We presently have 2 players in the first phase of the election process: a organization and a candidate. And we can't change that, but... we don't request to change it. However, it is worth realizing who I am, as a voter (not a fan and not a kibol), who my typical is (not a player or a staff member) and what the organization is (not a team, a team, or a sports team).
What would happen if we returned to the authentic roots of Athens' democracy and entrusted the appointment of a candidate to the assembly alternatively than a organization selection (please note how many terms of the athletics language are available). For the election initiative to come out not from the party, but from the community. Not from a narrow political group, but from citizens. The folk assembly present is so simple to call, that it does not gotta take place in Agora or Dionysus Theatre, and it is not essential to call it a circumstantial day and a fixed time, due to the fact that all of this can replace the net app.
Nor do we gotta focus and trust on members or candidates selected by our organization at all, due to the fact that we have an area of what prof. Zybertowicz erstwhile called "archipelagos of Polishness", i.e. people focused on all kinds of social organizations, foundations, associations, forums and akin initiatives operating in and for local communities. People we know, frequently even personally, as social activists in local charities, cultural, religious, circles of interest, regional social media, etc. We don't request anyone “in a folder”.
I propose specified a change in reasoning and typing that it is from the community that candidatures of circumstantial people come out, and a organization from a pool of civilian candidates selected in this way could support, or recommend, not to support, 1 or the other. So not a organization candidate with public support, but vice versa - a social candidate with organization support (if he himself was curious whether 1 or the other). In a word, I propose something that theoretically took place in the election of the current president.
So I see this (perfect) model. A social application as an area in which (and from which) citizens kind and choose their own representative. And the organization as the author of the program that proposes the people selected by the community as the developers of this program. It seems apparent to me that this is how it should be.
What if the organization doesn't decide to support a civilian candidate? In my opinion, if specified a candidate sees that he has large public support and wishes to run, he should do so as a social candidate. Without looking at 1 organization or another. For I dream of choices in which the voters effort to vote for social candidates. Only candidates authentically civic, whose warrant is not this organization or another party, but their local community. specified a community that functions even within the current division into electoral districts. And as part of the current ordination. What I'm proposing is simply a insignificant change, seemingly irrelevant. But it seems to me that it could make a large qualitative difference between the current authorities and those that appear after this kind of election.
Right. possibly this social candidate, too, will not be the perfect candidate, may neglect our trust and neglect to meet the expectations placed in him, but alternatively it will be a man who feels a greater bond with his constituents than it is now. More than anyone else. And that should do it. At least for starters.
