ATD 200705-04 - Shaking False Democracy to the Core #02

[lpc1998 <lpc1998(at)lpc1998.com>]

Mirek,

The simple answer to your question in relation to the voting on the Charter is that since last year I have joined the non-participatory majority that neither participate in the Charter discussion nor in its voting.

A deeper reason is that I do not want to help to legitimize the reliance of false majority in WDDM decision-making nor be part of the process.

Moreover, personally, I consider the indiscriminate use of the "NO" vote to scatter the efforts by others to achieve some progress without due explanation to be both destructive and irresponsible.

Eric Lim (lpc1998)

"M. Kolar" <wddm(at)mkolar.org> wrote:

> Eric, but what prevents you to vote NO if you are nor
>  comfortable with
> the wording of an issue? This will make your vote to be counted, and
> may help to force the issue revisited if enough people vote the same
> way as you.
> I am only proposing to abstain (and thus leave the decision to others)
> if you have no problem with the wording of an issue/proposal, have no
> opinion on the issue, and can live with either result of this voting.
> What is wrong with that?
> Mirek
> ...
>
> > Do note that, on these wordings, even those who participate in the
> > discussion, but who could not, in good conscience, vote because of the
> > wordings of the issues are disenfranchised. Although this procedure is
> > widely used by false democracy, it is particularly bad for any
> > organisation or community that aspires to be a true democracy. This is
> > a mechanism that enables a small minority who are in control of the
> > voting processes to go through the motion of open and public
> > discussion and then put up all the vote choices that could have
> > consequences not acceptable to some or even many of the participants
> > in the discussion. Only the votes of those who vote are counted.