Chapter 10-I-b
The 'Nuts and Bolts'
A detailed prototype representational scheme


As a prototype system to consider, primarily for illustrative purposes, (and as a point of departure for discussion), let’s imagine that every Local Group will elect one representative to its District Congress, (the next level up in the representational hierarchy), for every 25 citizen-members it has on its dues-paid rolls. Thus, a Group that has 345 citizen-members who are current on their dues would elect 13 representatives to the District Congress. (345 / 25 = 13, with an unrepresented remainder, as discussed below, of 20). When this group acquires 5 more members, for a total of 350, they would elect an additional representative, for a total of 14 (350 / 25=14).

In the group with 345 members, it can be seen that 20 citizen-members are theoretically unrepresented, since 13 representatives, (with one representative for every 25 members), accounts for representation for only 325 citizen-members (13 x 25 = 325). Or, to look at it another way, 345 / 25 = 13, with an unrepresented ‘remainder’ of 20. We have in mind a ‘one person one vote’ system of representation, which can be easily facilitated through the organization’s operational software, and can exactly account for such discrepancies, to ensure that every citizen-member's vote is properly and precisely represented. We will discuss this in detail in a later section of this chapter (chapter 10-I-h).

To ensure that diverse opinions within the Local Group are represented at the District Congress, elections could be conducted in a manner that favors proportional representation. One idea that supports this, (among many that could be devised), would be to have citizen-members stand for election by declaring their viewpoints and opinions concerning matters of import to the Group, with citizen-members then casting votes for their preferred candidates, with each citizen-member casting a set number of votes that is determined as a fixed percentage of the total number of representative being elected.

In our hypothetical group of 345 citizen-members that is electing 13 representatives, let’s posit that each citizen-member shall cast 3 ballots, which is statutorily determined as 20% of the total slate of representatives being elected, rounded up. (20% of 13 = 2.6, rounded up to 3). A Local Group that had 553 citizen-members (current on their dues) would elect 22 representatives. 553 / 25 = 22, (with a unrepresented ‘remainder’, as accounted for in chapter 10-I-h, of three). So each citizen-member in a Group of 553 would cast 4 votes, (22 x 20% = 4.4, rounded down to 4). Let’s further posit that constitutional provisions will state that each citizen-member can only cast one ballot for any single candidate.

Obviously a different percentage, other than 20%, could be established and used to determine the number of votes allotted to each citizen-member. Higher percentages, which would allow each citizen-member to cast a higher number of ballots, would seem to weigh in the general favor of the prevailing majority; lower would provide more diversity of representation. A proper and equitable ‘happy medium’ would need to be established if this system, (or one like it), were implemented. (The statistical analysis here of the effect of greater or lower percentages is relatively complex, so we won’t try to present it here. This scheme, like any proposed scheme, would need a great deal of analysis and evaluation before it was implemented).

In our hypothetical Local Group of 345 members, electing 13 representatives, with each citizen-member casting 3 ballots, (20% of the total delegation rounded to the nearest whole number), with the stipulation that each citizen-member can only cast one vote for any single candidate, the 13 candidates with the highest vote totals would be elected. More candidates whose opinions represent a larger share of the opinions of the Group’s total membership would naturally be elected, but other candidates would also be elected who represent the opinions of smaller percentages of the group’s overall membership.

(Any system like this can be revised and improved, when we put our minds to the task, or an entirely different, more equitable, system could be created).


Previous Page..........................................Table of Contents..........................................Next Page