|DISCUSSION ON HOW TO PROMOTE DIRECT (TRUE) DEMOCRACY|
WDDM Forum : Proposals and Initiatives
Any member can post here proposals concerning WDDM (its function, mission, goals, organization).
Good Afternoon, Bruce
I'm not absolutely certain your comments and questions were directed toward the concept of Active Democracy (which, on this site has been referred to as "troika"), but I will respond to the best of my ability on the assumption they were.
re: "How many man hours would these candidate processes take?"
As to about 2/3rds of the electorate, probably considerably less than an hour. As stated in the outline, "at level 1, groups may meet for a few minutes, over a back-yard fence, so-to-speak ..." After they make their selection, there is no additional demand on their time.
As the levels advance, participants would have to devote more time to the process but the increase would be incremental. The second, third and possibly the fourth level would not take much more time than the first. The amount of time required does not become a factor until you reach the more advanced levels.
The additional time needed at the advanced levels has beneficial effects. For one thing, it makes the candidates demonstrate their commitment to the pursuit of good government. If they are unwilling to devote the time necessary to select the best of our people as our representatives we don't want them making the tough decisions that will be required if they are to speak for us. But note that this is a decision they make for themselves.
For another, it takes time to evaluate people. Love at first sight is not a good basis for selecting leaders. We need time to examine their beliefs, determine their responsiveness, study their character, and reach our best estimate as to their suitablility to represent us.
When it's all said and done, the amount of time will be much less than is devoted to the farce being enacted before our eyes in the United States, right now.
re: "How many people would actually want to be elected and perform in government?"
I can't answer that question. I don't know what person, driving which car, sitting at which desk, making which home, teaching which class, studying which course would like an opportunity to use their talents to help create a better society, but I do know two things: I know they are out there and I know they are superior to the trash we put in public office right now.
re: "Many now run unopposed because there are no 'volunteers'."
This comment appears to be a non-sequitor. However, I will offer the opinion that it cites a manifestation of a serious flaw in the present system. Those who run unopposed command such huge financial resources that would-be opponents can't hope to run an effective campaign. This is one way money destroys what we, in America, call democracy.
re: "Than (sic) it was stated: Without full participation initially, only interested parties are involved, those who seek power. The very people we would wish to eliminate."
in response to which you asked,
"If you were on trial would you like an aggressive lawyer or a quiet docile person?"
The first step in useful criticism is to be responsive to the idea you are criticizing. The cited passage made no reference to aggressiveness or docility. Taken in context, it clearly means that, unless the full electorate is involved in the electoral process only those with vested interests will be involved. That is not in the best interest of the people.
re: "Often the person with the personality and ability to be a good person in politics or business is a commanding powerful person. The key I think is to harness that power ..."
That may well be, but it leaves open the question of how that "commanding powerful person" is to be identified and raised to public office. The purpose of the Active Democracy concept is to suggest a way we can do that. It outlines a method of harnessing our natural pursuit of our own interest to advance the interests of society.
re: "... not allow it to be abused through constitutional and job description restraints. (I&BR)"
This appears to be another non-sequitor. Nothing (in) the post you responded to, or those that preceded it, made any mention of "constitutional or job description restraints." The (I&BR) inclusion appears to be gratuitous. Nothing ties it to the topic under discussion.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/17/2007 05:13AM by koikaze.
|True Democracy web platform||1204||PVR||10/04/2007 05:28AM|
|Re: True Democracy web platform||589||Democrates||01/04/2008 05:12PM|
|Re: True Democracy web platform||610||RoyDaine||01/09/2008 07:06AM|
|Re: True Democracy web platform||586||koikaze||01/09/2008 06:10AM|
|Re: True Democracy web platform||579||BrEggum||01/09/2008 06:24PM|
|Re: True Democracy web platform||590||koikaze||01/10/2008 06:00AM|
|Re: True Democracy web platform||608||BrEggum||01/10/2008 10:11AM|
|Re: True Democracy web platform||620||koikaze||01/11/2008 07:44AM|
|Re: True Democracy web platform||589||Democrates||01/09/2008 06:42PM|
|Re: True Democracy web platform||604||koikaze||01/10/2008 06:02AM|
|Re: True Democracy web platform||606||Democrates||01/10/2008 06:27AM|
|Re: True Democracy web platform||582||koikaze||01/11/2008 07:46AM|
|Re: True Democracy web platform||681||Democrates||01/11/2008 08:17AM|
|Re: True Democracy web platform||564||BrEggum||01/11/2008 10:00AM|
|Re: True Democracy web platform||611||Democrates||01/11/2008 12:43PM|
|Re: True Democracy web platform||680||koikaze||10/05/2007 05:20AM|
|Re: True Democracy web platform||653||RoyDaine||10/11/2007 05:59AM|
|Re: True Democracy web platform||646||BrEggum||10/11/2007 01:14PM|
|Re: True Democracy web platform||825||koikaze||10/16/2007 03:29PM|