[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

01260: Re: Regarding rule by representatives

From: echarp <emmanuel.charpentier(at)free.fr>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:04:37 +0200
Subject: Re: Regarding rule by representatives

On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 02:00:42AM -0700, M. Kolar wrote:
echarp wrote:
I would think that delegation is not /quite/ like representation.
Because it is *much* easier to control. You don't just vote and
forget...

Yes, lower thresholds are an alternative to a representation or
delegation system. But they have one big disadvantage: the process could
degenerate in a fight between disciplined groups. Parties following
blindly all orders could be all powerful.

But how delegation will prevent this? By delegation you can make any
charismatic individual who is able to attract a lot of delegated votes
also very powerful.

Delegation will not remove parties, discipline, charisma. It will
decrease the possibilities for disciplined minorities to over take
democracy.

I think that either you have a well educated citizenship willing to
participate in decision-making - such citizens will take matters in
their own hands no matter what obstacles they have to overcome and no
representation or delegation is needed, or people are largely
uninterested in public matters, and then nothing will help (more or less
the present state of affairs).

Of course, the largest decisions will draw attention and become classic
referendums.

What about all the minor and detailed decisions that would/could need to
be made?

Wouldn't commissions become a practical necessity?

So it seems to me to better aim directly for education of citizens than
to lose time with devising various tricks that should make up for the
lack of interest in public matters.

Of course education is great and necessary.

But how would you nominate some of highest civil servants? Generals?
Judges?

Delegation could be one way.


[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]