I think I finally see your objection to the TDG:
There’s a yes and no to your winner-take-all comment. In its initial form, TDG is a plurality vote. However, I have given the early builders the option to keep that system or to change their electoral structures to offer a more “democratic” approach, such as ranked ballots, run-off elections, or multiple representatives. Each TDG is going to design itself and experiment with new ways. But that’s not the main point I want to make.
The reasons to cast a vote are much different in the TDG as opposed western democracy. In western democracy, one finds a political party most suitable to one’s current ideology, then vote for that party. In the TDG, one finds someone of good character and capacity for governance in their neighborhood, then vote for that person.
If plurality is retained in the TDG, then most neighborhoods are likely to have three or four people who exhibit these qualities — and most of the votes will be cast in towards these people. One of those good people will be elected. And the objective of the TDG election has been fullfilled.
But if one is looking for a political party to nationalize health care or send the Slovak Army to attack Budapest, then any version of western democracy would be preferable to the TDG.
There is little mandate in TDG elections for elected representatives to get something done, realistic or unrealistic. Just find good people, give them a good rulebook to discuss things and come to a solution. Implement that solution and observe how it works.
I realize that ideologues will have a hard time with this concept, but non-partisan, non-ideological solutions are what is needed for the future.
