Re: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS SHOULD MAKE A ROADMAP to 3D Democracy !

[Joshua Petersen <joshupetersen(at)gmail.com>]

You make a very good point, Lata, and it really illustrates the point that a society, for better or worse, is our moden era is very economically driven. Really, any attempt to successfully set up a new direct democratic government would also have to set up a new and novel economic system that would be beneficial to the common man, allow growth and prosperity, but also prevent stratification into haves and have-nots, as well as being inherently stable. Also, considering the powerhouse that is the current economic sector of the world, we'd need such a thing to be impletemented in such a way it would not cause alarm in that sector before it could handle itself in that regard.

On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 7:14 AM, <Lata Gouveia> wrote:

I have to agree with Jiri's realistic approach.

It is a shame but he is right. We are a very long way off people wanting to take their destiny in their own hands and voting on specific issues all the time. With that in mind and a heavy heart, I agree that a representative system of sorts is the only realistic option.

With regards to Tunisia, thank you for mentioning that example. It seems to me that the majority of people's political concerns are not political at all. This revolt was driven by material concerns, as usual. People are prepared to put up with an incredible degree of authoritarianism as long as there is food on their table. The fact that they now demand a democratic system does not mean that they know what that is or that that's really what they want. They just want to BE RULED by someone who is going to improve their material well-being.

I'm not saying this because it's Tunisia, it is the same in Europe and the US. If you scrutinize electoral campaigns, you will realize it is mostly about "which party will bring people in MY situation a better material deal". We are an incredibly small minority, those who strive for a better re-distribution of aggregate political power. It is difficult to imagine any "road map to direct democracy" that would appeal to the people. Too much work for them. They would gladly take a ten dollar bill instead.

I don't mean to be discouraging but... any "showcase" or "trial" od DD would have to bring its constituents an undeniable economic improvement to "convert" anybody. And this means we would have to lie to people for their own good, a fairly fascist idea. Also, we cannot underestimate the power of corporate lobbying. All the money they spend on lobbying would be re-directed into the control of public opinion. The propaganda machine we have today would look like child's play, compared to what they would do to us if we had a say on every topic. One million dollars would be enough to get about 50 people employed full-time to be "independent guerrilla journalists" so that even if we avoided the mainstream news providers we would still be manipulate, the moment we seeked information.

So, as a conclusion, I enjoy reading the different proposed paths and often agree with them, but are we not forgetting an essential dimension here. The psychological framework of our populations? How can we make DD more attractive?

Regards

Lata

---

From: Jiri Polak <jiri.polak(at)swipnet.se>

To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net

Sent: Sat, 22 January, 2011 10:03:19
Subject: Re: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS SHOULD MAKE A ROADMAP to 3D Democracy !

George,
very good indeed!!! Greece is one of the most promising countries in the
field of DD developments, much thanks to your efforts. I believe that the
basic issue all democracy movements should focus on is the idea of a
Citizens´ Democracy. In all European countries except Switzerland, the
respective constitution has been written and approved by voting in party
dominated Parliament. But political parties do not have the mandate for
that. Ordinary citizens should propose their own Constitution and enforce a
referendum by pressure from below. That´s what we in Czech Republic are
trying to do. We should change the system, not only make marginal
adjustments.
Sincerely,                Jiri
----- Original Message -----
From: "DIMOPOLIS.gr-ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΟ ΚΙΝΗΜΑ ΑΜΕΣΗΣ ΔΗΜΟΚΡΑΤΙΑΣ" <geoko(at)otenet.gr>
To: <wddm@world-wide-democracy.net>
Cc: <direct-democracy-movement(at)googlegroups.com>; <georgantzas(at)fordham.edu>;
'George Contogeorgis'
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 6:36 AM
Subject: RE: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS SHOULD MAKE A ROADMAP to
3D Democracy !


Dear  Co-citizens of the world and WDDM,

I  am  happy to  read  your recent interesting  comments on DD affairs
influenced by our wish for " MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS", but
completely  unhappy  to know that  in Tunisia  the people have won to  push
out  their  corrupted oligarchic  government and  although  they  continue
asking  for  better  democratic developments, sacrificing  people in this
struggle, nobody  tells  or  helps them  to  ask for  a  direct  democratic
governance as  an  alternative  choice !  And  we the  members  and  friends
of  WDDM, ten years since  our  birth in Delfi, do  not have  a  concrete
clear  proposal  and  "Roadmap  to Direct  Democracy" to  say them !
Unfortunately  so  many  discussions have  been  made  through the  Internet
on several DD topics  and also  more  ideas  have  been  expressed
theoretically in our  site, but all remain vague and not  practical to  be
used  by  revolutions or  even DD political Movements all over  the  World.
Yesterday  in Albania  three active  citizens  were  killed  in  a
demonstration  asking  for  more  Democracy against their  corrupted
politicians, but we still  look  like having  nothing clear and  inclusive
to advise  them  to  do  for an  authentic  Democratic  Reform!
I think  that  in  my  country  Greece  we 'll face  soon the  same
revolutionary  conditions against  the  rules that IMF in  cooperation  with
Greek  Oligarchies press us  to  accept, but even if  our  government
fails, there is  no  chance to  make  a  real  change from  Oligarchies to
Direct  Democracy, if  we  will not  have  a plan  and  serious
International  asssistance  to make it happen!
Therefore  we  begun  recently to shape  alternative institutions made  by
Citizens in order  to  find  our  way for  a  DD change in Greece soon !  WE
first begun establishing an alternative Citizens  Parliament ( you  can
watch its works in our site: www.dimopolis.gr )and now a  Citizens  Court,
Called  " NEA  HELIAIA", inspired  by  the  ancient  Athenian People's Court
with 5000 judges, and  we move  rapidly  forward offerng you a new site for
international  DD cooperation: http://www.3ddemocracy.eu/.  Please  enjoy
and use it for your  articles  or  advices, using it  as  a tool for shaping
an International  ROADMAP to 3D ( Direct, Deliberative, Digital ) Democracy
!


George  Kokkas
Coordinator  of  the  Hellenic Direct  Democracy  Movement

Τηλ.:+30 2103648300 - Fax: +30 2103610882
geoko(at)otenet.gr
www.dimopolis.gr


-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Becker
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 11:32 PM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS

Agreed...pragmatically.  I was just discussing the theory, not
recommending that this be part of your proposal at this time.

>>> Jiri Polak 1/21/2011 1:39 PM >>>
I agree that random selection of representatives would be superior to
election, but it is a system belonging probably to a rather distant future.
I focus on a system which could be pushed through in the next few years.
Once in place, steps might be taken to reach a higher stage of democracy,
i.e. random selection. However, there are many factors we cannot foresee at
this moment. I belive that an attempt to jump directly to random
representation from current party-based representative systems would fail.
This could be one of the themes for discussion at the coming conference.
Jiri
----- Original Message -----
From: Ted Becker
To: <wddm@world-wide-democracy.net>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS


> Excuse me, but there is STRONG EVIDENCE that randomly selected
> legislatures work very well...and are TRULY representative of the
people
> if we mean by that: demographically.  All elected representative
systems
> have elites that supposedly "represent" the people (please read
Edmund
> Burke's indefensible address to his constituents in Bristol,
England).
>
> Citizens Assemblies as at least one of the two houses would
complement
> the direct, deliberative democratic part of any system.
>
> Ted Becker
>
>>>> Jiri Polak 1/21/2011 9:20 AM >>>
> Correct. But most people are too lazy and passive to want to
constantly
> vote on all issues. It would not be realistic to try to put in place
> such a system. Some form of representation will be indispensable for
the
> foreseeable future. However, the representatives will be under
constant
> scrutiny and susceptible to be recalled at any moment  if guilty of
> misconduct. What we strive for is semi-direct democracy with strong
> elements of deliberation.
> Jiri
>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: Hamid Mohseni
>  To: World Direct Democracy
>  Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 3:12 PM
>  Subject: RE: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS
>
>
>  And what about people who like to manage the job themselves and not
> employ others for that. The experience shows that this politician
> managers has seldom been honest and soon or later has taken over
the
> power and used it for their own egoistik matters.
>
>  Hamid
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  From: jimpowell(at)mweb.co.za
>  To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
>  Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 08:38:12 +0200
>  Subject: RE: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS
>
>
>  Hi Hamid,
>
>
>
>  Having the voters making decisions on all matters is a waste of
time.
> The politicians are employed to consider the information and make
> decisions, similar to managers employed by shareholders in a
company.
> The voters are the shareholders and the politicians the managers
>
>
>
>  Regards
>
>
>
>  Jim Powell South Africa
>
>
>
>  From: Hamid Mohseni
>  Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 7:24 PM
>  To: World Direct Democracy
>  Subject: RE: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS
>
>
>
>  The Swiss system is better than many other countries but not good
> enough, because stíll it is politicians and not people who are the
> leaders eventhogh people can stop politicians decisions and
propositions
> sometimes.
>
>  Hamid
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  From: jimpowell(at)mweb.co.za
>  To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
>  Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 07:47:38 +0200
>  Subject: RE: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS
>
>  I think the Swiss have got it right (mostly)
>
>
>
>  Have your politicians investigate and propose new laws. The
> electorate will have access to all the information and can raise a
> referendum if enough of them are unhappy with the legislation. A
> referendum is held and the will of the people is sovereign.
>
>
>
>  97% of legislation in Switzerland goes through without objection.
The
> laws that are passed will be created with the knowledge that they can
be
> challenged, so they are voter friendly
>
>
>
>  Jim Powell South Africa
>
>
>
>  From: Hamid Mohseni
>  Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 8:18 PM
>  To: World Direct Democracy
>  Subject: RE: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS
>
>
>

>  As I understand real direct democracy dońt need politicians as

> represents or leaders but advisors and organizers. Their job is to
> inform people about political facts and theories
>  and organize refrandums and realise the result of refrandums and
> decisions made by people
>  in common  political and practical questions.
>
>  Regards
>  Hamid
>
>  > From: jiri.polak(at)swipnet.se
>  > To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
>  > Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:06:18 +0100
>  > Subject: Re: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS
>  >
>  > Dear Fred,
>  > as far as I see, the model of PD you put forward is compatible
with
> my own
>  > ideas, which are much more simple and only rudimentary. The PD
> model is

>  > certainly worth studying. Íll bring an information about it in

the
> next
>  > issue of my newsletter.
>  > Sincerely, Jiri Polak
>  > ----- Original Message -----
>  > From: Fred Gohlke
>  > To: <wddm@world-wide-democracy.net>
>  > Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 11:14 PM
>  > Subject: Re: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS
>  >
>  >
>  > > Good Afternoon, Jiri
>  > >
>  > > From your January 14th post:
>  > >
>  > > "The basic fault ... is to call party-based regimes
> 'democracy'".
>  > >
>  > > From your January 16th post:
>  > >
>  > > "But I - and many others - also want a system where elected
>  > > representatives get continuous feedback from their voters who
>  > > can recall them at any moment (not only during elecions) if
>  > > the majority within the respective constituency demand it."
>  > >
>  > > Have you thought about the way Practical Democracy functions?
It
>
>  > > addresses and resolves both the points you make; the first
> because it
>  > > sidesteps political parties and the second because it is
> inherently
>  > > bi-directional.
>  > >
>  > > Political Parties
>  > > -----------------
>  > > Over two hundred years experience with party politics informs
us
> that,
>  > > when politics is based on partisanship, the partisans form
> oligarchic
>  > > power blocs that become an end in themselves and ultimately
> transcend the
>  > > will of the people.
>  > >
>  > > Partisanship is a potent tool for those with a thirst for power
> but it
>  > > does not foster government by the people. It results in
> government by a
>  > > small fraction of the people. For the people as a whole, the
> flaws in
>  > > party politics are devastating. Their cumulative effect
> victimizes the
>  > > public by the most basic and effective strategy of domination
---
> divide
>  > > and conquer.
>  > >
>  > > Parties are important for the principals: the party leaders,
>  > > contributors, candidates and elected officials, but the
> significance
>  > > diminishes rapidly as the distance from the center of power
> grows. Most
>  > > people are on the periphery, remote from the centers of power.
As
>
>  > > outsiders, they have little incentive to participate in the
> political
>  > > process.
>  > >
>  > > The challenge of representative democracy is not to divide the
> public into
>  > > blocs but to find the best advocates of the common interest and
> raise them
>  > > to leadership positions as the people's representatives.
>  > >
>  > > To meet that challenge, given the range of public issues and
the
> way each
>  > > individual's interest in political matters varies over time, an
> effective
>  > > electoral process must examine the entire electorate during
each
> election
>  > > cycle, seeking the people's best advocates. It must let every
> voter
>  > > influence the outcome of each election to the best of their
> desire and
>  > > ability, and it must ensure that those selected as
> representatives are
>  > > disposed to serve the public interest.
>  > >
>  > > Practical Democracy allows voters to quickly and easily align
> themselves
>  > > with others who share their views. It changes the focus of
> advocates of a
>  > > partisan position from getting votes for a politician to
> persuading voters
>  > > of the value of the idea they espouse. It lets every faction
> select, from
>  > > among themselves, the best champions of their point of view and
> raise them
>  > > as far as the size of the group allows.
>  > >
>  > > One huge flaw in the party-based systems that dominate the
globe
> is that
>  > > individuals must support one of the existing parties or be
denied
> a voice
>  > > in the political process. They have no way to prevent the
> excesses of the
>  > > parties.
>  > >
>  > > Practical Democracy gives unaligned people a voice. Those who
> advocate
>  > > partisan interests must ultimately present their point of view
to
> voters
>  > > who may not share their view. This provides unaligned people
with
> a
>  > > countervailing force that prevents domination by any party.
>  > >
>  > > PD allows, indeed encourages, enclaves to easily form and
attract
>
>  > > adherents. As Jane Mansbridge said in The Deliberative System
>  > > Disaggregated, "Enclaves are good at generating new ideas.
> Everyday talk
>  > > is good at applying ideas and selecting those best applicable
to
> common
>  > > experience." That is how fresh ideas are introduced into
society,
> but
>  > > they cannot impose their will unless they are able to persuade
> the
>  > > unaligned of the value of their ideas. PD guarantees that fresh
> ideas
>  > > will be accommodated to the extent they are deemed worthy by
the
>
>  > > electorate.
>  > >
>  > > Bi-directionality
>  > > -----------------
>  > > Practical Democracy is inherently bi-directional. Because each
> advancing
>  > > participant and elected official sits atop a pyramid of known
> electors,
>  > > questions on specific issues can easily be transmitted directly
> to and
>  > > from the electors for the guidance or instruction of the
> official. This
>  > > capability offers those who implement the process a broad
scope,
> ranging
>  > > from simple polling of constituents to referenda on selected
> issues and
>  > > recall of an elected representative.
>  > >
>  > > If you are interested in these concepts, the process is
described
> in
>  > > Paricipedia at:
>  > >
>  > > http://participedia.net/wiki/Practical_Democracy
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > I wonder if you'll find value in it.
>  > >
>  > > Fred Gohlke
>  >