All: In my opinion, one needs to base a new
political party design heavily on research data as to what the citizens want it
to look like. They need to vote on its features to assure that it will not
fall to infighting, bickering, power struggles, etc. Different groups
could form chapters based on an initial basic outline provided by
"thinkers". But then we can let the groups work out what seems to work
best and perfect the model as it evolves. Basic features, I believe,
should include a party platform based on good polls of citizens and party
members, dues to finance it that all members pay equally, monthly meetings that
are interesting and well organized, business activities run by Roberts rules of
order and committees staffed by bright, conscientious members who work well as
groups. My particular expertise is primarily in designing poll
questions. I envision an Internet based system with polls citizens can
take over the Internet, with data for a community saved to a file and then
summarized for that community party chapter to use. Over time, data across
many communities could be analyzed for insights and State and National party
platform definitions. I imagine the party evolving over time, much as
Rotary International started with one man's ideas and meetings with a few
friends in Chicago over 100 years ago. Now its an International
organization with over a million dues-paying members that have weekly meetings,
interesting speakers, committees and very effective and relevant service
projects. Indeed, Rotarians are just the sort of bright, well-educated,
concerned citizens that I think will form the backbone of the new party, as I
envision it, one dedicated to serving citizens as members of the community
overall, the "common good" defined by what they tell us they want in
polls. Research I've done to date strongly suggests the public can be
trusted to present a very constructive model for government via this
method.
Bill McConochie.
----- Original Message -----
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 2:55
PM
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Lata's Recent
Comments Instead
of spending all that money to form a “party” which we would have little
control of, why not spend the money building a people’s Assembly? With some
advertisement, we could ask all citizens to join, and than send out monthly
newsletters. Our initial goal would be to gather enough people to demand
Initiative and Binding Referendum by the people. We than could Veto or Alter
whacky legislation. We could also have input for planning, provide our idea’s
and ideal’s regarding diplomacy, environment, health, education
etc.
Bruce
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 8:09 PM, <tstmastr(at)rio.com> wrote:
Hi, Jim. We could debate these sorts of issues
indefinitely, I imagine. In my opinion, funding for the party would be
limited to a fixed amount that every member would pay, the same for all,
e.g. $200 per year in the U.S. They party would strive to appeal to
the majority of citizens by basing its platform on polls of the public and
then party members. If millions joined the party, they would have the
funds to finance candidates for office at competitive rates and win in
competition with candidates funded by special interest groups.
Citizens do not want to be served by government as members of special
interest groups. So the new party should not do so, not let special
interest groups have power in the party.
Bill. ----- Original
Message ----- From: Jim Powell
To: <wddm@world-wide-democracy.net>
Sent: Sunday,
September 20, 2009 11:45 AM Subject: RE: [WDDM] Lata's Recent Comments
Hi Bill,
Even funding from within the political
party will promote interest groups. Instead of external lobbyists, they
simply join the political party and do the same from
within.
Funding for the party should come from the tax base. It is
a cost of democracy the same as elections and paying the salaries of
the politicians.
It should be illegal to have funding except from
the tax base. The funding would be based on the % of the previous vote
with the top and second party receiving the same amount. This would
keep opposition strong.
For emerging parties, funding would be
based on the number of signatures obtained with any payment for this
collection also being illegal.
Any representations should require
multiparty involvement, even to the extent of emailing the
proposals
This would produce a system where the influence of
lobbyists would be severely reduced and the focus would be towards the
broader electorate
This will not stop corruption but make it more
difficult
Regards
Jim Powell South
Africa
-----Original Message----- From: William McConochie Sent: 15 Sep 2009 10:59 PM To:
wddm@world-wide-democracy.net Cc: Bill McConochie;
Boris Mlacic; Mary Spilde Subject: Re: [WDDM] Lata's Recent
Comments
Hi All: This discussion touches on an
interesting question in psychological research: to what extent is
human behavior a function of individual person traits, e.g.
personality, knowledge, political worldview, religious orientation and
intelligence, and to what extent is it a function of the environment in
which the individual is behaving? Many writers from many
disciplines are of the opinion re: U.S. politics that what drives
legislative decisions is largely, and perhaps primarily, a function of
the "environment", which dictates that accepting lobbyist contributions
from special interest groups is necessary to raise sufficient funds to
get reelected. To the extent that this is the case, there would
seem to be room for a new type of political party whose candidates are
funded exclusively by party
member dues, with corresponding loyalty
only to the party platform. This platform could be periodically
redefined by sophisticated polls of the public and party members to
find out what the citizens what from their government, "the common
good". From my research studies, the common good thus defined is
likely to be very reasonable, pro-social, sensitive to the environment,
reducing militarism, etc. 90% of many groups I've studied want
government that serves them as members of the community overall, versus
as members of special interest groups. For additional details
see Publications, Politicalpsychologyresearch.com. Consider
also opinions of experts in many other disciplines that dovetail
closely with these psychological research findings in Global Survival;
The Challenge and its Implications for Thinking and
Acting, Laszlo and Seidel, Eds, SelectBooks, 2006. I'm always
doing studies over the Internet to explore these issues further,
currently on these topics: Humiliation; Social Activism;
Liberal and Conservative psychological traits; and a new topic, coming
up, Executive
Ethics. If interested, contact me. Your
students can get credit for filling out questionnaires online,
confidentially. You receive their names as participants and
research project findings for educational purposes. Best
regards, Bill McConochie, Political Psychology Research, Inc.
-----
Original Message ----- From: Fred Gohlke To: <wddm@world-wide-democracy.net> Sent: Tuesday,
September 15, 2009 10:06 AM Subject: Re: [WDDM] Lata's Recent
Comments
Good Morning, Lata
You are doing an excellent
job of helping me demonstrate the way I adjust my opinions as I gain
additional information. When you denigrate the idea of living
our ordinary lives in peace and security you put my original
impression that you are 'uncommonly thoughtful' to a severe
test.
re: "When I talk about "democratic deficit" I talk
about the fact that citizens have no meaningful ways of
impacting governmental decisions, every four years they
get to chose the puppet on the left or the puppet on
the right."
That is a well-stated description. I like the
idea of calling our present-day politicians puppets. We'll do
well to devise a method that replaces them with our best
people.
re: "... to say that representative politicians
possess some higher gift of decision making as a form
of expertise... does not seem plausible."
Your
conclusion is pre-ordained by your phrasing. There is a
huge difference between 'representative politicians' and
political representatives.
Who could deny that 'representative
politicians' elected, as you say, as puppets of vested interests,
have no 'gift of decision making'? Certainly not me. But that
is not the same thing as selecting political representatives who
demonstrate their ability to make decisions in the people's
interest.
re: "There is one thing I don't understand in your
line of argument and I might as well ask you out right.
I can understand you saying that it's wrong for you to
impose your will on others because you lack the
knowledge. But you can be briefed and you have just as
much ability to understand what the experts tell you as
a politician does. So to just say they are somehow
superior to yourself in terms of their capacity to
assimilate expert advice just seems like a cop
out."
The issue is not whether I have as much ability to
understand what the experts say as a politician, it is whether I have
as much ability to do so as some other citizen. I probably have
greater ability than most politicians, but I don't even come close to
having the ability of some of my peers.
re: "However, what
really surprises me is the inconsistency. You don't
apply that principle evenly. You say it's wrong for us
to make binding decisions over others but we should find
good people to make them for us! So, to me it sounds
like you wouldn't mind living in a dictatorship where
you don't have a say, as long as the dictator does a
good job of deciding everything on our behalf and
allows us to 'live our ordinary lives in peace and
security'."
Like your opening paragraph, this assertion is
nothing short of absurd.
re: "Let me ask you, what makes you
think we have the expertise to pick good people of
competence and integrity... and that we have the right
to impose our chosen candidate on others? Is that not
making a binding decision over others?"
Your phrasing distorts
your question:
* if we select good people because of their
competence and integrity, we are not imposing them.
* We are
not 'imposing our chosen candidate on others', 'others' chose the
candidate.
* We are not 'making a binding decision over others',
'others' are making the binding decision for
themselves.
re: "What makes you think you have adequate
knowledge to be able to make that
decision?"
Nowhere have I said or implied that I "have adequate
knowledge to be able to make that decision?". Quite the
contrary! Everything I've suggested is predicated on finding,
among ourselves, the people who have the requisite
ability.
Society is dynamic. The needs of the
people vary, in nature and in intensity. The only ones who know
what those needs are, and how best to meet them, are the people,
themselves.
Not everyone wants to participate in the political
process, and even fewer have a sensible grasp of the circumstances
that face us. On top of that, our interest in political matters
waxes and wanes throughout our lives. Even so, at all times,
there are many people distributed among us with the ability and
energy to represent our interests. We don't know who they are,
or where they are, so we need a means of finding them and raising
them to positions of leadership.
Fred
Gohlke
|