I like sound critical commentary about my alternative democracy, Tiered Democratic Governance (TDG). And I like responding to those comments.
While my responses have not convinced anyone to take on the TDG, answering specific questions has helped me refine my thinking. I am better prepared for the real media when the real media wants to learn more about this new way.
This is probably the most thorough critical commentary I have “earned” on Medium. It would require a fairly lengthy response. But leaving this work as a response to Sam’s article would likely mean only Sam would read it. So I turned it into my own article for more Medium readers to inspect.
Italics are Sam’s words from his article.
I don’t actually know most of my neighbors personally. I’m ashamed to admit it, but I wouldn’t spend more than thirty minutes a month with anyone within a mile radius . . .
Sam is referring to the base electoral unit the TDG: the neighborhood. Neighborhoods of about 200 residents will be electing one neighbor in the first tier of the TDG. The premise is that neighbors have the ability to know something about each other, thereby casting a wiser vote than for a person behind the mask of a political party.
This “I don’t know my neighbors” is perhaps the most common criticism of the TDG. Many neighborhoods are not communities. But communities are what we really need. We need to make some connections with our neighbors. I have this great experience of when neighbors associated with each other. The TDG will be the catalyst for local community development.
My last neighborhood was not a real community. My current neighborhood is not a real community. But I always make an effort to talk to neighbors when I find them outside. If I do my little bit and others do their little bit, maybe we will find that community. Somebody has to start.
So I say try to engage with your neighbors. Welcome their engagement with you. You don’t have to be best friends. But we do have to have conversations.
And I say the TDG neighborhood elections will help in building communities in our neighborhood.
I would like to take this not-knowing-neighbors argument in a little different direction. As age has crept up on me and I look back to my youth, I marvel at my previous desire to make new friends and contacts. Attending meetings, going to events, being with buddies — and getting to know my neighbors were so important. These days, it is easier for me to get behind a keyboard or TV screen than to talk to people. I think, for many of us, this is a natural transition from youth to age.
Both Sam and I have more years behind us than ahead. The TDG won’t be ready for a decade or two. We are not building the TDG for ourselves. We are building it for the young people. Eventually, some young people will view building the TDG as a good reason to get out of the house, meet with peers, work together, and do something constructive.
If you have young people in your life, tell them about the TDG. They must be confused as hell at how we old people believe in a system that got us to our current mess. If getting a young person to work for the TDG is your TDG contribution, it is a great contribution.
I don’t care if my state senator is a nice guy who will come fix my car when it breaks down; I want universal health care.
If Sam were living in a TDG USA and wanted public health care, he need only tell his elected representative. Sam’s conversation, by itself, won’t cause much movement. But if thousands or millions of other citizens are engaging with their first-tier representatives in a similar manner, these representatives will realize that their neighborhood wants this change. As the first-tier representatives meet in their district, they will recognize that other neighborhoods want this change. The will of the people is speaking clearly. The first-tier representatives have no choice but to bring this citizens’ issue to the attention of the second tier. From the second tier, it will go to the higher tiers. To keep the TDG credible, the higher tiers have no choice but to start building a true public health care system. So with time and a unified, rightful pressure, public health care becomes a serious priority for TDG governance.
Talking with first-tier TDG representatives is a more organic way to move society forward than voting and protesting.
There is a definite risk of parties forming based on this alone. I will be basing my vote on who I expect my representative to vote for, and if that leads to a coalition of people who promise to vote for each other based on a similar policy platform, we just reinvented political parties.
I believe Sam is envisioning the possibility of an ambitious neighbor wanting a position in the TDG. This neighbor might say something like: “Vote for me because I will move public health care forward.”
Then, I believe, Sam anticipates this neighbor taking this ambition to a higher level than mere campaigning in his neighborood. He starts looking for similar people in other neighborhoods. They will support each other to improve their chance of electoral success. With a united front, they look more attractive to voters.
To show that united front, the “Public Health Care Party” needs to be seen together. Sam’s ambitious neighbor invites my ambitious neighbor to a rally in Sam’s neighborhood. And the favor is returned. They look good together, proselytizing their public health care opinions to each other’s voters.
But to be truly effective, this scenario needs to be repeated in more neighborhoods. Did I mention that the neighborhoods are many and small? To show unity, the “Public Health Care Party” would have to conduct many rallies. The ambitious contenders would have to dedicate a lot of time and energy to attend each other’s rallies. They would have to strategize on how to get the numbers of attendees up to make the rallies and their cause seem credible.
There is one main TDG mechanism that prevents this from happening: the first-tier representatives are mostly volunteer positions. There is no big salary or staffers. They still have to go to their regular job. There is not a lot of influence beyond being the conduit between the citizens and the higher tiers. So even if an ambitious group of people form a faction to get elected in the first tier, there is no big reward for being in that first tier. Why anyone would put in immense energy to rise to such a low political level should be a sign of someone not to vote for. And the TDG culture will be strong enough such that many voters would cast their votes to someone else — because these public health care people look like a political party. These voters would recognize the old ways need to be cast aside.
Yes, these ambitious people might have their eye on the second tier to get more influence. But to get the second-tier job, they would need to campaign against the people in their faction, who probably also have their eye on the second tier. Would these “faction” people be happy to remain low in the first tier? With little pay? With unrealized political ambitions? No, the infighting in the faction will also contribute to the breakup of the faction.
The granulated nature (many, small electoral districts) of the TDG will cast factions aside if factions try to form. The TDG culture and faction infighting will lead to most citizens not bothering to form factions.
Power is absurdly desirable, and power-driven individuals are inevitably going to find the best way to get what they want under this new system.
There are several aspects in the TDG that change the nature of assigning authority and responsibility. Each of these aspects, by themselves, do not satisfactorily explain this new way. But when they all intersect, they all reinforce each other, forming a strong truss.
Here is a list of the aspects to have the TDG voters casting a wiser vote than they do in western democracy.
1. The early TDG builders must build a culture where voters are thinking about people of good character and capacity for governance — and cast votes in that direction. So every annual election, the voters will be reminded of their responsibility. As each election passes, each citizen will be thinking more deeply on this matter. We will become wiser voters.
2. Not only should voting for good character and capacity be reinforced, the voters should be educated about the perils of campaigning and self-promotion. Part of this TDG culture will be to cast votes away from people who say: “Vote for me.”
3. The small size of the TDG neighborhoods provide an opportunity for neighbors to get to know each other to cast that wise vote. If a partisan or one-issue neighbor is a turkey, the other neighbors will know that person is a turkey, regardless of which alliance or issue the person is supporting. Many voters will cast their votes to someone else.
4. The political parties will find it very difficult to organize themselves in the many and smaller TDG neighborhoods. If a party wants to proffer a partisan candidate in each TDG neighborhood, it will be proffering too many turkeys. Most turkeys will not find electoral success in the TDG neighborhoods.
5. While a few turkeys will be elected into the first tier, fewer will find their way in the second tier.
6. There is no parachuting in the TDG. Neighbors can only vote for other neighbors who are resident in that neighborhood.
7. The first-tier representatives will not have a lot of influence or power in the TDG. This low position means sociopaths and psychopaths will not find this position exciting enough to crave this position. If they accept the path and fool their neighbors to vote for them, they will have a spotlight cast on them. As they interact with neighbors more, their negative tendencies will become better known. Enough neighbors will see through the charade — and vote for someone else in the next annual election. It is unlikely sociopaths and psychopaths can win two successive neighborhood elections. It is unlikely they can move into the second tier. Can you imagine a system of governance where there are no such people in the higher levels?
8. The TDG is about collaboration, consensus, and consultation. If a first-tier representative is not well experienced in these attributes, he or she is unlikely to advance to the second and higher tiers. Arrogant people who have all the answers are not likely to rise much higher.
9. The TDG elections are annual. With this regularity, new people can be tried out in TDG governance for a short time. If they are good for the job, voters can keep them in place. If not, they can be replaced.
Again, one of these attributes by itself is not enough. But working together, these attributes create a strong frame to find our better political leaders.
Western democracy has learned to corral those people who aspire for status, influence, and power. It has put some limits on what they can and cannot do. So any damage they cause is minimized.
In contrast, the TDG will learn how to cast these kinds of leaders to the sidelines. It will find new political leaders, many of whom would never consider being a politician in western democracy. There is little damage caused by sociopathic and psychopathic players because they are not in government.
Within the tiers, we should expect a lot of wheeling and dealing. At best, successful climbers will be able to build coalitions and fulfill promises to their constituencies down the tiers. . . . As you go up the tiers, politicians become more detached from the masses and more reliant on each other. It’s only natural to want to help out your friends and outside of politics it’s considered despicable to forget about the people who helped you rise to the top. . . .
I believe Sam is referring to the dealmaking that was common in American politics, with Congress members trying to leverage more favors gained over favors given. This was a skillful game to play, but is this really about good governance?
As mentioned earlier, many first-tier representatives do not have the time and energy to form factions. They will also not want the hassle of constructing deals with other “power” brokers at that level. But let’s imagine that they do.
Let’s say 10 neighborhoods are grouped into a district. The neighborhood representatives meet once a month to discuss affairs of their district. Once a year, the district will hold its election to send one of these neighborhood representatives to the second tier. Imagine this secret conversation happening between two neighborhood representatives:
NR1: I would like the second-tier job. Will you vote for me?
NR2: What would you be able to do for me or my neighborhood?
NR1: Well, you know that crosswalk in your neighborhood that you say needs repainting?
NR2: It really does need repainting.
NR1: Well, I can make it happen. Your neighbors will vote you next year with a shiny new crosswalk.
NR2: Deal.
Here’s the kicker with this deal. All elections in the TDG are done with a secret ballot. After the ballot box is opened and votes are counted, no one knows who voted for whom. In this case, NR2 could have made the same deal with other viable contenders for the second-tier spot. In other words, the secret ballot makes any deal-making attempts pointless.
To add, the TDG culture will discourage attempts at deal-making. If NR2 is immersed in this culture and is offered this deal by NR1, NR2 would likely vote for someone else. This voter will not reward any deal-making in the TDG.
Representatives like NR1 will find there is no personal advancement in the TDG by offering deals.
Here is how the crosswalk issue will be resolved in the TDG. My representative should voice his constituents’ concerns that the crosswalk needs to be repainted to the relevant authorities, like the second or third TDG tier or maybe an appropriate civil service. Whether the crosswalk is repainted or not is a matter of deliberation for that authority. That authority has to set the priorities. Budgets, current policies, background information, more pressing matters, etc. all come into play. I, my neighbors, and our representative do not have the bigger picture. We just make the point that the crosswalk needs to be repainted.
If the crosswalk is not repainted this year, a little more wear will make it a stronger candidate for repainting next year. And the formal notice made this year will also help that decision for next year.
Every issue brought up by a first-year representative should be taken seriously for that person is the spokesperson for the neighborhood. But not all issues will get addressed in the way the representative and his/her constituents would like. Unfortunately, the TDG will not have limitless resources. It needs to set priorities. The priorities will be decided by the merits of each issue, not by alliances of people striving for a higher position.
Is this not a better way to get a crosswalk repainted than making political deals? Can you imagine the trust of the system when citizens know governance is not about skillful political dealmaking?
Dealmaking is part of our power accumulation instinct. The culture of the TDG needs to address this instinct. It will find representatives with a spirit of service, not advancement of their career or personal life. These representatives will just let the TDG elections decide whether they go, stay, rise, or fall. They will be content to serve however the TDG calls them into public service.
I know this sounds a bit too utopic for many readers. But it is so easy to say that power-hungry people will eventually dominate the TDG by making deals. But these same critics have not provided any plausible mechanism of how that can happen in a well functioning TDG.
I have been thinking about a plausible mechanism for overly ambitious people to dominate the TDG for a long time. I just can’t think of any. I would like people to study the TDG and explain how a faction can take control of the TDG.
I would welcome the chance to respond to such an article.
Volek proposes an advisory board, but this is an effectively toothless position appointed by the highest tiers of the TDG, the ones least directly accountable to the people.
The advisory board is a salient feature of the TDG. Simply put, advisers are respected individuals to help out the elected bodies with their decisions (Chapter 5 gives a few more tasks the advisors can take on). An advisor has open access to the elected body’s meetings. But he/she has no vote or veto in those meetings. But the advisor has a different perspective, which could be useful in the elected body’s deliberations.
Think of this dynamic. An elected TDG body has gotten itself in a rut. The representatives are not united; the same alternatives with the same pros and cons go round and round, with no one changing their mind. The advisor brings his/her outside perspective into the discussion. The representatives listen to the advisor respectfully. Then one or two representatives start seeing the issue in a different way. The deliberation then breaks out of its rut. The advisor has moved the elected body into a more effective and consensual decision.
There’s nothing stopping the most affluent families from taking control of their local social space and forming an old boys’ club that writes the rules in a way that cements their own power. Especially active and strong communities may vote in candidates that oppose this regime, but they won’t make it very far up the tiers unless they play ball.
Sam is bringing up an interesting point. Before I get into my lengthy answer, I’ll briefly describe how the TDG is going to be built.
Four or more TDG-inclined neighbors will be starting their local TDGs. The whole neighborhood is not necessary to start. These early builders will be writing their own local TDG constitution. Then they will conduct their first election and run their local TDG according to their rules. The rules will also guide refinements to their constitution.
Eventually, these local TDGs will merge with adjacent TDGs. This will require a new constitution for the merged area. The negotiation for this new constitution will be excellent practice to acquire more skills in TDG governance. Each local TDG needs to agree to the merger, as per the rules of each local TDG. And there will be more mergers, bringing all the local independent TDGs under one TDG umbrella.
I think Sam is saying that the upper-class neighborhoods can somehow game the TDG merger process such that the constitutions give this class more political power in the merged area than the numbers of upper-class residents warrant. For example, let’s say the richest 20% of the people get 70% of the control of the TDG. Kind of like how the USA is run today!
I should mention the early TDG will not be open to everyone. In fact, only a few people will be interested in participating in the TDG. They will be the people who recognize that American democracy is broken and unrepairable. They are willing to put in the 10 hours a month to build a new democracy. This is far from a mass movement. Most Americans will not join this movement.
So for those few who can see the new TDG way is better than hanging on to the current way, they will not have the “baggage people” to work through. The early builders can build new constitutions and negotiate mergers without a negative attitude. In other words, the more reasonable people will be building the TDG. And they will be learning how to get along better.
I believe the early TDGs will start in the middle and lower classes. So these demographics will have several years of TDG experience before the upper classes take notice and realize that they need to become part of this movement. By then, the middle and lower class TDGs will have gained some serious maturity. At this point, it will be difficult to rig the TDG constitution building process in favor of the upper classes.
But let’s assume that the upper classes will try. It is one thing to get 70% of the political power through the implicit route of being able to afford big campaign donations. It is another thing to get 70% of the political power through the explicit route of wording the TDG constitution to give 70% of political power to the 20%. Any TDG constitution written with this imbalance will be immediately noticed. And ridiculed. And deplored. There is no way any mature TDG from the middle or lower class neighborhoods would approve of such a merger.
If I may, I’m going to anticipate Sam’s next question: “What if the upper classes do not join the TDG movement?
First, I don’t think the upper classes are as selfish as popular opinion suggests. Many in this demographic will realize they cannot ignore the desires of 80% or more of the population. They will start their own local TDG in their affluent neighborhoods and seek to join the rest of the TDG movement, respecting the principle that each person has the same political influence as everyone else. The 20% of upper-class resistors will drop to 5%.
Second, I expect opposition to the TDG. Things could get mean. But when the opposition starts, the TDG will be working well and electing very capable leaders. They will handle this opposition to the TDG’s benefit. These TDG leaders will also be people who spend time in grocery stores shopping for their own food.
If a gated community still refuses to join the TDG when it finally resumes responsibility and authority for governance, there will be ways to bring it onside, like a toll to cross between the TDG world and this “independent nation.”
As you go up the tiers, politicians become more detached from the masses and more reliant on each other. It’s only natural to want to help out your friends and outside of politics it’s considered despicable to forget about the people who helped you rise to the top.
If the TDG develops the right culture, this cannot happen. This right culture depends on the early TDG builders putting that right culture together, applying its principles in their own deliberations. As new people join the TDG, they will be exposed and “trained” in this new culture. They will be like the early builders. Some new members may still employ the old ways, but they won’t get many votes. So the new culture stays intact.
If the TDG does not develop this culture, then it will fail early in its foray. In fact, I anticipate that some TDGs will fail for this reason. New TDGs will rise in their place, knowing what to do better next time.
As I have alluded earlier, new skills need to be learned. One of the more important skills is “Consultation,” to which I have dedicated Chapter 4 of my book. Briefly stated, consultation is about combining the knowledge, experience, and wisdom of several people into one unified voice. This is much better than competing voices each saying that they have all the right answers — and the other voices are just fools.
We all have to learn consultation. And building the TDG will be the forum to — deliberately and consciously — learn this important skill. Part of our TDG vote for capacity and good character should be based on consultation skills. Voting based on these skills is so much better than “Vote for me.”
When the TDG moves from self-governance to societal issues, the culture of consultation will strongly be in place. The elected bodies will be making wise and credible statements. Many citizens will start recognizing the TDG as a credible alternative to replace western democracy. More people will join the TDG movement.
But let me say this one more time: “We all have to learn consultation.” Whatever consultation skills we currently have, they need to get better.
Sam’s last words are:
The important thing is to understand the future is open, and we still have things to discover about how we can run society.
Other than the four TDG salient features, I leave each TDG to design itself. The early TDG builders are going to build on that foundation for that open future. So I’m not sure what the final TDG structures are going to look like.
We do indeed have things to discover about how we can run society. Building the TDG will be a great experiment in democracy.
And special thanks to Sam Young for bringing up all these points in one Medium article. It was fun writing this response.
I do encourage reading my TDG book. It will take about three hours. But it better shows how the different parts of the TDG are connected and reinforce each other into a strong democracy. A democracy built by the people and for the people.
Published on Medium 2023
Toto, I have a feeling we are not in the 1960s anymore
