WDDM Home DISCUSSION ON HOW TO PROMOTE DIRECT (TRUE) DEMOCRACY

WDDM Forum : Glossary

Forum to discuss the definition of the terms to be included in the WDDM Glossary 
Goto Thread: PreviousNext
Goto: Forum ListMessage List• New Topic • Search • Log In
Glossary WDDM Terms
Posted by: BrEggum (IP Logged)
Date: June 23, 2007 10:36AM

Worldwide Direct Democracy Movement


Worldwide = all the earth’s people.
Democracy = From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:


Direct democracy, classically termed pure democracy,[1] comprises a form of democracy and theory of civics wherein sovereignty is lodged in the assembly of all citizens who choose to participate. Depending on the particular system, this assembly might pass executive motions (decrees), make law, elect and dismiss officials and conduct trials. Where the assembly elected officials, these were executive agents or direct representatives (bound to the will of the people). In a representative democracy sovereignty is exercised by a subset of the people, elected periodically, but otherwise free to advance their own agendas.
It also deals with how citizens are "directly" involved with voting for various laws, instead of voting for representative to decide for them.
Modern direct democracy is characterized by three pillars:
• Initiative
• Referendum including binding referenda
• Recall
The second pillar can include the ability to hold a binding referendum on whether a given law should be scrapped. This effectively grants the populace a veto on government legislation. The third pillar gives the people the right to recall elected officials by petition and referendum.
Other institutions exist which are regarded as being directly democratic in character. In particular, the use of sortition to fill posts in government or decision making bodies and the formation of Citizen Assemblies for collective decision making (Canada used this to come up with a proposal for a new constitution).
There are eight forms of democracy here: [en.wikipedia.org]
Please note that many who believe in Anarchist Democracy, are against democracy. Of course they would not agree with WDDM either.


Movement Definition
Charles Tilly defines social movements as a series of contentious performances, displays and campaigns by which ordinary people made collective claims on others [Tilly, 2004]. For Tilly, social movements are a major vehicle for ordinary people's participation in public politics [Tilly, 2004:3]. He argues that there are three major elements to a social movement [Tilly, 2004]:
1. campaigns: a sustained, organized public effort making collective claims on target authorities;
2. social movement repertoire: employment of combinations from among the following forms of political action: creation of special-purpose associations and coalitions, public meetings, solemn processions, vigils, rallies, demonstrations, petition drives, statements to and in public media, and pamphleteering; and
3. WUNC displays: participants' concerted public representation of worthiness, unity, numbers, and commitments on the part of themselves and/or their constituencies.
Sidney Tarrow defines [Tarrow, 1994] a social movement as collective challenges [to elites, authorities, other groups or cultural codes] by people with common purposes and solidarity in sustained interactions with elites, opponents and authorities. He specifically distinguishes social movements from political parties and interest groups.

Bruce Eggum Wisconsin USA
www.doinggovernment.com


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Definition of Direct Democracy - Re: Glossary WDDM Terms
Posted by: MiKolar (IP Logged)
Date: July 04, 2007 08:26AM

I'd like to remind this year-old contribution by Georges Metanomski:
[www.world-wide-democracy.net]


It contains the following 'general universally accepted
definition' of Direct Democracy: "DD is a socio-political structure
concentrating the Legislation directly and
exclusively in the hands of people".
This definition is very similar to the one from Wikipedia. (The main difference is that Wikipedia's definition explicitly says "of all citizens who choose to participate.")


Note however, that that from neither of these two definitions it follows that DD is identical only to Initiatives, Referenda and Recalls. I personally see these three tools more as additions to Representative Democracy that limit the power of elected representatives and add a certain degree of DD to the system that depends on how well these three tools are implemented (how difficult is it to start an initiative, how impartial is the information that gets to the voters. who controls the media, etc.), and are of course generally a good start on the transition to DD.


DD can and should use many other tools and best of all a suitable combination of them. The best approach would be a suitable combination of all concepts that you can find in Wikipedia under Direct Democracy, Deliberative Democracy, Consensus Democracy, Demarchy (or Wise Democracy), and even Anticipatory Democracy. The right mix of various ingredients may be different for different communities.
It

mk, [democracy.mkolar.org]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/04/2007 10:15AM by MiKolar.


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Definition of Direct Democracy - Re: Glossary WDDM Terms
Posted by: BrEggum (IP Logged)
Date: August 23, 2007 10:04AM

Dear Mirek,
I understand DD is Initiative and Binding Referendum (I&BR), which can be used on Representative democracy.That is what most of us have, "Representative Democracy", no DD.


The problem is the people have no power to change it, AT ALL! Perhaps a petition signed by a large majority threatening to recall all legislatures who do not support it could establish I&BR DD. The purpose of WDDM was to PUBLICIZE this information broadly so others (large numbers) would start (I&BR) in their community. (WDDM did not intend to gather them all at WDDM! Thus, unless you intend to have a civil disturbance which installs another government, I&BR is likely the way to install power to the people.


I&BR can also be used to take an Initiative from a local community to other communities and than they vote to approve or disprove it. Obviously if all communities in a Country approved it than it would be law. The Swiss double majority could work here.


Of course all this would be done democratically.


In your post you speak of democracy, the term is used often to describe voting and process.Perhaps people confuse the term democracy with representative democracy not realizing the prefix changes the meaning considerably. This is also true of your prefix, suffix on anarchy. In order to understand words, we must have the same meaning. Dictionary's are the standard and to often the standard is broken, leading to misunderstanding and misinterpretation. Which brings up electronic translators. Only if the true base of a word is used, can the translation be accurate.


Bruce

Bruce Eggum Wisconsin USA
www.doinggovernment.com



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/23/2007 03:52PM by BrEggum.


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Definition of Direct Democracy - Re: Glossary WDDM Terms
Posted by: BrEggum (IP Logged)
Date: August 23, 2007 10:08AM

I post Antonio's post from email here. Thanks Antonio, :>winking smiley Bruce


Dear Mirek, and list


It seems to me, most of our time-wasting discussions
in this happened because of misunderstandigs of the
meanings and definitions of words.


My proposal is: why don't we install an official
"WDDM Glossary"with the definitions of the more
frequently used English terms, along our ongoing
spreading of democracy?


For instance, one word could be "Democracy" itself.
Another one could be "Anarchism". Another else
"Constitution" - and so on.


Something like wikipedia, with the only difference
that the official definition of each term should be
approved by the 50+1 majority votes.
Bruce would be happy with that, methinks.


Plainly, the terms of the WDDM Glossay should
be translated into every local language by the local
WDDM activists, and the local translation of each
term should be approved by the 50%+1 majority of
the local democrats, so that the local inhabitants
could be make informed of what Direct Democracy
stands for, and maybe adhere.



(Maybe, there is an official WDDM glossary having
been already installed - which I do not know about.
If so, forgive the ignorant and give me the URL.


Thanks,


antonio

Bruce Eggum Wisconsin USA
www.doinggovernment.com


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Definition of Direct Democracy - Re: Glossary WDDM Terms
Posted by: RoyDaine (IP Logged)
Date: September 20, 2007 09:49AM

Regardless of how you choose to define direct democracy, '50 + 1%' should not equate to a majority. It invests power in the 1%. My personal feeling, is that 75% should be considered a 'majority'. I base this on trying to simplify the problem by basing it on 4 people. Assume you are 25% of the group and in the minority on an issue. To change the decision you have to persuade a 'majority' of the opposition to your point of view. That is, you have to persuade 2 other people. You then hold the majority view ie. 75%.


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Definition of Direct Democracy - Re: Glossary WDDM Terms
Posted by: BrEggum (IP Logged)
Date: September 20, 2007 02:17PM

Unfortunately decisions must be made. To often no decision is made, seeking a vast majority of people who are so established in their views nothing would change them. Then to, there are different decisions, some perhaps a 66% or 75% may be appropriate but not all. Decisions were needed to address highway bridges and dikes in the USA. The decisions were "put off" and the catastrophic outcome reveals the consequence of that.


If the people did involve themselves in governing, perhaps this would be one of the issues discussed.


Regards, Bruce Eggum


ps We can not assume all people or even a large number of people, will voluntarily spend time researching government matters and taking active part in decision making. That is why we are in the position we are now, lack of participation. Than too, perhaps only the elite will "have the time" and participate.

Bruce Eggum Wisconsin USA
www.doinggovernment.com


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Definition of Direct Democracy - Re: Glossary WDDM Terms
Posted by: BrEggum (IP Logged)
Date: September 20, 2007 05:06PM

Initiative and Binding Referendum could also serve as the basis of most "community" peoples governments. With the size of some communities, and the useful tools of cyber-space it would be foolish to limit "democracy" to town meetings where many cannot attend because of work, family and other obligations. So anyone can write an Initiative and all could view it, comment and vote for or against, allowing the Initiative to proceed to Referendum for all to vote on or be rejected.


Regards, Bruce Eggum

Bruce Eggum Wisconsin USA
www.doinggovernment.com


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Definition of Direct Democracy - Re: Glossary WDDM Terms
Posted by: RoyDaine (IP Logged)
Date: September 20, 2007 11:38PM

'To often no decision is made, seeking a vast majority of people who are so established in their views nothing would change them. Then to, there are different decisions, some perhaps a 66% or 75% may be appropriate but not all.'


Bruce, thanks for the response. You seem to be arguing against direct democracy in the paragraph above. Also, why cast a slur on the vast majority. Maybe the merits of your arguments have not been sufficient to engage them.
Consider a scenario :- DD exists among a small community. There is a bridge that some think need repair which will obviously cost money. The question is asked 'Should the community raise the money and repair the bridge'. People who choose not to participate in the vote are entitled to do so. the effect would be the same as a negative vote. If there was no majority for the repair of the bridge, the bridge may collapse, people may be injured or killed , the economy disrupted etc. The community bears responsibility for their decision. Direct democracy in action. Maybe the next time a question was put to the vote the community would be more inclined to participate in the policy making. Especially if there was another similar community, which had gained a positive vote and repaired their bridge and whose economy blossomed and who suffered no loss of life.


You cannot have DD only on the questions that suit you.
And to say 'someone has to make the decisions' smacks to me of a desire for dictatorship.


In addition your call for I&BR seems to add an extra layer of government. You want a vote on whether a question should be put to a vote. I may have misunderstood I&BR, if so maybe you could enlighten me.


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Definition of Direct Democracy - Re: Glossary WDDM Terms
Posted by: BrEggum (IP Logged)
Date: September 21, 2007 07:54AM

RoyDaine responds to DD. I post to his accusations.


'To often no decision is made, seeking a vast majority of people who are so established in their views nothing would change them. Then too, there are different decisions, some perhaps a 66% or 75% may be appropriate but not all.'


RD> Bruce, thanks for the response. You seem to be arguing against direct democracy in the paragraph above.
BE> WAT do you think Direct Democracy is RoyDaine?
Have you not seen questions, especially questions on expending money for necessary projects such as building replacement or repair which go on and on held hostage by a tiny group 25% +1 who are to tight to pay taxes? The 74% who want the issue approved have been denied.
I am questioning your assertion that a “mega majority” is necessary to make a decision. Do I not have a right to oppose YOUR view in your version of “DD”?


RD> Also, why cast a slur on the vast majority. Maybe the merits of your arguments have not been sufficient to engage them.
BE> Please do not stoop personal belittlement. I am not casting a slur! I am pointing out real experiences with local, county and national government which are realistic matters that could {should} be considered.


RD> Consider a scenario :- DD exists among a small community. There is a bridge that some think need repair which will obviously cost money. The question is asked 'Should the community raise the money and repair the bridge'. People who choose not to participate in the vote are entitled to do so. the effect would be the same as a negative vote.
BE> Wow now we can project that those not voting, voted AGAINST the issue? Or perhaps they could be projected to have voted FOR the issue? Realistically some may simply choose not to participate or can not participate.
RD> If there was no majority for the repair of the bridge, the bridge may collapse, people may be injured or killed , the economy disrupted etc. The community bears responsibility for their decision. Direct democracy in action. Maybe the next time a question was put to the vote the community would be more inclined to participate in the policy making. Especially if there was another similar community, which had gained a positive vote and repaired their bridge and whose economy blossomed and who suffered no loss of life.
BE> Please consider the number of people on “this list” and also search Google for people active in government (where are the concerned, active citizens?). Our town meetings have only a handful of people representing themselves. (often one family or group (elite) who dominate) As to ill effects, the US economy is crumbling, people with no home or food or health care, millions of people have been killed in a war based on lies yet there is little response from the voting public. Your key word above is “maybe”.


RD> You cannot have DD only on the questions that suit you.
BE> Where did this statement come from?


RD> to say 'someone has to make the decisions' smacks to me of a desire for dictatorship.
BE> Do you deny that decisions need to be made? This was all in the context of the community making decisions. How can you see community decisions using Initiatives from the community and referendum where the entire community may vote on the matter as dictoral?


RD> In addition your call for I&BR seems to add an extra layer of government. You want a vote on whether a question should be put to a vote. I may have misunderstood I&BR, if so maybe you could enlighten me.
BE> Perhaps we are considering two different settings. If you are considering a local community meeting with only the people present able to participate, than no I&BR would be used. The issue would be brought up, passed or failed and ended. Those fighting fires, policing, feeding people, nursing, caring for kids or otherwise legitimately busy, have NO SAY!
That has been the failed process to date. That is the justification for “representatives”. Those working shifts or have obligations causing them to not be present have no say. Once you go beyond “local” community to County with even more people, perhaps a million or more, there is little time for all to “be heard” in a meeting. National or Global? Millions may want and deserve to be heard.


Using the Initiative and Binding Referendum process, all can be aware of the Initiatives being presented and have time to prepare any objections or supporting arguments. They can than write media articles, contact friends and neighbors, discuss the matter, post their view in the “official” community forum.


Than finally they may post an absentee referendum ballot to the clerk before the election is over. Democracy takes time and a referendum date needs to allow time for discussion and research so all can make informed decisions (choices). That RD is DD.


ps ( Politically Correct (PC) apparently requires disclaimers) (in my opinion) (not necessarily humble)


pss WDDM original and sole purpose was to assist communities in the development of I&BR by providing information and educational articles on I&BR.

Bruce Eggum Wisconsin USA
www.doinggovernment.com


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Definition of Direct Democracy - Re: Glossary WDDM Terms
Posted by: RoyDaine (IP Logged)
Date: September 21, 2007 08:09AM

Bruce,
I've briefly scanned your response to my post. I must take some time to read it thouroughly and understand everything before before I attempt a cohesive reply. I have already spotted some areas where you have given me pause for thought.
Roy


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Definition of Direct Democracy - Re: Glossary WDDM Terms
Posted by: RoyDaine (IP Logged)
Date: September 21, 2007 10:23AM

Bruce,
I'm going to have to take your points one by one.


1. When I say you appear to be arguing against DD, I was specifically referring to the phrase 'someone has to make the decisions.'
I believe my theory on a large majority has merit. It is based on a simple formula of 4 people. If the other 3 are against your argument, you need to persuade a majority of the opposition to your point of view in order to then hold the majority. I don't demand that this theory is absolute and should be adopted for the world. It was my suggestion as to how a formula could be worked out. You mention a 'tiny minority of 25+1%' could hold sway, but your formula for a majority was 50+1%. In other words an even tinier minority of 1% holds the power. Whatever majority was decided upon, nobody is held to ransom. Whatever the issue, if the arguments cannot persuade, the issue does not have enough merit to become policy/law.
You absolutely have the right to disagree with my version of DD. That's the whole point. If one of us, however, can convince a majority of others to our point of view, then we carry the day.


2. 'seeking a vast majority of people who are so established in their views nothing would change them'.


I consider this to be a slur. I am not stooping to personal belittlement. If the above is correct then any DD can only be established among the 'other' minority. If peoples views cannot be changed , then there is no point. To anything. It means that what we have now, is the best that man can aspire to. A more depressing scenario, I cannot envisage.


3. (Consider a scenario). Here I was talking about an already established, idealised DD, where everybody entitled to vote would know about it and have the opportunity to do so and the responsibilty inherent in such a system.
I did not say that we could assume that those not voting, voted against the issue, I said it would have the same effect. You make the point that in 'real life' only a few people turn up at meetings etc. and this means that those few who bother get control(I paraphrase). If out of 1 hundred people, I can only get 5 people to vote on my behalf, even if only 1 opposes me and the rest abstain, there is no way I could be assumed to have won the argument. My 'campaign' if you will, should have had enough merit to persuade a majority of people to vote on my behalf.


4. 'RD> You cannot have DD only on the questions that suit you.
BE> Where did this statement come from? '


Again, this replies to your opening statement, 'Someone has to make the decisions'. Me - along with every other member of the community. In my idealised DD, I would be asked my opinion on everything. If a previous decision that I had been involved in making, had made somebody responsible for the upkeep of bridges, so be it. Otherwise I want to be consulted.


5. Your opening paragraph is saying that somebody has to make decisions because - '
'To often no decision is made, seeking a vast majority of people who are so established in their views nothing would change them.'
This contradicts what you now say - 'This was all in the context of the community making decisions.


6. I am not aginst I&BR. I merely meant it seemed to add an extra layer to the process. I should not have said 'of government'. I knew what I meant but didn't say it properly.


Having registered with my verdict.net, you will have noted that all questions and results are live and ongoing. This was specifically set up that way, to enable people to study the questions and arguments at length. There is also the opportunity to change your vote, as many times as you wish, should the arguments persuade. It was not set up to support my point of view but with the intention of gathering EVERBODYS' point of view. You can tell then, that I am in full agreement with your last few paragraphs.


In conclusion, Bruce, my replies to your posts, were in no way intended as a personal attack. I have perused a few of your articles/posts. I found them to be authoratative and well written. You have obviously put in a lot of time and effort on behalf of I&BR and DD. My replies were intended to point out what I considered to be minor anomolies/contradictions thus enforcing the argument.
Best Regards
Roy


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Definition of Direct Democracy - Re: Glossary WDDM Terms
Posted by: BrEggum (IP Logged)
Date: September 21, 2007 03:25PM

Roy,
I'm going to have to take your points one by one.


R> 1. When I say you appear to be arguing against DD, I was specifically referring to the phrase 'someone has to make the decisions.'


B> Well, perhaps I could have said a decision must be made. Of course even that is again my opinion because the people could decide to make no decision. However that too is a decision, to decide to make no decision. Also, for the community to make a decision, each and every one of the community must make a decision, (ie my reference to someone) and the community decision will be the collection of these individual choices. An Initiative is someones idea, someones proposal coming from their decision which they propose to the community. If you are going to be critical on how I say something, even after I have clarified it we could be having very long discussions. Or none.


It seems contrary for you to argue with my insistence on Initiative and Binding Referendum, when you have gone to great effort and expense to build verdict.net which is completely based on Initiative, discussion, voting (on the initiative to determine if it will be selected to proceed to Binding Referendum) and finally Binding Referendum so the people's choice is immediately put into effect.
I again thank you for verdict.net.


I do not like to argue word games, however this may simply be a misunderstanding.


The community needs to decide how to accomplish this. That is why verdict.net and [leparlement.org] and all the other sites providing examples of these methods is so important because they provide choices for the people. leParlement is another example and the selection method may fit another particular community. But unless the people have the authority to make law and their constitution, charter, they are simply shouting into the wind. Thus I maintain that I&BR is the first necessary step. Once the people have the authority, they can use I&BR to do whatever they choose (democratically) for their community. They can than even decide to delete I&BR.


R> I believe my theory on a large majority has merit. It is based on a simple formula of 4 people. If the other 3 are against your argument, you need to persuade a majority of the opposition to your point of view in order to then hold the majority. I don't demand that this theory is absolute and should be adopted for the world. It was my suggestion as to how a formula could be worked out. You mention a 'tiny minority of 25+1%' could hold sway, but your formula for a majority was 50+1%.


B> Of course this has nothing to do with DD. With DD, the community decides this, not you. Here you mis-state my argument. Few communities have 4 people. A family with 4 people may flip a coin but that is not really a good way for a community of 10,000 or 10 million to make decisions. A community of 10,000 voters, and 74% want a new school but are defeated because you require 75%. Thus you have the minority 25% overruling, the 7,400 peoples choice. In 50%+1 you always have at least 50% satisfied where your 75% choice often leaves 74% dissatisfied. (7,400+)


R> In other words an even tinier minority of 1% holds the power. Whatever majority was decided upon, nobody is held to ransom. Whatever the issue, if the arguments cannot persuade, the issue does not have enough merit to become policy/law.
You absolutely have the right to disagree with my version of DD. That's the whole point. If one of us, however, can convince a majority of others to our point of view, then we carry the day.


B> Here again you miss-understood. I meant 50% of the people plus 1 vote. This is a majority.
10,000 / 50% = 5,000 +1 person. At least 5,001 people are satisfied here, compared to the 7,400 + dissatisfied in your super majority model.


R> 2. 'seeking a vast majority of people who are so established in their views nothing would change them'.


I consider this to be a slur. I am not stooping to personal belittlement. If the above is correct then any DD can only be established among the 'other' minority. If peoples views cannot be changed , then there is no point. To anything. It means that what we have now, is the best that man can aspire to. A more depressing scenario, I cannot envisage.


slur (slûr)
tr.v. slurred, slur·ring, slurs
1. To pronounce indistinctly.
2. To talk about disparagingly or insultingly.
3. To pass over lightly or carelessly; treat without due consideration.


B> If you disagree with me that is fine. Please refrain from insinuating that I am not speaking distinctly nor disparagingly nor insulting. If I were threatening you or such, you would know it.


Again, please consult reality. There are many set in their ways and would not ever change. Luckily, we have a fringe of people who are progresive and liberal (meaning they demand and protect the value of Liberty) who are often able to get a few things accomplished.


R> 3. (Consider a scenario). Here I was talking about an already established, idealised DD, where everybody entitled to vote would know about it and have the opportunity to do so and the responsibility inherent in such a system.
I did not say that we could assume that those not voting, voted against the issue, I said it would have the same effect. You make the point that in 'real life' only a few people turn up at meetings etc. and this means that those few who bother get control(I paraphrase). If out of 1 hundred people, I can only get 5 people to vote on my behalf, even if only 1 opposes me and the rest abstain, there is no way I could be assumed to have won the argument. My 'campaign' if you will, should have had enough merit to persuade a majority of people to vote on my behalf.


B> Again you are arguing about issues you have not got the right to decide. The Community has that right. I only want the Community to have the power TO decide which requires them to have the power of Initiative and Binding Referendum. The Quorum,


4. 'RD> You cannot have DD only on the questions that suit you.
BE> Where did this statement come from? '


R> Again, this replies to your opening statement, 'Someone has to make the decisions'. Me - along with every other member of the community. In my idealised DD, I would be asked my opinion on everything. If a previous decision that I had been involved in making, had made somebody responsible for the upkeep of bridges, so be it. Otherwise I want to be consulted.
B> As previously explained. But YOUR idealized DD may not be the one chosen by your community. Consulted? You like everyone else would have the right of Initiative as well as the right to present your views for consideration. You would also have the right to vote one vote on each ballot question.


R> 5. Your opening paragraph is saying that somebody has to make decisions because - '
'To often no decision is made, seeking a vast majority of people who are so established in their views nothing would change them.'
This contradicts what you now say - 'This was all in the context of the community making decisions.


B> No, when I first made the statement that somebody has to make a decision, it did not have the tail [because} the tail seeking a vast majority was responding to your super majority which was another issue.


This is reality. Example the US Senate. They make a decision, Bush veto's and that kicks in the 66% requirement. The die hard republicans will not bend therefore they defeat the restoration of the Habeas Corpus act with their 34% minority. The majority of the people of the US want the Habeas Corpus Act restored, it is a Constitutional Right. Even if 65% of the Senators wanted it restored, the 34% could stop them dead.


Thus the Dictator wins and the people loose.


R> I am not against I&BR. I merely meant it seemed to add an extra layer to the process. I should not have said 'of government'. I knew what I meant but didn't say it properly.


B> Again, verdict.net is set up following I&BR theory so why argue against it?


R> Having registered with my verdict.net, you will have noted that all questions and results are live and ongoing. This was specifically set up that way, to enable people to study the questions and arguments at length. There is also the opportunity to change your vote, as many times as you wish, should the arguments persuade. It was not set up to support my point of view but with the intention of gathering EVERYBODY'S' point of view. You can tell then, that I am in full agreement with your last few paragraphs.


B> Again, not all things are in concrete. Changing votes are like changing decisions. If you decided to buy a house, and owe money on it, you are obligated to complete that contract. If you vote to build a school, than when it is 95% complete you change your mind and vote against it, you and your community must fulfill your original decision. So some votes once made may not be changed. Or at least without severe consequences.


R> In conclusion, Bruce, my replies to your posts, were in no way intended as a personal attack. I have perused a few of your articles/posts. I found them to be authoratative and well written. You have obviously put in a lot of time and effort on behalf of I&BR and DD. My replies were intended to point out what I considered to be minor anomolies/contradictions thus enforcing the argument.
Best Regards
Roy
No problem Roy, I decided to confront a few of your statements, so that will be.
All the Best Bruce

Bruce Eggum Wisconsin USA
www.doinggovernment.com


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Definition of Direct Democracy - Re: Glossary WDDM Terms
Posted by: RoyDaine (IP Logged)
Date: September 22, 2007 03:11AM

Hi again Bruce,
Thanks. Your repeated explanations of I&BR have finally got through. I retract anything I have previously stated that might be regarded as criticism. You may quote this wherever you think fit.


Majorities. You are of course correct in your precise definition of majority 50+1%. I also agree with your explanations as to how, under the system I proposed, 74% of the people would be disstisfied. The point I was trying to make, is, that whatever the people decide a majority should be, it is possible that a very small minority will be able to swing the vote, be it 1% or 26%. On issues where there was a 50-50 split of opinion, that 1% hold an inordinate amount of power. Then again, I concur with your real-life scenario re the USA.
You can see that on this matter, my opinion is not fully formed. I need to see a much broader range of opinion and argument.


You appear to be under the impression that I have taken it upon myself to decide what form DD should take. This is not the case. My stance on this is that the 'people' should be consulted about every issue. It is the 'people' who should decide the policy/law by which they wish to live. How that is actually achieved can vary, from community to community. myverdict.net was set up to canvas the majority opinion. So that all people could debate all issues. I have always felt it would then be up to others, like yourself and Mirek, who are trying to enact/change laws, to see DD come to fruition.


With regard to changing votes. This is obviously part of the consultation and debating process. To see over time how the arguments for and against are persuading people to a point of view. At some point, to actually enact law, a final vote would have to be taken.
I can give numerous examples of vast numbers of people who are apparently unwilling to change their stance on any issue. But the overall impression I got from the paragraph concerned was 'they're allways going to think like that, we've got to carry on and do it anyway'. I repeat, that was the impression I got. It didn't seem to fit with the rest of your articles. Also ' Luckily, we have a fringe of people who are
progresive and liberal (meaning they demand and protect the value of Liberty)
who are often able to get a few things accomplished.'
I'm sure a lot of the people now in control probably think this way. With DD this shouldn't be allowed to happen. I want a system where nothing happens unless the people have decided it should happen.
This seems to be the only contradictory part of all you've said.That's it for now.
Regards
Roy


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Definition of Direct Democracy - Re: Glossary WDDM Terms
Posted by: BrEggum (IP Logged)
Date: September 22, 2007 07:28AM

Hi again Bruce,
Thanks. Your repeated explanations of I&BR have finally got through. I retract anything I have previously stated that might be regarded as criticism. You may quote this wherever you think fit.


B> Thanks Roy, this is what we need to do on WDDM, help people understand I&BR.



R> Majorities. You are of course correct in your precise definition of majority 50+1%. I also agree with your explanations as to how, under the system I proposed, 74% of the people would be disstisfied. The point I was trying to make, is, that whatever the people decide a majority should be, it is possible that a very small minority will be able to swing the vote, be it 1% or 26%. On issues where there was a 50-50 split of opinion, that 1% hold an inordinate amount of power. Then again, I concur with your real-life scenario re the USA.
You can see that on this matter, my opinion is not fully formed. I need to see a much broader range of opinion and argument.


B> The Swiss use a double majority. If approved in a majority (50%+1) of Cantons, as well as Swiss nationally, (popular vote 50%+1) than a matter is adopted.



R> You appear to be under the impression that I have taken it upon myself to decide what form DD should take. This is not the case. My stance on this is that the 'people' should be consulted about every issue. It is the 'people' who should decide the policy/law by which they wish to live. How that is actually achieved can vary, from community to community. myverdict.net was set up to canvas the majority opinion. So that all people could debate all issues. I have always felt it would then be up to others, like yourself and Mirek, who are trying to enact/change laws, to see DD come to fruition.


B> Actually, I see this over and over. People in their haste to fix health, poverty etc. begin writing proposals to do so. Unfortunately they have no jurisdiction to accomplish it. We need I&BR so we can Initiate change. Your site allows a program to do that. But the jurisdiction is only in the Communities that adopt it. I can not pass legislation for Africa.



With regard to changing votes. This is obviously part of the consultation and debating process. To see over time how the arguments for and against are persuading people to a point of view. At some point, to actually enact law, a final vote would have to be taken.
B> Here again we have different rules for different matters. A vote to change a law or matter may have no contractual effect such as replacement of an elected official. These are again local decisions.


I can give numerous examples of vast numbers of people who are apparently unwilling to change their stance on any issue. But the overall impression I got from the paragraph concerned was 'they're allways going to think like that, we've got to carry on and do it anyway'. I repeat, that was the impression I got. It didn't seem to fit with the rest of your articles.


I suppose I swept with a large broom. There are many who think this way in my opinion.


Also ' Luckily, we have a fringe of people who are
progressive and liberal (meaning they demand and protect the value of Liberty)
who are often able to get a few things accomplished.'
B> Here I mean us, you and I the people struggling to regain control of our government. Our need to install I&BR, Again the lables have different meanings. Progressive are those with new ideas, new methods like I&BR.


I'm sure a lot of the people now in control probably think this way. With DD this shouldn't be allowed to happen. I want a system where nothing happens unless the people have decided it should happen.


This seems to be the only contradictory part of all you've said.That's it for now.
B> I am not sure if I answered this contradiction? That is YOU are progressive and liberal :>winking smiley


Regards
Roy


We keep chatting we will come to mutual understanding.
Bruce

Bruce Eggum Wisconsin USA
www.doinggovernment.com


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Definition of Direct Democracy - Re: Glossary WDDM Terms
Posted by: RoyDaine (IP Logged)
Date: September 22, 2007 08:58AM

Hi Bruce,
Nearly there. 'With regard to changing votes. This is obviously part of the consultation and debating process. To see over time how the arguments for and against are persuading people to a point of view. At some point, to actually enact law, a final vote would have to be taken.'
This changing votes scenario was referring to what happens at my site during the debating process when all the arguments are being put forward. I hadn't actually considered it as part of the actual DD process. The final vote of which I spoke was real world.
I never envisaged that myverdict.net might be taken as a model of how DD might work. That's why the strap-line is 'an exercise in direct democracy'. I thought if enough people were interested in the idea and could be persuaded to take part, what was 'possible' could be explored. I also have a hope that if I can show a majority on any issue, in any type of constituency, then those people could legitimately demand that their representative take note and support the proposition.
Regards
Roy


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Definition of Direct Democracy - Re: Glossary WDDM Terms
Posted by: BrEggum (IP Logged)
Date: September 22, 2007 09:31AM

Ahhhhhh But your site is DD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The changeable votes would be available to process the INITIATIVE and the deadline would mean no more changes. The deadline with enough votes could lead to processing the Initiative to the Referendum.


How can I duplicate your site for the US to use?


Bruce

Bruce Eggum Wisconsin USA
www.doinggovernment.com


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Definition of Direct Democracy - Re: Glossary WDDM Terms
Posted by: RoyDaine (IP Logged)
Date: September 22, 2007 09:53AM

Bruce,
We appear to be having the same conversation, split across two threads. To answer this one, myverdict.net already caters for the US. I write this so anybody following this discussion won't think I'm ignoring you.


As far as I'm concerned, myverdict.net belongs to everybody, in the sense that, everybody can contribute to the same degree, to build the site into what they want.


We can continue this in a single thread if you want, or spread it across as many as you want. I'll respond to them all.
Roy


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Definition of Direct Democracy - Re: Glossary WDDM Terms
Posted by: BrEggum (IP Logged)
Date: September 29, 2007 09:12PM

Dear Mirek
You state: It contains the following 'general universally accepted
definition' of Direct Democracy: "DD is a socio-political structure
concentrating the Legislation directly and
exclusively in the hands of people".
This definition is very similar to the one from Wikipedia. (The main difference is that Wikipedia's definition explicitly says "of all citizens who choose to participate.")


Yes, Georges identifies "legislation exclusively in the hands of the people."


To have this power, the people must accept and use this power. I&Br is a process the people can use to establish and utilize power to legislate. Of course whoever chose "not to participate" freely give up their power to legislate. If you voice no opinion, express no decision, fail to vote, than you have given up your right to participate. That is a decision. This non-participant has decided to remove their "hands" from any legislation.
Bruce

Bruce Eggum Wisconsin USA
www.doinggovernment.com


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Definition of Direct Democracy - Re: Glossary WDDM Terms
Posted by: koikaze (IP Logged)
Date: September 30, 2007 07:06AM

Good Morning, Bruce


First, I apologize for using this post for my response. I'm actually responding to an email notification I received from WDDM: (Subject: [WDDM] latest vote on DD). I am unable to find a thread labeled "latest vote on DD", so I'm posting my response here:


Your advocacy of Initiative and Binding Referendum seems clear, but I'd like to see a more complete examination of that idea and its benefits and limitations. It seems to me, from what I've read of your opinions, that you see I&BR as the be-all and end-all of democratic government. However, I may not understand what you have in mind.


When you say direct democracy and I&BR "can not be separated or both would fail" is that judgment not premature? Should we not first know the extent of each and the relationship between them before rendering such a judgment? Insofar as I&BR is concerned, would you care to consider starting a thread examining this important issue? Perhaps, something like:


"What should be the extent and role of Initiative and Binding Referendum in a democratic government?"


Fred


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Definition of Direct Democracy - Re: Glossary WDDM Terms
Posted by: BrEggum (IP Logged)
Date: March 09, 2008 10:50PM

Sorry I was not aware of your post Fred. Please contact me by email if you still have questions. bruce.eggum@gmail.com

Bruce Eggum Wisconsin USA
www.doinggovernment.com


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message


Get Firefox!       Powered by Phorum.       PHP