Ways,methods a Society can become non-fragmented, was my thought in making this page
excerpt from above huffington post article ;
"Our government has multiple levels and multiple branches at each level, making it extremely complex. In elections, each citizen is responsible for voting for a wide range of candidates for various offices in primary and general elections, and in some states on initiatives, referendums, and constitutional amendments as well. Surveys have consistently shown that most people are frightfully uninformed about politics, with many able to name only a few of their representatives, and most knowing next to nothing about what any of their representatives have done while in office. Is it realistic to expect average people to stay adequately informed and to make good voting decisions on all of these things? Is it only the act of voting that matters, with good decisions not mattering at all?
Voting is a binary form of communication, and while voting is a terrific way for a group of people to make a decision on a specific issue or to elect a candidate, a vote cannot communicate anything beyond a “yes” or “no.” Since our representatives each work on dozens of issues while in office, isn’t it ongoing communication and accountability that is important rather than simply casting votes for candidates every few years?
Each of our representatives has many thousands or millions of constituents, which makes it impossible for more than a tiny few to communicate with them directly. How is representation possible when communication is impossible?
We talk of “we the people” and of the “public interest,” but the general public is completely unorganized politically, which makes it impossible for any “will of the people” to emerge. How can our representatives work in the public interest when there is no way of knowing what the public interest is?
As one of many millions, each citizen tends to feel overwhelmed and powerless to affect an enormous, distant government. We experience a diffusion of responsibility and assume that someone else will take responsibility for being informed, making good voting decisions, and holding representatives accountable — so no one does. How can Americans control the government when no one feels responsible for it?
In this environment voters are uninformed, unorganized, disconnected, and apathetic, which makes it very difficult for candidates for political office to turn them into supporters who vote for them.
Special interests, on the other hand, have a strong interest in specific government policies that benefits them. The reason they get involved in politics is because their agendas are likely opposed by the majority of citizens. Those who are successful are well organized, well financed, highly motivated, and they are happy to provide support in the form of money and/or votes from their membership to candidates who will advocate for their cause in government. "
It makes sense that, in order for democracy to work, representation must be broken down into chunks that people can realistically work within, the public must be organized, and citizens must have a single representative who serves as their single point of contact in the government.
How might this work?
Citizens would need to be arranged in small election districts, which we will call communities. Members of each community would elect someone from within their community to serve as their community representative, and delegate all political responsibility to that person. This would make it possible for everyone in the community to get to know their representative, tell him their needs and concerns, and hold him accountable.
Representatives would need to be arranged into a hierarchy, with lower level representatives electing, setting the agenda of, and holding accountable higher level representatives. Communication could flow up and down the hierarchy with ease, just as it does in a business. It would be an inverted hierarchy that would connect citizens to all levels of government.
This would organize the public so that the “will of the people” could be known by the government. It would vastly simplify what citizens have to deal with and allow the people to effectively manage the government. People would feel motivated to become engaged in democracy because they would be empowered to really make a difference and they would be part of a community of neighbors with whom they would become friends.
We have though through such a system of democracy, and we call it Local Electors, which is also the name we’ve given the community representatives.
How do you feel about the power of our financial industry and the damage it has done to our economy? Are you concerned about the environmental destruction that has become so common across our country? Does it bother you that so many people have no health insurance, and that many who do still find themselves with large medical bills? Are you upset that we somehow continuously find ourselves in one preemptive war after another?
" Enter 2010. Democracy will not repair our teetering political system. In addition to being extremely dangerous, more democracy will only exacerbate its problems. The misconception that America is a democracy has blinded us to the imbalance in our republic, has led us to believe that Congress has and ought to have the greater authority. And so, we have just stood by and watched and sometimes even praised Congress’ steady accumulation of power. To what end? Special interests, run-away spending, pork, bribery, double-dealing... The list goes on. Yet these do not dominate the offices of the White House or the Supreme Court, but rather the halls of the Capitol. And tyranny? That is precisely what Citizens United vs. FEC addressed. Where does Congress get the notion that it can tell publishing houses what books they can publish, television studios what films they can produce, and American citizens what books they can read? It is one of those frightening “will of the people” justifications. And Athens and France have revealed the frightening road down which those have led.