[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

01264: Re: [WDDM] Re: Regarding rule by representatives

From: "M. Kolar" <wddm(at)mkolar.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:53:01 -0700
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Re: Regarding rule by representatives

Emmanuel,
can you define what exactly you mean by delegation? I though it is used
in voting only, when one could have the option to delegate one's vote to
another voter, either on all issues, or on some issues, or to different
other voters on various issues.
How would then the presence or absence of this feature in the voting
system affect the nomination/appointment of the some executive positions?
I imagine that the best way to fill executive positions for which no
special skills are needed would be by rotation (sortition), possibly
supplemented with some sort of approval process (by voting). Positions
requiring special skills could be filled as above but only from the poll
of citizens who have those skills, or by normal hiring process in which
individuals who could do the job would be selected.
I imagine the future democracy as a federation of individual
communities (I think the distributed democracy terms coined here
recently is the same thing), where decision-making would be done locally
as much as possible (all that concerns only one
neighbourhood/village/town/etc. would be decided locally), so that not
many decisions will have to be done on higher levels of governments - so
one should not expect too many votes in these higher levels, only on
really important things.
Where would delegation fit into this?

Mirek


echarp wrote:

On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 02:00:42AM -0700, M. Kolar wrote:


echarp wrote:


I would think that delegation is not /quite/ like representation.
Because it is *much* easier to control. You don't just vote and
forget...

Yes, lower thresholds are an alternative to a representation or
delegation system. But they have one big disadvantage: the process could
degenerate in a fight between disciplined groups. Parties following
blindly all orders could be all powerful.


But how delegation will prevent this? By delegation you can make any
charismatic individual who is able to attract a lot of delegated votes
also very powerful.



Delegation will not remove parties, discipline, charisma. It will
decrease the possibilities for disciplined minorities to over take
democracy.



I think that either you have a well educated citizenship willing to
participate in decision-making - such citizens will take matters in
their own hands no matter what obstacles they have to overcome and no
representation or delegation is needed, or people are largely
uninterested in public matters, and then nothing will help (more or less
the present state of affairs).



Of course, the largest decisions will draw attention and become classic
referendums.

What about all the minor and detailed decisions that would/could need to
be made?

Wouldn't commissions become a practical necessity?



So it seems to me to better aim directly for education of citizens than
to lose time with devising various tricks that should make up for the
lack of interest in public matters.



Of course education is great and necessary.

But how would you nominate some of highest civil servants? Generals?
Judges?

Delegation could be one way.


[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]