Hello Donovan. You have some good questions here. For sure, the PR systems will provide a better balance of "minorities" than Westminster.
Even before I invented the TDG (before 1992), I was toying with the idea interest-based constuencies as opposed to geographical constituencies.
Then when I started writing down the TDG (1997), I had to really think this new democratic feature through. In the end, I abandoned it. Here is my reasoning:
1) Interest-based constiuencies will have a stronger inclination to become lobby groups than geographical constituencies will. When represenatives are elected for the purpose of advancing their own tribe, that kind of defeats some of the purpose the TDG.
2) We need stronger local communities. I have experienced this twice in my life. First, growing up a rural area in southern Alberta. The second was my neighborhood in Edmonton. My neighbor kind of organized us--and it was great. Here is my article on this:
https://medium.com/tiered-democratic-governance/neighborhoods-communities-1af46cb4513a
I think the TDG will be more able to create these kinds of communities. Many of us need a little extra in our support networks. Our internet communities are a little far away if we need some medical assistance or child care.
----------------
I also think the TDG will cause us to behave less tribally. So people-not-like-the-majority will stand a better chance of being elected (if they are of good character and capacity for governance) in a TDG than with Westminster or even PR.
And the TDG should still allow associations of people based on particilar interests. These associations can and should submit their concerns to the TDG for consideration and formal deliberation.
With the TDG representatives not having any partisan or mandate-driven forces attached to their elected position, they will be more able to deal with these concerns from the associations.
-------------------
In the back of my mind, I still have an inkling of a second assembly (based on minority interests) to work in concert with the elected assembly of the TDG. But I just can't put the pieces together so that it is not overly complicated. And I still come back to building those local communitIes. Maybe I might see how this second assembly could work. But I'm not seeing it now.
In the end, I believe that many citizens just want governance to go to the background of their lives. If they can see the TDG coming up with reasonably good decisions, these citizens are less likely to want to take a great part in governance. Voting once a year in the TDG elections (for someone they really know) will make more sense to them than being viligant about their democracy. If so, then that second assembly is not necessary.
----------
Thanks for your good question. All critiques are helping me prepare for the time when the TDG is really critiqued.
Dave
