Hello Bill... and welcome,
I have been reading your introduction message and some of the responses to it.
As you can probably tell by now, we have been knocking our heads together for quite some time about how to define desireable democratic
processes and how to give democracy and the term "Direct" any sort of real meaning. Many of us have some knowledge, others just opinions,
some are published researchers, some have developed quasi-constitutions which they have shared with us. Many have proposed models and game
trials and all have received mixed responses from our co-thinkers on here too.
It is great to see this group growing and it is great that new people with ideas and knowledge are interested in discussing these things.
However, I can tell you I did exactly the same thing when I joined, I thought I would find a group that's in agreement, a group that is
cohesive and ready to take on the world with a focused and defined objective. Well, that's not quite the case here. We are still trying to
agree amongst ourselves. At times there are more proposals being offered than people willing to engage with them. Also, it stands to reason
that most people who would bother to join this type of group are eager to put forward their own contribution, so you will find few
followers here. When your ideas tickle people they will engage with you, mostly to define where they are in agreement with you and where
they are not. Many will simply re-state they persional ideological mantra. It's all quite interesting... which Im sure won't be lost on a
person of
your background. I hope you don't find that process too frustrating.
I have recently had a discussion on here about the role of the ego in social behaviour and I wish you had "been here" for that. Personally,
I am beginning to get something out of this group. As for it being an actual tool for practical projects, I doubt its immediate
suitability. We still haven't found what we're looking for and there are quite a few suggestions we have been urged to "get behind" that
have received a mixed response. But please don't let this put you off, if you share your views and people respond, this group is already
doing its job. Awareness works in strange ways.
Welcome once again
Lata
--- On Wed, 12/8/09, Luca Zampetti <luca_zampetti(at)yahoo.it> wrote:
From: Luca Zampetti <luca_zampetti(at)yahoo.it>
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Hello as a new member.
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Date: Wednesday, 12 August, 2009, 9:21 AM
The proportional voting system in Switzerland works because of the special social conditions there ("Konkordanzdemokratie"), in many other
places this system produces strong "rent seeking" effects (Italy).
There is no single instrument for controlling the "rent seeking" influence of special interest groups and of political parties in
"Parteienstaat" models of government, these phenomena can (and must) be controlled with many instruments.
The direct and/or indirect control of special interests and of parties can be controlled partially with the return to the Athenian purely
stochastic (s)election for a majority of seats (reserving let´s say 51% of them for stochastic (s)election. Every voting system can be
manipulated
and has both advantages and disadvantages. The point is that no voting system is chosen or designed explicitely for controlling politics
and politicians, but for empowering them.
Equally important is: increase the number of direct (s)elective positions in the judiciary and in the executive/administrative branches.
Equally important are additional instruments for voting away politicians and administrators: recall elections, popular veto elections.
The cost of democracy must be in a relation to its productivity. The overall goal must be to use direct democracy instruments to guarantee
as much as possible the social productivity of political activities. When the cost is higher than productivity, like in the Parteienstaat,
the political institutions break down by themselves anyway in the long run. The question is with what to replace them.
What is required is a general concept for re-engineering democracy so that it becomes
compatible with a new-old requirement, i.e. its "controllability", which is related to accountability, but only partially. Our concept of
democracy is incomplete: it was successful with delegation, but very miserable with control. It lacks practically all efficient instruments
of political and fiscal control. The effects are devastating: we have states that have more powers than totalitarian regimes and we cannot
control them efficiently anymore.
There are some powers that definitely need to be withdrawn from legislative institutions, like the budgeting rights, which parliaments
arrogated from the kings in many hundreds of years.
Financial referenda should become the standard budgeting procedure.
The budgeting institutions should not be parliaments anymore, but courts of accounts with popularly elected judges and jurors.
Another power that should be withdrawn is the constitution making and revision power, it is definitely a
separate power from the legislative, executive and judiciary and it should be institutionalized in separated PERMANENT constitutional
assemblies of directly (s)elected representatives (small bodies at regional, national and supranational level).
Constitution making and revision should be out of the hands of professional politicians.
Constitutional initiative, total and partial, should be reserved to the people with proper referendary procedures "organized" under the
permanent constitutional assemblies.
And so on ...
Luca Zampetti
Da: Jim Powell <autoinfo(at)acenet.co.za>
A: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Inviato: Mercoledì 12 agosto 2009,
9:33:12
Oggetto: RE: [WDDM] Hello as a new member.
Hi Bill,
I believe that the only way we can get rid of special interests
is for the funding of political parties to be from the tax base. We should
regard this as a cost of democracy
The contributions should be a skewed % of elected representivity.
For example, if the majority party gets 60% of the vote it gets 50% of the
contribution. A party with 10% would get 15%. If a new party emerges, the
contribution will be in accordance with the number of signatures it obtains. Contributions
to political parties and paying of signature collectors should be illegal.
The Swiss system seems to work well. One item I disagree with in
the Swiss constitution is that the politicians are on a proportional basis. I
believe that there should be a constituency basis with a vote for PR. This
would allow for a reflection of the overall wishes of the voters
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Hello as a new member.
Hi,
Hamid. In essence, I do agree with your description of democracy.
Please read articles on my web site, Politicalpsychologyresearch.com. the
book manuscript, publication #3, describes the model for a new form of
political party designed to promote public democracy. Let me know your
impressions. Bill.
-----
Original Message -----
From: Hamid Mohseni
To: World Direct Democracy
Sent: Tuesday, August 11,
2009 7:28 AM
Subject: RE: [WDDM] Hello as
a new member.
Hi
As I understand the government in direct democracy system is employee of people
and not leaders.
People don´t need to hope and appreciate for services
from government. They employ government members and tell
the government what should be done in a democratic way.
If you agree with me I would like to read about your articles.
Regards
From: tstmastr(at)rio.com
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
CC: bill(at)testmasterinc.com
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 04:40:06 -0700
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Hello as a new member.
Thank
you Martin. Let me know your thoughts and how your members might be
interested in my research studies. Bill.
-----
Original Message -----
From: Annette and Martin
To:
wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent: Friday, August 07,
2009 3:05 AM
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Hello as
a new member.
Bill,
welcome to World Wide
Direct Democracy l am sure a person of your standing will bring great
value to our movement, and l look forward to researching your work.
Cheers
Martin Jackson
Australia
-----
Original Message -----
From: Bill(at)Politicalpsychologyresearch.com
To:
wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent: Friday, August 07,
2009 4:01 PM
Subject: [WDDM] Hello as a
new member.
Date:
Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:03:32 -0700
6/22/09
Hello
World Wide Democracy group members:
I am a new member, Bill McConochie. I am a research psychologist
specializing for the past several years in political psychology research.
My findings and personal inclinations are very consonnant with those of your
organization. I believe I could help you in several ways to promote and
realize your ultimate goal of advancing human civilization to direct democracy
forms of governments. I will list some of these and await your
responses. Before I do that, let me share just a little more personal
background. I have a Ph.D., and 40 years of experience in clinical, I/O
and now political psychology. I have created a non-profit corp. to
publish my research and conduct research over the Internet. I am a member
of the American Psychological Assn, Div. 48 (Peace and Violence studies), the
International Society of Political Psychology, and the Oregon Psychological
Assn. I present papers at the annual meetings of ISPP. I will
present one in Dublin in July (09).
How
I might be able to help you:
1.
I have research findings that strongly support human desire for government
serving them as members of the community overall rather than as members of
special interest groups. This sort of data, of which I have much, can
support your efforts, giving them an empirical and not just ideological
grounding.
2.
I have developed a reliable and valid scale for measuring the
warmongering-proness of political leaders, and have another one ready for
validation measuring constructive leadership traits. These can be used by
the media to help inform voters re: what elected officials are likely to
promote.
3.
I have designed a working model for a political party whose platform is based
on member (citizen) polls of what they want government to provide (policies and
programs).
4.
Sophisticated public polls on details of policy issues can be conducted to
create the platform for such a party (and for your organization). They in
effect pool all citizen opinions to create a current empirical definition of
the common good. Your organization could conduct such polls and publish
the findings to inform nations and the world re: what citizens want from
government. This can help pressure standing governments to perform more
appropriately and empower political parties that want to represent the common
good (such parties, I recommend, should be funded entirely with member dues, no
special interest group money). Such parties would fund the
campaigns of their candidates for elective office as well, keeping their elected
candidates independent of the contaminating influence of special interest group
money.
5.
You could help me by having students and other groups, e.g. church
groups, fill out my research questionnaires, which are online at my web site.
6.
Together we could thus continue the research that can give empirical grounding
to your movement and perfect the public polls necessary to operationalize
public democracy, defining policy via citizen votes.
This is enough for an introduction. Please visit my web site to read
various research and essay articles under the Publications page.
Politicalpsychologyresearch.com.
I look forward to hearing responses.
Best regards, Bill
McConochie
William
A. McConochie, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist #225 (Oregon)
71 E.15th Ave., Eugene, Or. 97401
541-686-9934
Bill(at)Politicalpsychologyresearch.com
Much about politics originates in
our minds;
Understanding our minds explains much about politics.