In my latter political days, I came to the realization that we voters know very little about the names on the ballots. Most of us have never worked with these people in the same way we have worked with a boss or co-workers or family members. What are their strengths? What are their weaknesses? How do we manage those strengths and weaknesses?
Yes, we get an image about the names on the ballot. But this is a faulty image. Or should I say “images”? The political party will happily portray their candidates as super humans: community-minded, successful, and wise. No flaws. Great people to vote for, right? But the opposing political party will happily point out real and imagined flaws. The media looks for anything that makes an interesting story to sell advertising. Whichever of these competing perspectives is more truthful is hard for most of us to determine in a wise way.
Most of us have never worked day-to-day with even one of the names on our ballots. So when we cast a vote, we are basing that vote on a lot of cruddy information.
Here’s how I would like to vote. How does the candidate participate in a meeting when real-life issues are being discussed? Does he/she enhance or stifle discussion? Does he/she listen to others? Does he/she change positions as new facts and perspectives become known? Or does the person have some inflexible ideological agenda to push through? Alas, most of us have little such experience with any of the candidates on our ballots. In the voting booth, we are dealing with images, not reality.
While the people who have worked day-to-day with a particular candidate have a reasonably good grasp of the candidate’s capacity, these people are only a small fraction of voters. Their wisdom cannot override the popular images.
When I finally understood how most of us voters do not know the candidates very well, my mind went churning. That churning led to me coming up with an alternative democracy: Tiered Democratic Governance (TDG). Here's the inspiration I got in 1992.
The TDG has much smaller electoral districts. For some reason, I came up with 200 residents per district, but this number could be smaller for geographical reasons. For some reason, I thought 250 was too large.
Dunbar’s Number
About a decade later after my TDG eureka, I serendipitously came across the Dunbar’s Number. Researcher Robert Dunbar hypothesized that most humans can hold about 150 stable relationships. By “stable,” he meant that two people know each other well enough that they could immediately socialize when coming in contact with each other. They have a history; they understand each other’s character; they know each other’s little world. They can “invade” each other’s spaces without much social fear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number
When I read about this social relationship, I immediately recognized how true this was. I recalled when I was about 30 years old. My parents and siblings were part of my Dunbar number. Also included were: (1) other relatives, (2) my girlfriend and her circle, (3) my employees in my small business, (4) friends I had made through my Toastmasters’ Club, (5) friends made through my political work, (6) friends in my current neighborhood, (7) friends from a previous neighborhood, and (8) friends from childhood. Maybe 100 people, which was my biggest Dunbar number. I now look fondly to those times. I was socially well connected back then. Not so much now.
As I review my life, I see that my Dunbar circle was constantly changing. People left my circle; other people joined. I was constantly reforming my Dunbar circle, as we all are. There is a psychological need to have that group, so we instinctually seek it out. We need more than a few social contacts that go beyond “acquaintances.”
But 150 social relationships seem to be the limit as to how much we can handle.
So when I deemed my electoral districts at no more than 200 residents, I was — unknowingly at that time — applying my life experience with the Dunbar’s number.
This does not mean that a citizen in a TDG has to be thoroughly acquainted with all his/her neighbors. Having 20 neighbors in one’s Dunbar group should suffice for a resident to cast a wise vote. Just vote for one of those 20 neighbors who best exemplifies “good character” and “capacity for governance.”
If enough neighbors have 10 to 20 neighbors in their own Dunbar group, they too will be casting a wise vote. Collectively, there will be more wise votes being cast than unwise votes.
In many TDG neighborhoods, several credible people will be at the top of the vote tallies. They got to this position because they developed a good rapport with some of their neighbors, day-by-day, month-by-month. No election campaign can cause a wiser vote.
Most of these credible people will likely be suitable for the job of the TDG neighborhood representative. The rules of the local TDG constitution will select one member from this credible group to hold the “neighborhood representative” position for a year. If that person does a good job, he/she stands a good chance of being re-elected. If not, the neighborhood will pick another credible neighbor next year.
This all starts with citizens wanting to put 20 neighbors into their Dunbar number. Having neighbors in our social circle is good thing to have. They are just next door. They can be a support group at the local level. But we need to let them into our Dunbar group.
The election of the TDG neighborhood representatives will be a tool to encourage neighbors to get to know each other a little better. We will be a little more caring and supportive.
And many TDG neighborhoods will indeed become communities.
Published on Medium 2023
Yesterday, My Neighbor Died Four Weeks Ago
TDG Neighborhoods & Communities
