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

["M. Kolar" <wddm(at)mkolar.org>]

S'ace,
I agreed with you that something should be done about voting rights for people
younger than 18, but that otherwise you are opening a can of worms at this
time, see especially my second comment at
http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/Wiki/GenerationBindingMatrix

Even if we agree on an optimal dependence of a person's vote weight on age,
this dependence would be the same for all persons, all persons of the same age
should be equal in their voting rights irrespective of the history of their
brilliant contributions to community. Do you agree with that?

This can of worms really shows that we should try to diminish the need for vote
counting in favour of consent building. Continue in deliberations until there
are no serious objections against the implementation of an idea.

Social Computer should better promote such ideas rather than perpetuate the
divisiveness of competition.

Mirek


s'ace wrote:

> 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"?
....