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

02649: Re: [WDDM] Constructive pragmatism

From: "Jiri Polak" <jiri.polak(at)swipnet.se>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 08:30:15 +0200
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Constructive pragmatism

Thank you Ted!
Only, the model in question was not suggested by me, but by the I-volby
organization. However, when I heard about it, I endorsed it and brought
information in the newsletter. What you write about similar procedures
elsewhere is very interesting. I am sure these procedures will be discussed
at the Conference next year.
Sincerely, Jiri
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Becker" <becketl(at)auburn.edu>
To: <wddm@world-wide-democracy.net>
Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 10:45 PM
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Constructive pragmatism


Along these lines, several of the states in early America used Jiri's
model...whereby there were citizens assemblies that voted on priorities
and issues and the "representative" to the state legislature was "bound"
to vote that way. Pennsylvania was one of them. Also, this is the
basic structure of how the Brazilian Porto Alegre process works. There
are 12 neighborhood assemblies who vote on how to allocate the capital
improvements budget of the city...and the "representative" from that
neighborhood must vote that way with the other "representatives"...which
is where the negotiation takes place. If they can'tl...or feel they
must change...they must go back and get instructions from another
neighborhood assembly.

This is one method of "representative democracy" that leaves the power
in the hands of the citizenry. Another is the British Columbia Citizens
Assembly model.

Ted

"Jiri Polak" <jiri.polak(at)swipnet.se> 08/08/10 11:55 AM >>>
Yes, by definition, political parties are the opposite of democracy. An
interesting approach has recently emerged in Czech Republic. The authors

offer politicians to make a pledge to vote according to voterś
instructions. Each voter, registered in the system, can send
instructions
concerning three issues to his/her MP who pledges to vote accordingly.
The
role of the MPs is thus radically changed. As one might expect, all
parliamentary parties have rejected this proposal. But the fight for
democracy goes on.
Sincerely, Jiri Polak
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Gohlke" <fredgohlke(at)verizon.net>
To: <wddm@world-wide-democracy.net>
Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 6:35 PM
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Constructive pragmatism


At the risk of beating a dead horse, I wonder if anyone would consider
the
notion that a political system based on voting is anti-democratic?

To vote is, by definition, to make a choice regarding an issue or
person
proposed by others (whoever they may be).

What --- in that concept --- gives voters an opportunity to advocate
their
own view?

Anyone who read Robert Michels' 1915 book, Political Parties: A
Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy,

must see that partisan systems subject us to the Iron Law of
Oligarchy.
The voters have no choices but those offered by their 'leaders'.

http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/michels/polipart.pdf

Contemporary politic systems are campaign and partisan based and
define
the issues and individuals upon whom the public is permitted to vote.
Partisan systems disenfranchise the majority of the electorate. They
provide no way to aggregate the attitudes and wishes of the majority
of
the body politic --- the non-partisans.

Roy Daine, before his untimely death two years ago, and I offered a
practical alternative to partisan systems; an electoral process that
let
everyone in the electorate participate in the electoral process to the

full extent of his or her desire and ability. I can publish the
details
again, but, except for Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan, there doesn't seem
to
be many WDDM members interested in the concept.

Fred Gohlke



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