Re: [WDDM] Constructive pragmatism

["Jiri Polak" <jiri.polak(at)swipnet.se>]

Hello Ted!
I think that´s a good idea to invite the three presidents to our planned
conference in June 2011. Even if we only send the invitation to the
respective embassies without any result, it would probably be interesting
for the media. And we need publicity. But it depends on who will arrange the
conference. Lukas Kantor wants to help me with a contact to a professor of
political science (Hrubec) who might sympathise with our ideas. I intend to
persuade him to let the Department of Political science or the Academy to be
the organizer. In such a case, the invitation would have to be authorized by
the respective institution. In the worst case I would have to arrange it
with my Prague friends. In such case I am confident that the invitations
would be authorized. I will be in CR two weeks in September and hope to know
more about the chances of getting an official organizer. I´ll let you know.
Sincerely,                  Jiri
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Becker" <becketl(at)auburn.edu>
To: <wddm@world-wide-democracy.net>
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 6:01 PM
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Constructive pragmatism


> Hi Jiri:
>
> Do you think anyone in the EU or CR would be interested in Having Hugo
> Chavez there?  I doubt he'd ask for money....and he'd be a great
> draw....and/or Morales from Bolivia or the pres of Ecuador.  They are
> all direct demcorats and have changed their constitutions.
>
> Ted.
>
> > > > "Jiri Polak" <jiri.polak(at)swipnet.se> 08/09/10 1:31 AM >>>
> 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>> again,
> > > but, except for Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan, there doesn't seem
> > to
> > > be many WDDM members interested in the concept.
> > >
> > > Fred Gohlke