More neurons are coming back on line, which is good. The Ranked Choice Voting people met again Tuesday night, to meet with the Equitable Democracy folks visiting from Seattle. All very good people, if perhaps more scatter-brained than I would prefer -- but I do know I'm picky in that regard. There was much talk of petitioning and phone-banking, both of which I consider possibly necessary in the current system but very good indicators that the current system is in need of replacement. Harassing strangers is a horrible way of establishing policy.
But one of the topics of conversation was the Charter Review Committee, which I had forgotten about. Portland's charter demands that it be revisited at least every seven years. Which is good, because the current City Council system is close to non-functional. So-called "strong mayor" systems are even worse, in that they exacerbate the problems of excessive concentration of control and insufficient communication. So I want to be on that committee for the next revision cycle, if I can manage that. And if possible, I want to have the City adopt positive-proxy representation, at least in part. And Revitalize the Citizenry should be a City program. (Well, eventually a State or Federal one. But City's a good start.)
In devising a good government, there has historically been far too much emphasis on geographical representation, and its resultant problems such as gerrymandering. Positive Proxy is an at-large system, so that doesn't apply to it -- but some issues *are* geographical, and there should be geographical representation. What and how many other forms of representation would *also* be useful? I'm asking because I don't know; that's not a rhetorical question. My first pass at a City design starts with a bicameral legislature, one house running under Positive Proxy and the other being filled with all the heads of the city agencies, who can be proposed by the Legislature, the Mayor, or popular election, and vetoed by either of the two bodies that didn't propose. I need to do a lot more work on this.
I'd met with Paul and Colby on Wednesday about the Vertical Axis Wind Turbine project, and Paul had concerns because his research is indicating wind-power isn't really economically viable on less than an industrial scale. I'm not sure he's right, but he might be right *enough* to cut into our potential markets sufficiently to make *us* economically nonviable.
Here are two links at opposite ends of our scale, in case you want to look into 'em: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9TrUPoevXI and http://visionairwind.com/visionair-5/ . The former costs thirty bucks, the latter about 22 grand.
Bedtime. G'night, all.