| From: | common1(at)voicesfordd.com |
|---|---|
| Date: | Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:26:18 -0500 (EST) |
| Subject: | Re: [WDDM] Unequal voting rights? - Re: [WDDM] ReQuest for Defining "a bottom-up origin" |
Hi Lee -- and all,
Let me rewrite your statement below. Accordingly, you meant:
| In a *true* democracy, where "everyone has been given the
| full information about the subject of the vote before the vote",
| "everyone has an equal vote" -- provided only that "everyone
| doesn't vote on every issue, but only on those issues affecting
| him or her."
Is this what you wanted to mean? If so, I fully agree - but then,
people do not have an equal vote, since all the informations they
are being given are fixated issues of consent manufacturing and
political propaganda that are currently dropped down by an elitist
management.
Furthermore, "everyone do usually vote on every issue, not those
issues affecting him or her" -- because the policies have not been
originated bottom-up in the territory whose inhabitants, "him or her"
they affect.
Therefore, the problem to face is how to turn democracy from
a false to a true one, and the problem of increasing the people's
rights to vote is foolishness.
On this same topic, I also read a Mark Antell's post on 29-05-2006.
He wrote:
Hi All,(snip)
I've joined WDDM to promote direct democracy. I think that
the current US system of representative democracy was a very
good system, maybe the best possible, for a large country in the
18th century. Technology has improved, allowing us to improve
our democratic system accordingly.
I'm a bit concerned that WDDM is starting with a bunch of very
large goals. I don't know where improved democracy will lead.
I just tend to believe that most of the people around me are pretty
decent, and that government would be better (less oppressive,
more focused against abusive self interests) if it were more
closely controlled by average folk.
Accordingly, may we agree that the bottom people should use
their equal votes to control what the elite authorities are doing?
If so, people should use their power of control, i.e. their votes, to:
- be given policies being originated from the territory bottom-up,
not from the elite top-down;
- be trained since babyhood to awarely question (discuss critically
as well as directly) the authority for whichever informations it
delivers top-down onto the voters
that is, the people should question their own family-school-society
education system in advance, if they really wanted to obtain a true
democracy.
What else?
Cheers,
antonio
------------------- original msg -----------------
At 11:06 -0500 2-12-2006, common1(at)voicesfordd.com wrote:
Mirek,
If I understand Anand's stance, I agree with you.
The contributions of a citizen to society should have nothing whatever
to do with increasing his rights to vote. This is foolishness. In a
true
democracy, everyone has an equal vote, and everyone has been given
the full information about the subject of the vote before the vote.
Furthermore, everyone doesn't vote on every issue, but only on those
issues affecting him or her. This, and only this, is true democracy.
Lee
----------------------------------------------------
> Pras Anand wrote (November 15, 2006)
>> The more community contributions someone has generated - the
>> more right they gain on votin on increasingly complex issues.
>> I am developing a
>
> Even after all his explanations, I still do not like at all the above
> principle, that Pras wants to build into his Social Computer (SC)
> platform.
> Pras believes that his SC has the potential to have a big societal
> impact, so I think we all have here a good opportunity to matter
> somewhat - to try to influence the principles built into the SC.
> It would be interesting to know what others think specifically
> about the above point.
>
> I do not like at all the idea of giving as a reward more voting
> rights to those who make more community contributions. I am
> not against rewarding people in some reasonable way for their
> larger contributions, but not by giving them more voting rights,
> especially not in a vote on what they propose.
> It is true that people are not equal, but they should have equal
> opportunities in everything. That means also in voting, everybody
> should have an equal voice in matters that directly concern her
> or him. It doesn't matter whose brilliant idea they are voting on.
> If the consequences of implementing this idea affect them, they
> should have an equal voting right on this idea.
>
> Unless the SC adheres to this principle, it cannot be democratic.
>
> If people (children) are educated toward democracy and social
> responsibility, their greatest reward for coming up with a brilliant
> idea that helps the whole community could be the feeling that they
> made a significant contribution and the gratitude of others.
> If SC is supposed to educate people toward democracy, it should
> strengthen this alternative reward system.
> I do not think it is responsible to stress competition in SC.
> It should better stress cooperation.
>
> I suggest (again), that the WDDM may be somewhat useful
> (even without a formal organization) if we try to arrive by consent
> at common positions on various relevant issues and post them on
> the site as our recommendation.
>
> The above issue (rewards for greater contribution to the community)
> could be one such issue.
>
> Mirek
>
>
>
>
--
THE FUTURE WILL BE WHATEVER
CURRENT GENERATIONS WILL IT TO BE!
___________________________________
www.voicesfordd.com