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

01770: RE: [WDDM] Regarding the social network site

From: ROY DAINE <rdaine(at)btinternet.com>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 14:42:40 +0100 (BST)
Subject: RE: [WDDM] Regarding the social network site

Dear Jim and PVR,

I think it's time that everybody faced reality.
Most of the contributors here seem obsessed with their own version of DD and how it should be implemented. I've probably been guilty of it myself.

Let's rid ourself of the myth that Switzerland has the only model worth emulating.

Take a look at the constitution of Colorado for example. They have Initiative. If 5% of the electorate support the initiative, it is put to a vote of the electorate within a specific time period, I think 21 days. If it is not put to the electorate within that time it automatically becomes law.

Similarly with referendum. 5% of the electorate can cause anything decided by the government to be put before the people.

They have Recall.

Any town with 2000 residents can apply for home rule and be run according to its own charter. Any laws passed by the council supercede state law.

The charter of Greenwood Village, a suburb of Denver, states that all candidates standing for election must be independant.

It seems to me that there is a great deal of DD in Colorado.

I totally disagree with Jim's insistance that - The basic rule is that the Politicians are the employees of the voters.

This is simply not the case.

In most democracies, we elect people to govern us.

The analogy of employer and employee does not stand up to scrutiny.

It is also apparent that a DD where the people make all the decisions is not going to happen. There are simply not enough people interested. I would suggest it is also unfeasible.

I have heard no substantive argument against the idea that we need some form of representation. However if you think in terms of 'spokesmen', rather than 'representatives', it gives it a whole new flavour.

If you then want your spokesmen to act on your behalf, you have to have some method of enforcement. You have to be able to tell your spokesman the majority view, which he can then represent.

But if you don't tell him, you have to give him the power to make the decisions on your behalf.

I have more to say but for now I'll await your response.

Best Regards

Roy

Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan <vijayaraghavan.p(at)rediffmail.com> wrote:
Dear Jim,
I wish that it would be as simple as you have described. For discussion's sake let us visualize the following scenario:

In my place I would like usher in DD. I talk about the need for DD to a group of youngsters (in the 20-30) age group. They would be impressed by the benefits of DD and how it would counter many of the evils of the present day like corruption and authoritarianism. They would like to know how exactly can the change be ushered in. I need a setup to which I can point and say that they can enroll themselves there and contribute to the change. They will be interested in knowing the details and how exactly it is going to counter the existing system and replace it. If all the details are worked out and already available for use then the youngsters will feel positive about it and may start using it.

If details are left out to be resolved later then the attractiveness of the idea diminishes. In other words marketing it becomes difficult. In this world there is always a tussle between contradictory ideas. If we feel that we have good idea that is beneficial to everyone then we have to make every effort to make it a success. None of those in power would allow the existing system to be replaced by a better system, because in their view the existing system would be the best system.

We have to capture the political space with a sound strategy. "The voters decide which politicians are employed and pay them." I fully agree with this. For this purpose I have already suggested that we set up a World True Democracy Platform with the representative in each constituency being elected by the 'troika' or 'triplet' system as suggested by Fred.

"Get the community believing that they can control the politicians". This would be possible if a mechanism is available to make the previous step a reality.

There is nothing that can stop us from proceeding with the above two steps except the lake of cohesiveness and conviction among ourselves. I am afraid that simply talking about ushering in the Swiss system and methods like advertisements etc. would not make much headway.

Regards,

PVR


On Tue, 6 May 2008 17:05:24 +0200 wddm@world-wide-democracy.net wrote

Hi PVR
1.
Let us not be academic
2.
Put up the various definitions and vote on it
3.
We have a workable, proven product in Switzerland. Not perfect
but it works.
4.
Each area or country will decide the details of the DD
5.
The basic rule is that the Politicians are the employees of the
voters. The voters decide which politicians are employed and pays them.
6.
Get this message out there and get the community believing that
they can control the politicians
7.
Directly challenge the politicians to explain why the voters are
not in charge of them
While we concentrate on the details the ultimate goal moves
further away.

Regards

Jim Powell

Enhance democracy. Make your views known on every issue that concerns you.
[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]