Re: [WDDM] D3

[Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>]

Hi Mirek

My idea was, and had always been, that of unifying all DD related
movements inside a web-site.  That is, a voted DD chart looks to be
very unlikely to arrive a goal, and even lesser a unifying one, as the
current DD history teaches

bests,  antonio



M. Kolar ha scritto:
> Hi Antonio!
>    PDD is ok, too. For me it doesn't matter much whether DDD or PDD
> (maybe the advantage of DDD is that it can be abbreviated as D3 :-)).
> DD should also be enough, and actually only one D (democracy) should
> also be enough, because what we actually want is just real (true,
> undistorted) D. We have to add all those adjectives because the
> meaning of only D has been distorted and discredited.
>    It seems to me that the problem with the unification of all D (or
> DD, PDD,DDD) advocates is that many of them have their own narrow
> vision (model of DD) and do not want to hear (much) about any
> deviations from it. So for example when I talk to the advocates of
> Wisdom Councils, they do not want to hear about referenda and
> initiatives and voting. Some of the organization Ted Becker mentioned
> recently do not want do go beyond (hear about anything else than)
> I&R&recalls. It doesn't make sense because if and when real D (DD,
> PDD, D3) is finally established, it will be a living thing, and people
> will modify and rewrite the rules and procedures (its model) all the
> time as the society and its moral standards will evolve.
>    Some groups talk about DD only as long as they believe that a
> referendum would approve their particular political platform, and
> forget about DD when polls are in favour of their political opponents.
>    The key is to separate one's own political preferences from the
> effort to establish DD, and to unite in this effort even with one's
> opponents in other matters. This seems to be very difficult - for
> illustration see again http://democracy.mkolar.org/newcanada/ .
>    Some seem to plainly misrepresent what DD is. There is a small
> party in Czechia that have DD in their platform. But by DD they
> apparently mean only the direct election of the heads of all
> administrative units (president of the Republic, heads of districts,
> mayors of communities), nothing more. And the party is chaired by a
> descendant of a former, powerful in Middle Ages, Czech aristocratic
> family, and on the party's website more space than to DD is devoted to
> the claim that his family has an 800-years-long experience in governance.
>
>    I also propose that people who run all those new wonderful
> DD-related websites and organizations (Nico, Emanuel, CCIDD, IRI
> EUROPE, MEHR DEMOKRATIE, Democracy International, WDDM,...) all create
> a working groups that would come with ways how to interconnect
> together the existing system into one connected network, and perhaps
> how to put together the best features from the existing systems to
> create an even  better future network.
>  Mirek
>
> Antonio Rossin wrote:
>
> > Hi Mirek,
> >
> > Why not, PDD?  Participative Direct Democracy?
> >
> > antonio
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > M. Kolar ha scritto:
> >
> > > Ted,
> > > I am also all for D3, the combination of possible approaches to
> > > better democracy. When I talk about DD, I mean it in this broader
> > > definition - DDD.
> > > Enitiatives.org have also some deliberation in it, in preparation
> > > the text of an initiatives to a vote.
> > > Le Parlement of another of our members I mentioned yesterday has
> > > even more deliberation in it.
> > > I am trying to collect the links to all such tools here:
> > > http://democracy.mkolar.org/vote.html (first part). Welcome
> > > additions to this list.
> > > Mirek
> > >
> > > Ted Becker wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Nico:
> > > >
> > > > Good to hear from you...and welcome to the movement...all parts of it
> > > > you mentioned....plus another part that I'm gonna inform you about and
> > > > ask you to think of how to include it some way in your website.
> > > >
> > > > When a number of us "global" DD types met in Pribram, near Prague in
> > > > 1999 or 2000....I forget which....there was some debate and
> > > > disagreement
> > > > over the importance of adding some kind of formal "deliberation" to
> > > > the
> > > > I+R process....at one or more points.
> > > > The disussion revealed a fissure in the development of more and better
> > > > direct democracy in the world and what has occurred is that there
> > > > really
> > > > are two movements, the direct democracy movement, which your
> > > > website is
> > > > part of....and a great addition I might add...and the delib dem
> > > > movement...which is growing beyond belief.  For a view of that,
> > > > look at
> > > > www.auburn.edu/jpd
> > > > Some in Pribram, including myself, Ned Crosby, Lyn Carson and Jiri
> > > > Polak...all agree that what we really need is a combination of the
> > > > movements into what I call D3, or DDD, "direct deliberative
> > > > democracy." What this does it to emphasize direct democratic
> > > > components to rep dem
> > > > systems that include either face to face delibs, online delibs, or
> > > > some
> > > > combo thereof.
> > > >
> > > > I'd love to write about your website for the Journal of Public
> > > > Deliberation....but there is no option for deliberation on your
> > > > citizens
> > > > initiative system.  One place that some have suggested a delib section
> > > > can fit into the I+R process is to let citizens discuss and edit the
> > > > proposition...before it becomes the official petition that people
> > > > finally sign up for.  Do you think this might be possible to do within
> > > > your system....if you agree it might be a helpful addition?
> > > >
> > > > Let me know.  We have two parallel movements that need much more
> > > > intersection....and I'm in them both.
> > > >
> > > > Ted.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > "Nicolas Durand" <nicolas(at)enitiatives.ch> 04/19/07 2:40 PM >>>
> > > > That's a really good point, Ted!
> > > ........