roachboy

i'm not necessarily opposed--i just don't see increasing the number as in itself a magical action. this is why i keep asking you about procedures, about debate, about content--what you are proposing seems to me formal. if procedures were not radically changed---if the stayed constant, in other words--the effect of radically increasing the number of representatives would seem to me system failure.

you say that you support a type of representative functioning that would happen almost entirely in committee--i don't understand why that is desirable.

you seem skeptical about the role or even the need for floor debate about bills or issues--that seems questionable to me.

this because it seems that a committee-oriented process is LESS transparent and by extension LESS democratic that what already exists.

and to be clear, i am not a fan of the existing order at all--but i don't think i operate from the same political viewpoint that you do. at the moment, i'm mostly trying to piece together what your claims are in terms that make sense to me--not that i have any particular problem understanding what you say (it's not that complicated, trust me)--it's more that there seems to be kinda huge holes inside what you say that may only be apparent to someone who does not share your assumptions.

this follows for lots of folk no matter what they're arguing as a function of who they understand themselves to be addressing--what you have to say, what you do not: all fluctuates with audience.

so this is a piecing together process, with expressions of skepticism thrown in as they arise for me.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite