From: | "Jiri Polak" <jiri.polak(at)swipnet.se> |
---|---|
Date: | Mon, 9 Aug 2010 08:30:15 +0200 |
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
Yes, by definition, political parties are the opposite of democracy. An"Jiri Polak" <jiri.polak(at)swipnet.se> 08/08/10 11:55 AM >>>
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 considerthe
notion that a political system based on voting is anti-democratic?person
To vote is, by definition, to make a choice regarding an issue or
proposed by others (whoever they may be).their
What --- in that concept --- gives voters an opportunity to advocate
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 ofOligarchy.
The voters have no choices but those offered by their 'leaders'.define
http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/michels/polipart.pdf
Contemporary politic systems are campaign and partisan based and
the issues and individuals upon whom the public is permitted to vote.of
Partisan systems disenfranchise the majority of the electorate. They
provide no way to aggregate the attitudes and wishes of the majority
the body politic --- the non-partisans.let
Roy Daine, before his untimely death two years ago, and I offered a
practical alternative to partisan systems; an electoral process that
everyone in the electorate participate in the electoral process to the
full extent of his or her desire and ability. I can publish thedetails
again, but, except for Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan, there doesn't seemto
be many WDDM members interested in the concept.
Fred Gohlke