Re:[WDDM] Unequal voting rights? - Re: [WDDM] ReQuest for Defining "a bottom-up origin"

[s'ace <cjdegroot(at)orange.nl>]

thanks mirek for your contribution ...
clearing up and/or stirring up ...
ref.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/clear
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stir

0point in my behavioural in our context ... now :
i am invited to present and work(shop) on the WORLD MOVEMENT for GLOBAL DEMOCRACY symposion ( www.wmgd.net )
this is just a thing that cvan happen in a citizens life, aint it?
so, what can a man do? but to make the best out of it ... and prepare ..
that is this 0point confession or rather personal declaration = commitment , in transparancy.

1st point
except for DD (WDDM) here it is about the opposite RD (representational democracy) ...
the last is ruling in especially western cultures as the "winners paradigm".
here we all know that the winner has also a opposite, aint we?
are we familiar with those who are opposite placed in the sphere of "the winner who takes it all"?
is the winner familiar, too?
the last we can meet in spheres too, in what spheres? and are they all there with their beloved ones and faces too?
no, we do not have to make thing personal?
that is the rule, except for a situation that calls for the opposite? which situation calls for the opposite?

2nd point
is to clear up the "unequal voting rights" statement ...
i handle 2 viewpoints here:
A: unequal voting rights in DD sphere :: mireks DD
B: unequal voting rights in RD sphere :: s'aces Generation Binding Silence

2A unequal voting rights in DD sphere
mirek in short:
"That means also in voting, everybody should have an equal voice in matters that directly concern her or him. It doesn't matter whose
brilliant idea they are voting on. If the consequences of implementing this idea affect them, they should have an equal voting right on
this idea."

X : is the equal voice a thing that is achievable by mechanistical organized events?
or
Y : is the equal voice a thing more and more achievable by humanistical organized events?
or
Z : <what can be an alternative way? responding the einstein call?>

2B unequal voting rights in RD sphere
we are familiar with the 1 man 1 vote paradigm?
which is not a right of people younger than 18 (on avg 20)?
===
here comes the "generation binding silence" option ...
first we blow up the 1 vote to 100 points ...
then we look at the 1m1v procedure and see we are pushing all those 100 points to 1 man (clinged to 1 party as a face).
is that reasonable to do in a more and more complex society?
you all may question this, i know it for sure: this is not reasonable ...

when you become 18 years of age ... is it reasonable to expect from you a balanced judgement on deciding which person(s) get your voice,
your vote of trust? and can you ignore "all the noise all the time"?

this is why i, must have been 1990, figured out that a rhythm, a path of 0-20-40-60-80-100-80-60-40-20-0
could! be a way that would resonate on real life ...
and (MARK THIS!)
everybody has the EQUAL VOTE option ...
and by raising his voice in all thase opportunities to do so, and by electional procedure to assign your points of your life-phase(!) to
those representative you manage as a team/coalition leader.

so, by now, you all can agree on the EQUAL RIGHTS generation binding silence (GBS) weaves in democracy?

Crucial Question: is it acceptable that older people get less points?
Even more crucial Answer: no, if you think you can stay alive and in charge all the time believing in progress of comfort ... yes, if you
think life is a temporarily occasion to learn things, teach things, share earth time space (hard) and soft (do you say soft = relational?
:) things even better than ever be4.

3th to nth point (included in coming dialogues)

Intentional
I state here that the RD election procedure may be inevitable in democracy electional processes to practice ...
I promote the idea that this representative event where all people are in principle involved is a great exercise in decision making,
especially for mirroring the own position regarding the personal representatives chozen, or rather formed to a thought team co-operating,
communicating fellow "integral naked" humans specialized in general sense.

s'ace - globalgeniusvoter.com webmaster / intellectial "owner" blowing of some stormy/catalyzing winds

"who fills my moves with njoy?"

> Datum: 21/11/06 07:44 AM
> Van: "M. Kolar" <wddm(at)mkolar.org>
> Aan: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
> CC:
> Onderwerp : [WDDM] Unequal voting rights? - Re: [WDDM] ReQuest for Defining "a bottom-up origin"
>
> Pras Anand wrote (November 15, 2006)
> > The more community contributions someone has generated - the more right
> > they gain on votin on increasingly complex issues. I am developing a
>
> Even after all his explanations, I still do not like at all the above
> principle, that Pras wants to build into his Social Computer (SC) platform.
> Pras believes that his SC has the potential to have a big societal impact, so I
> think we all have here a good opportunity to matter somewhat - to try to
> influence the principles built into the SC. It would be interesting to know
> what others think specifically about the above point.
>
> I do not like at all the idea of giving as a reward more voting rights to those
> who make more community contributions. I am not against rewarding people in
> some reasonable way for their larger contributions, but not by giving them more
> voting rights, especially not in a vote on what they propose.
> It is true that people are not equal, but they should have equal opportunities
> in everything. That means also in voting, everybody should have an equal voice
> in matters that directly concern her or him.
> It doesn't matter whose brilliant idea they are voting on. If the consequences
> of implementing this idea affect them, they should have an equal voting right
> on this idea.
>
> Unless the SC adheres to this principle, it cannot be democratic.
>
> If people (children) are educated toward democracy and social responsibility,
> their greatest reward for coming up with a brilliant idea that helps the whole
> community could be the feeling that they made a significant contribution and
> the gratitude of others.
> If SC is supposed to educate people toward democracy, it should strengthen this
> alternative reward system.
> I do not think it is responsible to stress competition in SC. It should better
> stress cooperation.
>
> I suggest (again), that the WDDM may be somewhat useful (even without a formal
> organization) if we try to arrive by consent at common positions on various
> relevant issues and post them on the site as our recommendation.
>
> The above issue (rewards for greater contribution to the community) could be
> one such issue.
>
> Mirek


"t(h)ree self one fo(u)r alll alll fo(u)r one self t(h)ree"