It
seems obvious to me that the core issue of democratic systems is,
indeed, representation, no matter where the entry point to the debate
is.
It also seems obvious to me that the contributors here at WDDM are not
your average person.
On the whole, I think everyone had good points to make and I think our
opinions are not as different as our obstinate need to have the last
word might indicate.
My opinion remains that representative democracy is a contradiction in
terms.
The reason why I made the argument about people being "too dumb to
govern themselves" was actually out of frustration and out of real
people's opinions. I have to agree with Antonio to a large extent about
people having to change first, so that they can empower themselves to
change the system. The opposite is unlikely to happen. A politician who
has spent his whole life climbing up that ladder is not just going to
give it all up to a group of people he/she is likely to view as
tragically misinformed, lazy and disinterested in most content, aside
from gossip. I know, I know. It's the media and the politician himself
that create that situation, etc.
My frustration is based on the fact that, with roughly 3000 hits on the
Citizen Mundi website, the level of engagement has been around the 1%
mark. Sure, it is not a very well designed or user friendly site and it
was presented as a game in an attempt to attract other types of people
(not just the type that you find here at WDDM). But that's not the
point. The point is that the potential for the idea is something that
totally goes over people's heads, even most of those who are engaged in
it. People have said, "oh it's just a game, I don't have time for silly
games". But it's a game that, I would hope, can create the habit of
regular group decision-making, not to mention the actual potential for
an anonymous group of people to prove that they can make sensible
decisions even if they are just voices in the dark.
So, this egg/chicken question of do the people need to change first or
does the system need to change first seems, to me, to be pretty much
settled. People are creatures of habit. They come to the site, use the
debate forum and leave not having engaged with the decision making
process. Once they've had their say, they believe they've actually had
their say!! Does that make sense? I mean, once they've spat their
opinion onto the debate forum, they no longer feel the need to vote on
the topic!! Others complain about the lack of reward for engaging.
Anyway, not to go on too much. Thank you for all your responses. If you
did want to have a fresh look at the actual procedures of Citizen
Mundi, you are welcome. Remember that everything about it can be
changed from within, including the weighted voting system and the
entire rules, mission statement etc. That's the beauty of it. It can
easily turn into a community of Nazis or a communist group or, even, a
replication of the representative democracy model, it's all up to the
"players". The fact that it is virtual and not based on a "shadowing
approach" should not be that off putting. The virtual World and the
"real" World are literally merging in this day and age. If you have any
creativity, you will see some potential in it... but, having said that,
I've been proven wrong so far. Thanx again
Lata Gouveia
https://citizenmundi.wordpress.com/