Gaming the RA

[Claude Desmoulins]

Much SC discussion of late has been focused on how to prevent "gaming" of the RA. While I'll acknowledge that there's some room for clarification, I think something is being missed.

There is no constitutional mechanism for a faction leader to force an RA member from his or her faction to resign an RA seat. This could be accomplished via behind closed doors strong-arming. If it were, how would you know?

It could be prevented, of course, by electing candidates directly and dumping the factions. If a person resigned there would be a special election. I tend to think this causes its own problems.

[Jon Seattle]

One part of this issue may be the difference between european and US political experience. In the US it is usual to have elections that effectively pit one candidate against another and so party platforms and party process are secondary.

An good example of a party platform that people ignore is that of the Texas Republican Party, which among other things claims that the separation of church and state is a myth; asks that the Internal Revenue Service and Education departments be abolished; and that the US remove itself from the UN. Laugh at your own risk!

In europe parties and platforms are more important and taken more seriously. The positive side of this is that plaform-building becomes a way of examining values and collective planning for their societies. A lot of the stuff that goes on behind closed doors in the US is dragged out in to the open and this adds to the general level of political education.

Perhaps in the US the political process is aimed at more efficient administration, which, as Madison argues in federalist paper number 10, is aided by abolishing factions. The trade-off may be a system that provides less social participation and debate.

[Dianne]

I agree with Claude's thought that "gaming" the system is perhaps unlikely, but I still think it's the purpose of every well designed governmental system to avoid such things if possible. Some of the possible scenarios would indeed require the people behind the factions to be very devious and make plots behind closed doors, but in our short history as a state we have already been exposed to fairly high levels of similar such "devious" behavior IMO.

If the system can be designed (without going to any ridiculous lengths), so that bad things like that can't happen, I think it's a good thing to do so.

Personally, I think that it's more dangerous that "unpopular" candidates can join a faction and be slipped into the RA (through one of the winners stepping down), than it is dangerous that the RA might be forced to dissolve because of a lack of candidates or members.

Both are "gaming" the system, but in the second case all that results is another election. In the first case you get people in power that were neither expected nor voted for. In my country the governments are always multi-party, usually shaky, and coalitions are formed between various groups. Often they fall unexpectedly and a new election has to be called. So the idea of unexpected elections, or of a particular faction "forcing" an election is just part of the political landscape where I am.

Not saying that means it's right, just that its fairly usual to me.

[Jon Seattle]

In my experience when there is effective consensus on issues things run reasonably well, no matter what the rules. The problem is to have a reasonable plan when consensus breaks down.

1. Neualtenberg is a very small organization. (We can always change things when we get larger, but my guess is that this will take some time.) Fears about mob rule, etc are unlikely to be realized in a group this small.

2. The main reason we want an RA is that not every member wants to sit through every detailed proposal.

Having said (as I did above) I would really like to retain factions, does not mean that we have to have no rules. I think that Gwyn is working on a proposal that has a number of advantages.

I also see the RA as a proxy for the community at large, so there are times when it is appropriate to handle issues by calling a town meeting. Personally, I think town meetings should have the ability to override the decisions of the RA. There should also be plans for the SC appointing a skilled mediator when conflict becomes a problem.