Party combinations to win elections
 -----------------------------------

 Some party election models (Roman (ideological) faction democracy
 with universal suffrage) are "winner takes all" demanding maximum
 size of the winning entity. All party democracy systems require
 a minimum number of votes for one seat.

 Some ideas on a party front:
 - Have in the name the word for 'independent' or something, to
   stress the independence of each party within the front (the
   essential party strategy). Something like: DAVID-ICF,
   DAVID-Independent-Combination-Front. It would be even less
   centralized then a federation, because a federation has a
   top government body comprised of various top entities of
   each participating party.
 - Once the election has won and the seats divided, each could
   go their own way and try to work for and with their party.
 
 The biggest problems may be: how to divide the seats, and also
 how to deal with a demand of the democracy model that the front
 is one party, how to pretend to be one party on the outside if
 that is absolutely necessary.

 Maybe this is a good moment to bring out the women-committee.
 The women committee could make a recommendation on these issues,
 the women committee could be formed out of all the members of
 all the DAVID parties that are going to combine. Since the
 strategy of the women committee is that there is no preconditions
 or prescribed activity for it, there isn't more that can be said
 about it I suppose. For every new election round being years apart,
 a new women committee could be formed.

 Obvious issues are:
 - Do we want to do this at all ?
 - If so, what name.
 - If so, how to present a common interface to the election system.
 - If so, what rule for dividing the seats.
 - If so, what order on the ballots.
 - If so, if the election systems demands a common office for the
   combination, who is to staff that, how is it made up, who tells
   that office what to do ...
 - If so, what parties do we allow to join.

 One thing we can also do is that if a certain party does not get
 any seats, that this party is still heard and "speaking through"
 those that have gotten seats (see also the Haudenosaunee system,
 where the 6th tribe has no chiefs but speak through another tribes
 chiefs.) If we can play it like that, the tensions about seats
 could be less, but it actually will have to mean something. This
 would require the front doing sufficient communication between the
 combining entities. Hence what could happen for example: 6 parties
 combine, only 3 seats, 3 parties left out. Now one of those 3
 wants to put something on the parliamentary agenda and it is - so
 to speak - its turn to have a voice. Then one of the seats could
 take up that issue in the parliament giving that party its share
 of the vote.

 The women-committee is an above-everything committee, above strategy
 and principle including these, on the other hand it only gives advice.

 See: http://www.socialism.nl/post/001/034 <-- committee of women

 Using a women-committee for this makes the combination less predictable
 for enemies too. (If there aren't enough women you could obviously
 add more days, or use some other random selection.)