Half smaller voter groups probably better: 50 voters, not 100 voters / group

   Changing voter group size from 100 to 50 has 4 benefits:
   - a 50 person voter group is much easier to establish then a 100 one,:
   - a 50 person voter group is an effective deliberative body,:
   - if there are few(er) willing voters, with 50 per group you twice
   sooner attain a fully working Government with enough delegates, with
   half the voters,

   There is a downside::
   - if there are many voters, it will yield a large number of delegates,
   - the danger of fraud increases as the council+voters sizes become
   smaller.:
   - in the cities (always the cities are the problem), you end up with a
   lot of delegates voting for city-wide, which in theory is no problem,
   but makes the "one delegate per local council" (see previous post)
   impossible. At least several adjacent councils need to group together
   to vote for one delegate to city-wide. This problem also occurs with
   100 voters per group in cities, but it occurs twice sooner for 50.

   With 50 per voter group the delegates presumably must work mostly part
   time and/or only sporadic. Which is no problem.

   I think it is probably better to use 50 persons. The benefits of having
   voter groups be easy to start up is important, the fact that they would
   be truly deliberative bodies and not unwieldy masses of people is
   important (100 persons is IMHO a bit of an unwieldy mass). 50 persons
   is still somewhat of a mass, also giving it credibility, but small
   enough for meaningful debates. With 50 voters per voter group the
   status of the councils drops, since they represent fewer people. That
   can both be a benefit or a drawback.

   At the moment I'm for 50 instead of 100 voters per voter group. Even
   100 was already much below what I've read has happened in revolutions,
   where people voted with several hundreds for one delegate (IIRC).

   There is a danger with groups of 100 voters, that during a change that
   amount of people is so large you barely can bring that many people
   together. Then when you have, it is unwieldy and has several elements
   scooped up by accident with few intention to be of any help. I can
   imagine that would be enough to break the success of the change. It is
   true that 50 voters would double the amount of delegates, but at least
   there are delegates and presumably they are reasonably well
   self-disciplined. If so, that would mean their numbers will be far less
   of a problem even if large, then the numbers for voters.

   

   

   

   King elect is not affected by voter-group sizes:
   
   
   posted on Saturday, February 21, 2009 10:18 AM

   Comments
   # re: Half smaller voter groups probably better: 50 voters, not 100
   voters / group
   jos boersema
   
   To change from 100 to 50, law 3.1.d would need to be changed from 100
   to 50:

  _3.1.d People Government
   One group of adults assemble out of their own initiative.
   Once they have chosen from between them a vote block housekeeper
   that is responsible for correct voter registration and verification,
   they are allowed to have one representative, which can be anyone in
   or out of that block. The People or in their absence the Country
   Council decide on the minimum size of a voter group.

   The minimum size for a voter group is: ..100 persons.

  _3.1.d People Government
   One group of adults assemble out of their own initiative.
   Once they have chosen from between them a vote block housekeeper
   that is responsible for correct voter registration and verification,
   they are allowed to have one representative, which can be anyone in
   or out of that block. The People or in their absence the Country
   Council decide on the minimum size of a voter group.

   The minimum size for a voter group is: ..50 persons.

   Posted @ 2/21/2009 10:48 AM  

   # re: Half smaller voter groups probably better: 50 voters, not 100
   voters / group
   jos boersema

   It is now a little time after changing this number, and I am feeling
   much, much more confident in the system this way. That nagging feeling
   that we wouldn`t be able to get voter groups together is gone.
   Someone here said that 50 is already quite a few people for a real
   discussion. That is true, but it is a manageable amount. I think you
   also want the group to carry some weight, because it is a serious
   issue (Government). In a group of 50 you are more likely to find
   people who know something then in groups of say 25.

   Posted @ 2/22/2009 1:52 PM  

   # re: Half smaller voter groups probably better: 50 voters, not 100
   voters / group
   jos boersema

   When there are so many delegates, there will be few work for them to
   do. That means most delegates would work part-time. That would mix the
   political Government and the people, making democracy better & more
   stable, more realistic & competent. Access to the delegates by the
   people improves.

   Posted @ 2/24/2009 10:43 AM  
   # re: Half smaller voter groups probably better: 50 voters, not 100
   voters / group
   jos boersema

   I made the mistake because I thought it would be better if there where
   fewer delegates, while at the same time it would be better if the
   voter groups where smaller. The two demands oppose each other, and I
   settled it on 100. I was worried that this was not going to work, and
   therefore suggested solutions to the inability of people to form such
   large voter groups effectively.

   Now I`m realizing there was no such contradiction: it is quite
   allright if there are a great many delegates. They can work part-time,
   say only one meeting a week, or one day a week, or once a month, to
   solve the problems or make headway with whatever plans. Having more
   delegates means the people and government are more strongly mixed in
   with each other. Both from the fact that there are twice more
   delegates, and that the delegates work part-time. A delegate working
   part-time as delegate and the rest of the time as something else,
   naturally causes a lot more points of contact between that delegate
   and the people. It also effectively makes the delegate a part of the
   body of the people themselves.

   So the mistake was thinking many delegates would be a problem, where
   in fact it is an asset.

   Posted @ 3/14/2009 6:23 PM  

Post Comment