Dear PVR, Mark, Filia, Annette & Albano, Mirek & Nicolas,
No Mirek, I do not make any claim "that only 6 members
participated in the deliberation and approval of the present
Charter. ... " The relevant text of my email is reproduced below for
easy reference. It begins with "For example, if ..." meaning that it is
not a statement of fact or claim. It is only an illustration of, in
this case, what I understand by a "true majority" in decision-making. I
do not know how many members actually participated in the deliberation
and approval of the present Charter. After the twists and turns of last
year's attempt at writing the WDDM Current Oprating Rules, I have
decided then to join the non-participating majority. Except for a
couple or two which were open out of curiosity, most emails on the
WDDM organisational matters were transferred to a folder unread. I do
not wish to re-visit the circumstances surrounding last year's events.
==========================================
Eric:
"For example, if we have a membership of 54, and only 6 members
participate in the deliberation process and even if all 6 approve and
endorse the Charter, it is only the Charter of the said 6, because for
it to be a current majority decision of the WDDM, it needs to be
approved by a simple true majority of 28 members out of 54 (i.e at
least, 50%+1, the simple and honest meaning of a true majority)."
============================================
The figures 54 and 6 in this quote were picked up from an email
I read out of convenience and what I thought to be closer to reality,
but unfortunately it has caused confusion and for this I apologise.
For avoidance of confusion, I wish to amend the figures in the
relevant text from 54 to 100 and 6 to 10 respectively. The substance
and logic of my illustration remain unchanged. Thus, the amended
version of the relevent text is as follows:
"For example, if we have a membership of 100, and only 10
members participate in the deliberation process and even if all 10
approve and endorse the Charter, it is only the Charter of the said 10,
because for it to be a current majority decision of the WDDM, it needs
to be approved by a simple true majority of 51 members out of 100 (i.e
at least, 50%+1, the simple and honest meaning of a true majority)."
==============================================
The issue of false majority is a critical one in the battle
against false democracy. False majority is the core pillar of false
democracy. This is because the ruling elites of a country seldom obtain
a true majority in a ballot. So they invented a legal fiction majority.
As an illustration, let us say there are 100 million voters in the
country. Voters turnout is only 40%; i.e 40 million voters voted in the
election. In order to declare a victor among the competing elites, they
have written into the country's constitution that the condidate who
polls the greatest number of "valid" votes wins. The "valid" votes in
the illustration invariably would be less than 40 million after
deducting the "disqualified" votes which includes the spoilt, blank and
protest votes.
So in a false democracy:
1 The ruling elites survives on legal fictions contrary to the
actual facts or truths;
2 They seldom have a true majority of 50%+1 of the total
eligible votes and consequently they do not have the moral authority to
govern the country. Their rule is often characterised by the extensive
use of the coercive powers of the state;
3 Since they do not have the true majority of 50%+1 from the
people, their claim of having won the mandate from the people is often
not only false, but also an outright lie, a cheat and blatantly
dishonest since such claims are made knowingly.
4 They conveniently disregard the voters who have rejected
participation in their balloting processes and yet they shamelessly
claim the right to govern these disregarded voters with their
consent (the consent of these disregarded voters).
5 They conveniently justify the effective disenfranchisement of
a very substantial number of voters, sometimes even a clear
majority, on a so-called phenomenon of "voters' apathy" when, in fact,
most voters who do not participate in the ballot or referemdum, do so
intentionally because they have lost their confidence in the balloting
system or processes. A fair and honest interpretation when a voter does
not turn up to vote, is that he is, in fact, voting against all the
prescribed condidates or issues and/or against the ballot system or
processes.
6 The deeming of what the voter has, in fact, not done as
having done by him through a dishonest legal process is a cynical and
blatant violation of the individual's freedom of conscience or choice.
The voter is effectively being robbed of his vote by a most
undemocratic means.
7 The ruling elites sitting on a pedestal everywhere would most
likely react vehemently against the insistence for a true majority in
decision-making precisely because true majority exposes their deceit
and lack of legitimacy and renders most, if not all, of their
institutions and organisations unworkable.
In view of the above and of WDDM's mission to achieve true
democracy for itself and for the people of the world, WDDM should
reject false majority in its internal governance. Inspired WDDM
members have to work hard and with preseverence to achieve true
majority (50%+1) decision-making. Any candidate or issue that does not
have 50%+1 of the total eligible votes does not have majority support.
It is as straightforward as that. Any candidate or issue that receives
10 votes out of a total 100 eligible votes receives just that: 10 votes
out of 100. Any legal fiction that converts these 10 votes into
majority support is just fiction.
With such an achievement together with the resolute rejection of
the use of false majority, WDDM would be leading people everywhere in
shaking false democracy to the core.
==============================================
Mirek's Proposal:
"When a decision is to be made, every
member must get all the information about an issue, and be informed
that a vote will be held well in advance. Everybody can freely
participate in all the deliberations and in the vote. If a member
chooses not to participate in a vote, it will be deemed that (s)he
abstained in this particular vote. By abstaining in a vote either
explicitly or implicitly (by not participating at all), this member
states that (s)he
leaves the decision in this matters to others who are participating in
the vote, and that when a decision is made, (s)he will accept the
decision made by others and not object to its implementation.
this would be the best incentive for everybody to participate if they
have any opinion on the matter."
This proposal when adopted by WDDM would enshine in its Charter
false majority for decison-making and would make it a false democracy
too. And more importantly, WDDM would have surrendered the moral right
to challenge or to lead others to challenge this core pillar of false
democracy.
It also proposes to adopt the legal fiction of
deeming non-participation of members as authorising others by such
members to decide on their behalf. This is false and contrary to fact
or truth, and a denial of a member's freedom of choice or conscience
for non-participation. Also it is a bad precedence for deeming what the
members or voters have not voted for as having voted for by them.
It also proposes to deny a member's right to object or to
disregard decisions that do not have true majority support, a position
any democracy believer is obliged to take.
In connection with the last point, it is also an implicit
rejection of I&R. I&R is the mechanism for any member
who objects, challenges or disputes any rule or decision of WDDM to
have it amended or changed in a manner he/she believes to be necessary
provided he/she could convince a true majority of the members to
support the amendment or change he proposes even if such a rule or
decision was made or supported by the current true majority or by a
previous true majority that included him/her.
I&R ensures that no rule or decision of a democracy is cast
in stone and put above the members or the people. It allows even a
single member or voter, the minority of minorities, to begin a process
that could bring about the necessary changes and makes progress
possible.
Mirek, in view of the above, would you like to reconsider your
proposal?
================================================
Nicolas:
"I am a very
strong supporter of the blank vote. I think that it needs to be added
to every poll and election, and be treated as another candidate or
option, meaning that if more people vote blank than for a candidate or
an option, things must be re-shuffled."
Yes, Nicolas, you are right. The people must have the option to
vote officially against all the prescribed candidates or issues they do
not support. I would advocate one step further: to be able to vote
against the system or the ballot processes in which they have no
confidence. It is duty of the officials concerned to build a ballot
system the people can support. They should not be allowed to sweep
their incompetence or treachery under the carpet of "voters' apathy".
As it is, apart from blank vote, there is a stronger alternative
known as "protest vote". It is to draw a straight line diagonally
across the ballot paper to leave no doubt that the voter is not
endorsing any of the prescribed candidates and/or that the voter is
voting against the ballot system or processes. It also demonstrates
that the voter can think out of the boxes prescribed by false democracy
and to deny false democracy the pretty little crosses in these boxes
that false democracy would love so much to see.
Eric Lim (lpc1998)