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

02653: Re: [WDDM] Politicians are the employees of the voters

From: "Jiri Polak" <jiri.polak(at)swipnet.se>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 16:58:51 +0200
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Politicians are the employees of the voters

Hi Jim,
thank you for your comment! I´ll put it into the next newsletter.
Sincerely, Jiri
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Powell" <jimpowell(at)mweb.co.za>
To: <wddm@world-wide-democracy.net>
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 2:33 PM
Subject: [WDDM] Politicians are the employees of the voters


Hi Jiri,

I agree that the Swiss system is not the ultimate. The advantage is that it
is seen to be working and working well.

I do not agree with their proportional representation as there is no direct
responsibility to a geographical area.

A ward system allows for recall. "Top up" will allow for representation of
the smaller parties who do not get enough votes. There would be one vote for
the ward and one for Proportional Representation. Assume that Party A gets
55% proportional votes and 70% of the seats. Party A would not get any PR
seats. Party B get 2% of the proportional votes and no seats would get 2% PR
seats.

Politicians are the employees of the voters

Regards

Jim Powell Johannesburg, South Africa

-----Original Message-----
From: Jiri Polak
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 8:50 AM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Constructive pragmatism

I do not consider the Swiss system as the ultimate model. I (and many
others) want to also include structured citizen deliberation. In
Switzerland, deliberation is probably not felt as needed because of their
specific political culture. In other countries, mere I&R is considered as
inadequate by many. A discussion about this problem is planned for a
conference in June 2011.
Jiri Polak
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Powell" <jimpowell(at)mweb.co.za>
To: <wddm@world-wide-democracy.net>
Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:26 PM
Subject: RE: [WDDM] Constructive pragmatism


Introduce the Swiss system

-----Original Message-----
From: Jiri Polak
Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 6:55 PM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Cc: milus.kotisova(at)volny.cz
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Constructive pragmatism

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 voters´
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]