Daniel Rosen,
Things you need to consider
Parliaments any came about because the rich want something between them and
the people
Parliaments have always be subservant to the rich
Money and there influence just about alway decides who gets
elected
The perfect politician to them is the car salesman type
The only system of all real form of Direct Democracy is the Swiss political
system (still very limited)
It is hard enough to get people to vote at election
The only places that have used true direct democracy are some companies have
experimented with it in their workplaces
If you look at USA a very high percentage are religious, most will be waiting
on their savour to come and fix it for them.
A person that was an union official who studied phycology said to me ,that
society is made up of 30% that are fighters,40% take the middle ground and 30%
fight for nothing (so 70% are really followers)
The truth is society gets the governments it deserves because the majority
sit back and do nothing, people are lazy when it comes to politics
It is going to take a long time to convince people of direct democracy ,it
may take a world tragedy before people are prepare to silent
Without any doubt it will produce the best system of government, when people
are involved, get them involved is the challenge
When l read your email quite awhile ago where you had very high hopes, the
dream and the reality can be 2 different things
Politics is are hard and dirty world money protect what they have got very
strongly.
The one thing that is still alive and well, is the hunter in man (their at a
lot that live for war)and like to bring harm to people
If as a group we became really successful, lot of support to change to DD
this is something we would face.
As far as funding your campaign l am just an ordinary person with a wife and
3 children, and very little excess money.
I have been involved in fighting for a change to political system for 10
years now and l can see it may be an all my life battle
In the history of people live on this earth we have not achieved good system
of governances, the battle has to continue.
Regards Martin Jackson
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 8:08
AM
Subject: Re: [WDDM] An incremental change
in governance
Hello Abraham and other list readers,
I agree with much of what you wrote in your post.
However, I think history demonstrates that the reforms you suggest for
campaign finance will never be implemented. It requires corrupt
politicians (and for the most part one absolutely MUST be corrupt to
be elected) to pass legislation, and corrupt jurists to let it stand. I
don't know what could be more clear at this point than the fact that the
system is incapable of reforming itself.
More importantly, you wrote: "For representative
governance to work in the public's best interest it must be administered
by ethical career professionals selected by a fully informed public
electorate on the objective basis of the candidate's legislative
and administrative knowledge, skills, abilities, and desire to serve the
general public first and foremost. In order to administer our government
effectively all public servants must be obligated to continually improve
the rights, and serve the needs of the vast majority while preventing
abuses to the rights of those who choose to dissent."
This is indeed the conventional theory of representative
government. Sadly, it is only the conventional theory. In theory, practice and
theory are one. In practice, they are not.
Our reality is precisely the opposite of your
theoretical description. Indeed, it is necessarily the opposite - as, again,
history amply demonstrates. Government is corrupt because government must
necessarily be corrupt when two conditions are met: first, the existence of a
privileged and disproportionately wealthy elite; and second, a backward
technology of politics.
We are suffering under the limitations of
horse-and-buggy political technology. At Nevada Vote Direct, and in my
congressional campaign this year, I have demonstrated a properly contemporary
way of applying technology to politics, in order to implement direct democracy
at the level of the congressional district. Since this development is based
simply on my own personal commitment as a candidate to be bound, if elected,
by the will of my constitutents (as measured at Nevada Vote Direct), this momentous
alteration in the structure of power may be carried out entirely without the
need for new legislation or judicial judgments.
Apart from this difference of analysis and approach, I
can easily endorse your idea that the representative should be a cut above the
crowd, so to speak. After all, the representative in my proposed sense of the
role would be required to facilitate the process of informing his constituents
about the issues and about pending legislation. Then, perhaps, a politician
would conform more to Eleanor Roosevelt's notion of the politician as
educator.
Be that as it may, it is worth noting that your
concluding question is really the very important one: "How many of us are
willing to work toward developing the environment that can help us
achieve those goals?" I need to complain, for the sake of grounding this
discussion in perfect frankness, that the direct democracy movement, such as
it is, proved with respect to its support for Nevada Vote Direct to be (with a
few extremely welcome and greatly appreciated exceptions) nothing but a
self-serving ego-driven talk-shop-loving band of do-nothings.
Nevada Vote
Direct happens to be the first concrete, working and functional system of
direct democracy at a level of government larger than the town meeting. In
order to demonstrate its viability and practicality - indeed, in order to
change the world and open up a vast new area of opportunity for democracy
- only one thing was required: that I should be elected, and this at a
time of spectacular opportunity for any independent candidate who poses a
coherent alternative to the two party American nightmare. Indeed, had I
been able simply to make voters in my district aware of Nevada Vote Direct, I would now be
absolutely confident of winning on Tuesday. I say this boldly because
of the tremendously positive response that I had from the comparatively
small number of people I was able to reach with the limited campaign funds
available to me. I regard the direct democracy movement as disgraced in their
failure to actively engage themselves in the effort to raise money for my
campaign.
Sincerely,
Daniel Rosen
Candidate for Congress 2006
775-588-4211