Good Evening, PVR

I apologize for my tardiness in commenting on your post. Whether for good or ill, I try to reduce the level of emotion in my comments by careful thought. I try to think about what I want to write before I write it (though not always with success).

I have not, as yet, visited your blog, but plan to do so this weekend.

I cannot comment on your first point regarding Roy Baine's site. It is another item in a vast reservoir of things I know nothing about. At the moment, I won't commit myself to go there because I'm less concerned with immediate action than I am with working out a solid platform for true democracy in the future.

In the same sense, I will not offer an opinion on having WDDM serve as a platform for political action. I do not oppose the idea. In fact, I favor the notion of providing a focal point for those (at least in my country) who seek a powerful alternative to the stranglehold of the major political parties. It's just that there are many complexities on that road that I'm not prepared to ponder.

Your second point is excellent. We need a way to encourage those who act in our name to be responsive. The open question is the means by which it can be accomplished. If we agree it is an achievable and worthwhile goal, our proposals should include method(s) that address this issue.

Your third point is outstanding. I may have phrased it in a different way, but the idea that partisans should not control our governments is important. Partisans, by their nature, want to impose their will on everyone ... and that is the antithesis of democracy. Still, it's not a simple matter. We (humans) are naturally partisan. That raises the difficult question of how we can devise a partyless electoral mechanism. I believe it can be done and will suggest one possibility.

I understand your fourth point, but neither agree nor disagree with it as a goal for our deliberations. At the moment, I lean toward the notion that our problem is that those we elect to represent us ... don't!!! If we devise an election method that gives us responsive representatives, your fourth point becomes (in my opinion) moot.

Stated another way, if our goal is a responsive government, that's one thing. If we seek to eliminate representative government, that's an entirely different matter. Personally, I think eliminating representative government is impractical and unwise. As I've said before, sooner or later it must come down to the question of "Who buys the paper clips?"

While I do not feel competent to comment on the possible economic effects of WDDM's global approach, I favor it for a different reason. No nation has a monopoly on great ideas. We don't know where the next good suggestion will come from. WDDM's global approach allows broad participation, which, I believe, is critical to devising the best method of achieving true democracy.

I agree with MiKolar's comment that it will take a long time to put your proposal (whatever its final form) in operation. Modern 'democracies' have only been around for a little over 200 years. We are slowly learning their pitfalls and correcting them. Such changes do not happen quickly.

With regard to your comments to MiKolar about conscience, I wonder if there is a semantic problem? It was my impression you want those who represent us to be people with integrity, i.e., people with a conscience. Is that a reasonable interpretation of your intent? I hope so, because that's the thrust of my own thoughts on the matter.

Fred