| From: | "Esi" <esi1mohseni2(at)hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date: | Sat, 12 Sep 2009 22:15:39 +0200 |
| Subject: | Re: [WDDM] Why I support World Government? |
|
Hi Lata A game can not reflect the reality. A game does not
affect your real life so you play most after your desires and
curiousity about the results.
In a real direct democratic system people are more
careful when they vote and the consequences of that for their real
life.
Hamid
From: Lata Gouveia
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 8:00 PM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Why I support World
Government? Hi Doug,
I like your idea about competence tests, etc. We have been trying a model in the form of a game. It is far from perfect, trust me, there is a lot of room for improvement. The game has been running for 4 Rounds and now, on the 5th Round there will be a competence test that will be tied to the players participation ratios to define the weight of their vote. The cycle will be complete and a community decision will be made. The data I have collected over the past 5 weeks about voting behaviour might not be incredibly relevant yet because the players are not yet playing strategically. Once they complete the cycle, the players that keep playing will probably develop strategies that I cannot foresee. What I can foresee though, is that some of them will quit. You see, whilst the debate forums are very popular, well frequented and need urgent improvement to deal with the amount of traffic we get, the actual decision-making has been (surprisingly for me) very hard to achieve. People are so used to representative systems that, when confronted with having to make decisions, they come back saying that it's wrong to impose our will on anyone else. Very interesting indeed. It makes me think that the horrific democratic deficit that we can identify in every representative system is not, for most people, the problem, it is a virtue. It gives them escape goats and deflects personal responsibility. I am beginning to think that, deep down that is what people want, even if they are ashamed to admit it. If you have time, have a look at our constitutional framework and have a look around the sight. It might inspire you. If anyone wants to join, by all means, please do http://citizenmundi.wordpress.com/ Lata From: Doug Everingham <dnevrghm(at)powerup.com.au> To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net Sent: Saturday, 12 September, 2009 8:39:01 Subject: Re: [WDDM] Why I support World Government? I share most of te views expressed by Lata and
Fred
(excerpts below included) and (like Lata) wiah a
programmer could follow up the ideas.
Democracy is so often identified wth "1 voter. 1 vote"
that we overlook existing qualifications (mature age, sound mind, balloting
literacy, separate systems for choosing law makers, law interreters and
implementers). There is a case for loading a vote
b ya competence test based on political 'literacy' / certificate, or stages
somewhat like the L (for learner) P (provisional) etc. to be held
/ displayed by licensed vehicle drivers in Australia.
–Doug Everingham
==== Subject: Re: [WDDM] Why I support World
Government?
Date: 1 August 2009 2:24:40 AM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Reply-To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net Good Morning, Lata Regarding your message of Fri, 31 Jul 2009 07:24:51
+0000 (GMT) re: "'You say that we don't need a government but
instead just
need to solve problems "such as how
to feed the community,
how to provide adequate water...'
etc. Well, that's
government ..." Well said!!! The balance of your argument is equally
irrefutable. I chose this brief excerpt simply as an example. re: "... we have a problem with being 'represented' by
somebody
who does not know us, does not
care, somebody who has their
own agenda and career to worry
about and a society which
does not think we are smart enough
or responsible enough to
grasp the skills of
government." Well said!!! And, again, merely a brief excerpt from an excellent
observation. This is the crux of the matter. While I realize
you said (on May 14th) ... "I don't usually respond to the
correspondence I get from
WDDM. Most of the time I find that its
members cannot break
away from the mindset of "vigorous"
debate, which is
perceived to be such an important feature
of any democratic
system. It goes around in circles."
... I wonder if you would be willing to discuss the
specific problem you identified here? I read and understand the game you proposed (on May
14th), but: 1) at the moment it does not (so far as I know)
exist, 2) participation would be limited to those with the
equipment and
ability to play the game (which is not
universal), and 3) it is at least one level removed from human
interaction. The little bit of your material I've been privileged to
read tells me you are uncommonly thoughtful. Could we exchange some ideas
on representative government, either privately or in this forum? Fred Gohlke
|