for Good Character 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kind of neat, eh?

What if my TDG Representative won't Serve?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I Don’t Like My Neighbors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Too Many TDG Representatives

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

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

About 500 of these positions will be neighborhood representatives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consultation 2

How to make better societal decisions

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

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

I have briefly summarized “consultation” as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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