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

02852: Re: [WDDM] Ferocious Attack on DD by the Economist

From: lpc1998 <lpc1998(at)lpc1998.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 21:34:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Ferocious Attack on DD by the Economist

You are right. It is an attack on DD, pure and simple. However, when a mainstream news media like The Economist feels the need to luanch as an attack on DD, it is an indication that there are increasing disillusionment with RD. It is a backlash of promoting the false democracy of RD as democracy. You are also right that there is no working model of direct or true democracy even in a simple organization. Such a model is the urgent need of the day.


From: Alexander Kassios <kassios(at)gmail.com>
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent: Fri, April 22, 2011 4:50:39 AM
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Ferocious Attack on DD by the Economist

In addition, some of the comments on this article (such as QEsPapa's) give completely different and legitimate reasons for the fiscal condition of Californian state, reasons not related to DD methodologies.

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 11:32 PM, <Alexander Kassios> wrote:
This is an over simplified article that jumps straight to gross generalization conclusions.
It fails miserably to disguise it's partiality or even make one solid argument that would lead to a logical assumption.
Sure there are cons to direct or semi-direct methodology and as researchers we should and are investigating them through various papers based on solid evidence.

Truth is however that we do not have any much empirical experience on pure direct democracy other than the Athenian constitution of Pericles and Ephialtes.
The Swiss paradigm is a semi-direct representative negotiation democracy. It is a solid and found example that most fall back to for argumentation over DD, but it is a hybrid (which personally I accept as a sound compromise over our current elitistic dictatorship).
We have a long way to true DD, but the time is more mature than ever.
regards to all,

Alexandros Kassios

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 10:19 PM, <lpc1998> wrote:
The benecificaries and lovers of Representative Democracy (RD) would not concede to the benefits of DD. They would defend RD by all means, fair or foul.

Best Regards
Eric Lim


From: Bruce Eggum <bruce.eggum(at)gmail.com>

To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent: Fri, April 22, 2011 3:06:49 AM

Subject: Re: [WDDM] Ferocious Attack on DD by the Economist

Dear  Eric, the perils of DD are far less than the perils of Representative democracy. Many representatives vote a party ticket or with their personal wallet in consideration. Minority groups became controlling [see party's, corporations, elite.] and serve only their own interests. Lobby's rule many representatives see ALEC http://goo.gl/KEWIh . People's referendum can bring a balance.


On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 1:45 PM, <lpc1998> wrote:
Thank you for your link. The Economist article is an anti-DD propaganda using California's problems to arouse anti-DD sentiments in the readers. The heading and the sub-heading say all:

"The perils of extreme democracy

California offers a warning to voters all over the world"


Do note that it is not talking about the incompetent of the California voters only. It is warning the voters of the world about "the peril of extreme democracy (DD)".



Best Regards
Eric Lim


From: Joshua N Pritikin <jpritikin(at)pobox.com>

To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent: Fri, April 22, 2011 2:18:11 AM
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Ferocious Attack on DD by the Economist

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 11:13:27AM -0700, lpc1998 wrote:
> Lessons from California
> The perils of extreme democracy
> California offers a warning to voters all over the world
> Apr 20th 2011 | from the print edition
>
> http://www.economist.com/node/18586520

I don't think this is a ferocious attack on DD-in-general as much as an
attack on California-style DD.

Too bad the article does not mention
http://www.healthydemocracyoregon.org/


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