Dear all,
if you have a second, you can go check out
http://wddm.enitiatives.org/
Some of the text might be old text from
the Swiss or Canadian web site (and does not apply to a country-less system),
but you’ll see the idea, a first “dummy” Enitiative that you
can comment or vote on (http://wddm.enitiatives.org/UsingEnitiatives)
and get familiar with the system.
Unfortunately, there is no connection (for
now) with the wddm web site, so you’ll have to create a new profile and
login separately if you wish to make your vote count as a member vote.
All comments, ideas and suggestions are
welcome.
Nico
From: Mark Antell, editor CitizenPowerMagazine.net [citizenp(at)citizenpowermagazine.net]
Sent: vendredi, 1. juin 2007 10:15
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: [WDDM] Progress on a
couple of business items.
Hi All,
My previous note mentioned three business items.
Item #1: Moving from Discussion to Decision, with specific reference to
"partyless or true democracy." There's been a lot of
discussion on "partyless democracy" of late. I'd hope that the
principals supporting this concept will post an intiative for decisional vote
via the process described in our charter*.
Item #2: Filling the Executive Board Vacancy - Done, welcome Nicolas.
Item #3: Automatic referendum on executive board decisions - There's been some
discussion on this. My thoughts on this topic follow:
The WDDM charter* in three short paragraphs (articles 9, 10, and 11) discusses
decision making. Article #11 states that all executive board decisions
are temporary. Executive board decisions must be submitted for referendum
by the members, and they must be validated by a majority vote. This may
or may not be a good idea. But it is in the charter which was adopted by
a long, open, discussion process, plus a 2/3 vote of approval.
Automatic referendum on executive board decisions means tight direct democracy
control over the executive. I like the concept and I'd like to try to
make it work. But it can be modified or dropped if need be. The
charter contains two mechanisms for amendment. The executive board may
post a charter amendment. Or the membership may post a charter amendment
via initiative. In either case, a 2/3 positive vote from the voting
membership is necessary for adoption of the charter amendment.
I'm a stickler about constitutionalism. We all should be.
Democracies don't work unless they have a defined order and method for
elections (and for a lot of other issues like citizen rights). Whether
the vote is on issues or representatives, democracy is about a well-described
process to determine and carry-out the considered wishes of the
constituency.
* The charter can be found at http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/charter.html
Mark Antell, member
WDDM Executive Board
PS. There's been some recent fascinating posts (from Lim, Daine, Kolar
and Durand) on new methods of DD. Here's what the article 6 of the WDDM
charter says about methods:
"WDDM will be an exemplar for direct
democracy. As much as possible, decision making power will flow from
direct vote of the membership.
And we will strive to test and implement cutting-edge methods to enhance
deliberation. "
I do hope and expect that we will be experimenting with Enitiatives this
year. The Enitiatives methodology, as Nicolas has described it, is pretty
much identical to the charter method for member-generated initiatives.
PPS. The executive board has made exactly one decision since it was
constituted. That decision was pretty non-controversial, speaking only to
executive board communications. The charter calls for an automatic
referendum on all executive decisions. Maybe it's a good idea to test the
automatic referendum concept on this decision - because the outcome doesn't matter
very much. Nicolas, can Enitiatives handle automatic referendum on
executive board decisions? If not, I'll ask Mirek to post this
executive-board decision for referendum using the existing WDDM methodology for
elections.
http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/charter.html
---------------------------
Nicolas Durand wrote:
Dear
all,
I’ll gladly step up on the executive
board for this year!
Regarding WDDM “internal
initiatives”, motions, etc. why would we not use the Enitiatives system,
e.g. http://wddm.enitiatives.org/
(this url still points to the Swiss web site, but can be changed soon into a
WDDM only web site).
The concept is like in a (still
inexistent) real electronically-ruled DD country, like Switzerland:
all WDDM members can create Enitiatives (basically, launch an idea
or an “initiative”)
other members can discuss it, modify it, and vote for or against it
when a given number of people have voted (could be e.g. 10% of all
WDDM members), if the average is positive, a working group summarizes the
discussion into a motion, submits it to WDDM members for approval (just to
check that the motion really reflects the discussion)
WDDM members vote to approve or reject the motion
I agree with Bruce: the Executive board
should take decisions and apply them without having to ask members every time
(except of course to modify the charter, etc.), but members would have a
referendum right – this could also be done on Enitiatives, but with less
votes necessary.
The advantage is that there could be a
discussion BEFORE a lengthy vote is organized.
Another advantage is that everything would
happen online. Any one could subscribe to the “threads” = Enitiatives
that are of interest to him/her (to get email alerts). A “memory”
would be kept. Discussions would be ordered by “thread”, instead of
being mixed up in mailboxes.
What do you think?
Nico
P.S: in case anyone is wondering, I
created www.Enitiatives.org – I
would adapt it and put it at the disposal of WDDM – evidently free of
charge.
From: Mark Antell, editor CitizenPowerMagazine.net [citizenp(at)citizenpowermagazine.net]
Sent: jeudi, 31. mai 2007 20:32
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: [WDDM] Several WDDM
business items
Hi All,
I’d like to discuss the following three points concerning WDDM business.
#1. Moving from discussion to decision
- with specific reference to PVR’s thoughts about ‘partyless or
truer democracy.’
#2. Richard Moore’s resignation
from the executive board.
#3. Executive board communications.
These points are discussed below.
#1. Moving from discussion to decision
PVR’s most recent note of 5/28 (attached below) defines a specific
program:
“The first step, I think, should be to come to a conclusion that we
cannot do away with representative democracy at least for the time being. We
need to redefine Direct Democracy as Democracy where people have direct say in
matters of governance through their representatives without the intermediary of
political parties within the elected house”
If PVR, or anyone else, has a firm recommendation on goals for WDDM, we do have
a charter which specifies how programs and issues may be brought to
decision. That charter is published at the following address:
http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/charter.html
The following steps are specified by the WDDM charter:
A. A member posts a proposal for discussion. Perhaps s/he modifies the
proposal based on that discussion.
B. A member posts a proposal and requests that it be seconded by other
members. For the current year, the charter sets the number of seconds
required at three.
C. The initiator or ‘owner’ of a properly seconded motion tells
WDDM to post the motion for decision (adoption/rejection) by the
membership. Business motions require a simple majority of votes for
adoption. A charter amendment however, requires approval by 2/3 of the
voters.
#2. Richard Moore’s resignation.
Disappointing. I just haven't seen anything deeply troublesome in the
recent WDDM discussions either at a personal or political level.
Given that the election occurred only a few weeks ago, we should ask the fourth
certified candidate, Nicholas Durand, to fill the position vacated by Richard.
Nicholas, are you willing to take on this
responsibility?
#3. Executive Board Communications
Charter item 8 specifies that executive board communications shall be
open. Both George Kokkas and I have agreed to implement that requirement
by adding a forum for executive board communications. That forum is
write-enabled for all candidates for the board in the recent WDDM election, and
is read-enabled for all other members. Charter item 11 specifies that all
decisions of the executive board are subject to automatic referendum, but this
decision seems pretty obvious. If no one objects we will skip the
referendum on this. But if anyone
objects to this executive board decision we’ll take it to referendum vote
as called for in the charter.
Mark Antell, member
WDDM Executive Board