From: | "Ted Becker" <becketl(at)auburn.edu> |
---|---|
Date: | Tue, 10 Aug 2010 16:26:56 -0500 |
Subject: | Re: [WDDM] Constructive pragmatism |
Hello Ted!"Jiri Polak" <jiri.polak(at)swipnet.se> 08/10/10 1:05 PM >>>
Hi Jiri:I-volby
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.
Thank you Ted!"Jiri Polak" <jiri.polak(at)swipnet.se> 08/09/10 1:31 AM >>>
Only, the model in question was not suggested by me, but by the
organization. However, when I heard about it, I endorsed it andbrought
information in the newsletter. What you write about similar proceduresJiri's
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
capitalmodel...whereby there were citizens assemblies that voted onpriorities
and issues and the "representative" to the state legislature was"bound"
to vote that way. Pennsylvania was one of them. Also, this is theThere
basic structure of how the Brazilian Porto Alegre process works.
are 12 neighborhood assemblies who vote on how to allocate the
powerimprovements budget of the city...and the "representative" from that"representatives"...which
neighborhood must vote that way with the other
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
accordingly.in the hands of the citizenry. Another is the British ColumbiaCitizens
Assembly model.An
Ted
Yes, by definition, political parties are the opposite of democracy."Jiri Polak" <jiri.polak(at)swipnet.se> 08/08/10 11:55 AM >>>
interesting app>> 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
vote.Theconsider
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
theDemocracy,
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
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
TheyPartisan systems disenfranchise the majority of the electorate.
again,provide no way to aggregate the attitudes and wishes of the majorityof
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>>
but, except for Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan, there doesn't seemto
be many WDDM members interested in the concept.
Fred Gohlke