TDG Neighborhood Elections

The process to find capable representatives

The TDG elections are perhaps the most important activity the TDG undertakes. Proper elections at the neighborhood tier start giving the TDG its legitimacy to make decisions for society. This article will describe the various aspects of conducting a TDG neighborhood election.

The executive committees of the TDGs must follow the rules of their own constitutions. It is important to follow the “rule of law,” even in these early TDG days.

If the rules are insufficient or too cumbersome, the executive can change them with the proper amending process outlined in that constitution — but after the election has finished.

The executive committee may create other rules for the election — as long as those rules are not in conflict with the constitution. These rules can be changed with a proper meeting of executive committee.

The constitution should specify a window of dates for the election, like “the month of April.” The executive committee should probably define the location and hours of operation.

The voters’ list should be maintained. New neighbors moving in should be asked if they want to join the neighborhood TDG. Neighbors who move out should be taken off the list. If an error is discovered on election day, it can be fixed for the next annual election. Who is eligible to vote shall be defined by constitution and rules set by the executive committee—and these rules shall not be in conflict with the constitution.

The constitution should have a clause about proper notice of the election. Proper notice shall include the mechanism for delivery (e.g. post, hand delivery, email, social media) and the time to deliver the notice, so all members have reasonable knowledge of the election.

The notice should include some wordage about voting for “good character” and “capacity for governance.” As well, the notice should include warnings about campaigners. If these rules are specifically stated in the constitution, the executive committee shall follow these rules. If not in the constitution, the executive committee has discretion in these matters.

If the constitution specifies mail-in voting or advance polls, the executive committee shall abide by those rules. If not specified, the executive committee can create these options.

The executive committee should appoint at least two members as poll watchers. The duties shall be handing out ballots, crossing off names who have voted, verifying tallies, and physically counting the votes.

The first TDG elections will likely be in someone’s home. But as the TDG grows, it should move to a more public location. Maybe several neighborhoods could meet at the same time and place. I recommend turning the election into an opportunity for neighbors to socialize.

All voting is done by secret ballot. No member should know how another member votes.

The design of the ballot could be a constitutional requirement — or could be left to the discretion of the executive committee.

Counting of the ballots should be an open process. I estimate about 100 ballots per election. It will not be cumbersome to set up an open process where a few interested neighbors can watch the counting. It should take about a half hour to determine the neighbor with the most votes.

Nearly all neighbors will regard the process as fair. Many voters will agree that the elected representative is capable.

Neighborhood elections will sometimes go wrong

Conducting the TDG election will not always go smooth, especially in the first few years. Rather than make charges that someone(s) was inept or corrupt, the TDG should go with the individual that seems to have earned the most votes. Having a few representatives with questionable legitimacy will not hamper the overall operation of the TDG.

But after the election, the executive committee, with help from the advisory board, should analyze what went wrong. The idea is not to assign blame, but to fix the problem. Maybe the rules were not followed in the right way. Maybe the rules need to be written more clearly. Maybe the next election will require more supervision. Maybe the constitution requires changing. The goal is to ensure the next election is a fair election.

As more local elections are conducted, lessons will be learned. Better rules and more experienced executive committees will mean smoother elections. There will be fewer controversies as the TDG grows.

And fewer controversies give the TDG more legitimacy.

The Atlanta Approach

In 2014, a fellow from Cobb County, Georgia became excited about the TDG. We exchanged quite a few emails. He wanted to set up a local TDG in his neighborhood but was not getting much of a response. I then realized that it might be hard to find six TDG builders in any neighborhood — in these early TDG days. So I devised the “Atlanta approach.” Cobb County belongs to metropolitan Atlanta.

This builder should look for a bigger geographical area than his neighborhood, like maybe the entire Cobb County — or maybe even metro Atlanta. If he found six builders, they could write their own constitution for this big area, gaining skills in TDG governance. This group would elect its own executive committee. As membership grew, they would start setting up smaller local TDGs, especially where membership has the numbers to form TDG neighborhoods. When enough of these TDGs became self sufficient, the “Atlanta approach” group would dissolve itself — and let the local TDGs manage themselves. Part of their next tasks might be helping adjacent neighborhoods build their own TDG.

In my first TDG novel, the TDG members of Northwest Riverbend take the Atlanta approach. They are just too widely dispersed to be considered as belonging to one TDG neighborhood in Northwest Riverbend. In the next two years, these members elect their executive committee.

When this TDG group merges with Northeast Riverbend, the merged area has 14 defined neighborhoods, which is reflected in the new constitution. Instead of the members electing an executive committee, the members now elect their own neighborhood representative. And these representatives serve on the executive committee for “North Riverbend.”

Eventually in the novels, all of Riverbend is merged into this one TDG. The 35 neighborhood representatives elect seven members of the second tier, who are, in effect, the executive committee.

I suspect for the Early TDG stage, the Atlanta approach will be needed in many areas. As the TDG becomes better known, it will be easier to find four individuals in one neighborhood to start their TDG. And these new TDGs will probably have experienced TDGs to help them out.

Electing the TDG Executive Committee

In the Early TDG Stage, local TDGs will be electing their executive committees — and not a representative.

Some of the rules for this election should be in the local TDG constitution. The executive committee should follow these rules. If the executive committee decides to have additional rules, these rules should be agreed before election day and written down. As long as these new rules do not conflict with the constitution, they should be followed.

The constitution should specify how many members should serve on this committee. I recommend somewhere between three and eight.

The constitution should specify a window of when the election is held. For example, it might say “the month of October.” The executive committee will select a date from October 1 to October 31.

The executive committee shall select a venue for the election. In the first year or two, a member’s house should suffice. The executive committee shall also specify a time for polls to open and close.

The constitution should specify a “proper notice” of the election. While this local TDG would be small enough to not need the notice, the executive committee should practice for when the TDG is bigger.

The executive committee shall select at least two members as poll watchers.

The format of the ballots should be write-in names. The constitution should specify how many names the voter can write on the ballot. I recommend at least two names.
When a voter requests a ballot, the poll watchers shall hand a ballot to the voter and cross that voter’s name off the voter’s list. The voter takes the ballot to a private spot in the polling station to write in the names. The voter folds the ballot and deposits that ballot (and nothing else) in the ballot box, with the poll watchers watching.

The TDG is very much about secret ballots. No one should know who voted for whom. Admittedly, the few voters in these first elections may allow handwriting styles to identify voters’ votes. But as the TDG grows, it will be harder to connect ballots to specific voters.

When the polls close, the poll workers shall open the ballot box and count the ballots. This number should be equal to the record of the number of voters who had voted.

Given that the TDG is small, it would be appropriate and practical to allow all interested members to watch the vote counting process.

The poll watchers open each ballot, one-by-one. The names will be read off. Tallies will be set up to record the votes cast.

When all the ballots have been processed, the poll watchers shall confirm the total votes on the tallies are equal to the number of votes cast.

The members with the most votes, up to the number of executive committee members specified in the constitution, shall be deemed as the members of the executive committee.

The constitution should have some mechanism to handle a tie vote. I recommend a random lot.

An example

Let’s assume six TDG builders have written and ratified their constitution and are holding their first election.

This constitution specifies that the executive committee has four members. It also specifies that each member can cast up to two votes.

Obviously, four builders will be part of the executive committee — and two will not. I recommend all six builders prepare themselves mentally for not being selected. I suspect some would hope they are not the on executive committee.

All six members voted. Five members put in two names. One member put in one name. The one-name ballot should not be disqualified. So there are 11 votes in all.

The tally is as follows:

Fred: 5 votes
Wilma: 2 votes
Barny: 2 votes
Betty: 1 vote
Pebbles: 1 vote
Bam-Bam: 0 votes

Fred, Wilma, and Barny would be on the executive committee. The fourth member would be either Betty or Pebbles, based on the tie-breaking mechanism in the constitution.

Flaws in the Election
TDG governance will be a learning process. And we should expect some elections not to go smoothly. I recommend that this local TDG election go with the members who have seemed to have garnered the most votes rather than re-do the election.

If there were flaws in the election, then the new executive committee shall find solutions for the next election. Maybe the constitution needs amending; if so, the constitution should follow its amending process.

The executive committee will be in charge of most of the affairs of the local TDG. The only exceptions are amending the constitution and merging with another TDG. In these matters, the executive committee will be recommending and the membership will be deciding. While consultation with the rank-and-file members is encouraged, the executive committee shall make most of the decisions.

The second tier
When the TDG builds itself up to a second TDG tier, that tier shall take over the functioning of the executive committee. Then each neighborhood will then elect its neighborhood representative: just one name should suffice on the ballot.

Conclusion
The TDG is about creating a new political culture. These early elections may not seem important, but they set the culture for the future.

No Political Parties 2

The most important feature of the TDG is there are no political parties.

You see, political parties are the disease that is holding back humanity’s true potential. If we keep these political institutions as a necessary feature of democracy, we are more likely to regress than to keep our status quo.

Unfortunately, the political scientists are all for political parties. If we follow this branch of academia, we will not find the solution we are looking for. And that is for another article.

Reasons for No Parties

To get their positions in governance, our elected politicians ride on the election machine provided by the party. That’s why even Donald Trump chose to take over the viable Republican Party rather than be an independent candidate or start a new party. He needed a proven machine to reach his political goal.

So our politicians have an allegiance to the party that gave them their political job. This allegiance is stronger than to the nation, stronger than to the citizenry, and stronger than to the citizens who voted for the party. Have you ever noticed that when a politician is accused of corruption, the party usually comes around to protect that politician? The party knows most storms can be ridden out. So the allegiance is part of the deal between the politician and the party. Political parties will put up with crap if the politician has proven to win elections. A lot of crap.

So any decision within the realm of governance is “clouded” by this special relationship between the party and its elected representative. Every decision a politician makes is tainted by the allegiance to the party. The politicians are just as concerned about the retention and enhancement of their influence, advancement within the party, and re-election as they are about the outcomes of solutions to the issue. This grey cloud limits society’s potential for solving problems.

Think about a football coach who is coaching a big game and his mind is on his post-season ski trip.

Don’t believe me! So ask yourself this: How much time do your politicians put into studying the issues, talking to experts and stakeholders? How much time do they spend drafting and studying the bills that could turn into legislation? Compare that to how much time do they spend enhancing their influence within their political party. How often do they sacrifice principle to remain politically viable?

Why do parties form?

Factions were normal in our feudalistic times. The royal courts and aristocracy were rife with factions vying for influence. Wealth and opportunity often meant picking the right faction at the right time. Political parties are only modern-day factions.

Did you know that most of the founding fathers of the United States opposed the formation of political parties? They saw the flaws of British democracy — and wanted no part of it. The fathers envisioned a system that elected representatives would vote either their conscience or the will of their constituents.

Well factions started forming in George Washington’s tenure. Factions turned into official parties. And by 1820, the parties were running the USA. Independents stood little chance of being elected.

My hypothesis is that political parties allow second-rate politicians, in their quest for power, to unite and defeat independent first-rate politicians. In other words, political parties are about removing much of the competition for acquiring power.

Training for a No Party World

In Canada, most of our municipal systems of government are without political parties. Some municipal councillors are making alliances on certain issues, then making different alliances on other issues. Some councillors remain independent from any alliances, just vote after they have heard all sides. The councillors have no back-room people telling them how to vote. The bigger cities in Canada have big budgets and many social issues to resolves. Things seem to work no worse than being governed by provincial or federal parties. To say that political parties are necessary to making decisions in democracy is just plain wrong.

As I mentioned earlier, political parties allow ambitious people to unite to gain political power. Breaking that culture will be difficult. And that is why we cannot influence today’s politicians to build a democratic system without political parties. Our current politicians are already too busy and too vested in this system. The TDG will have to be built outside the current system.

Being on the outside means the early TDG builders will not be subjected to the toxic nature inherent in partisan politics. The builders will be in a better position to enhance their skills for collaborative TDG governance.

As we are building, we will learn how to govern and make decisions — without political parties.

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?