|DISCUSSION ON HOW TO PROMOTE DIRECT (TRUE) DEMOCRACY|
Any member can post here proposals concerning WDDM (its function, mission, goals, organization).
You say modern democracies provide protection of minority rights. A system that allows the 51% to pass binding and punishable rules on the 49% is democracy.
To the extent that the 49% has been able to stem that tide has nothing to do with democracy. A dedication to liberty spelled out in the US constitution protects the minority from democracy.
Government exists by the willing consent of the governed. Consent implies consensus. Anything even close to 50% as a rule making system is CRITICALLY FLAWED. It allows government to act on the consent of... well... most of the people... until people realize that laws are typically hard to repeal, even when they are bad.
You use the term direct democracy to imply a different flavor of representative democracy. Is this wise? It through me for a loop when I realized you were just supporting a change to the election system, but no change to the system of representation that has caused the centralization of power and the waste, demogoguery, and corruption it invites.
Also, the triplet system? Have you ever seen the missing link?
Let's say you are in round one. There is a HIGHLY qualified candidate in your triplet, and you want to win. So does the third guy. The two weaker candidates will vote for each other and the most qualified will, in effect, choose the person who moves on to the next phase. Sorry, more qualified candidate. You ARE the weakest link... buh-bye!
I believe your charter should support actual direct democracy on a consensus model. People vote directly, and may delegate their vote if they wish (to a political party, perhaps). A moderate Republican could delegate his vote to the Republican party except on abortion, where he votes pro-choice, against his party, but with his personal values.
A consensus model would mean that 80-90% would have to consent to any new rule.
This would mean that few rules get created, but they would be high quality with high consent. A less rigid litmus of consent would give you more laws... but... have you read our laws?
|Initiative on WDDM Charter||1056||BrEggum||05/02/2009 12:57PM|
|Re: Initiative on WDDM Charter||790||ParrhesiaJoe||05/08/2009 07:28PM|
|Re: Initiative on WDDM Charter||581||BrEggum||05/14/2009 05:34PM|
|Re: Initiative on WDDM Charter||594||ParrhesiaJoe||05/14/2009 06:32PM|
|Re: Initiative on WDDM Charter||568||WebMaster||05/31/2009 11:13AM|
|Re: Initiative on WDDM Charter||547||ParrhesiaJoe||06/01/2009 03:43PM|
|Re: Initiative on WDDM Charter||541||MiKolar||05/31/2009 11:34AM|
|Re: Initiative on WDDM Charter||544||BrEggum||05/31/2009 01:11PM|
|Re: Initiative on WDDM Charter||562||koikaze||05/12/2009 03:41AM|