I wanted to know if DDC considers continuous election systems inside their agenda of electoral reform proposals.

Here is a thread where this topic is discussed:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=25124

*******

DDC Response:

Thank you for your inquiry and your interest in direct democracy. I read the thread and I appreciate the thought and analysis that you applied to your informative ideas. Continuous election systems are included our proposals for direct democracy voting networks. The difference between your proposal and ours is that we propose electing professional nonpartisan government managers, instead of professional partisan politicians, to represent us. Like your idea, there would be no term limits. As long as representatives do their jobs, which includes informing their voters and following voter mandates regarding important matters, taxation and public policty, they keep their jobs. If not, they are voted out and new managers are voted in.

Again, thank you for your interest. If you have any further questions, suggestions or comments, please do not hesitate contact me.

Best regards,

Daniel B. Jeffs, founder
The Direct Democracy Center

*******

Charlls J. Quarra reply:

Good to hear it :)

Just a few suggestions

The partisanship IMHO should be not be delivered in the same package along with the continuous electoral system reform, as long as there are no compulsory reasons. In my proposal i try to support both partisan and individual candidacies, just to make a clear point that implementing a continuous system isnt like turning the world upside down. In fact, doesnt have to change all that many things, at least in the surface.

Our ideas converge to the same point: in the future, the politician will be a sort of political stock broker, that guards the interests of his electors. This analogy might be important in order to easen the delivery of the proposal message.

You might want to follow this other thread based on the same initial proposal, but it was more fruitful since people in this forum argued their critics better.

http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1143

My point is making sensible analogies that can make a connection with the message. This is needed since continuous election is something rather new to assimilate as is, unless you give some more familiar grip to the listener

Cheers and keep the good job!

Charlls J. Quarra