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

02382: RE: [WDDM] Weighted voting

From: "Jim Powell" <autoinfo(at)acenet.co.za>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:31:53 +0200
Subject: RE: [WDDM] Weighted voting

Hi Antonio,

Virtually everyone I speak to has a moan about the government. When I ask
them if they would be willing to vote which will put them in charge of the
government, the answer is yes

The argument that the voters are not ready has been used over the ages
against non-landowners, women, illiterates, blacks, Indians, coloureds et
al. Now you put in place a spurious reason of mental attitude. The weighted
voting proposal is another block in the road.

All that is needed is for the Direct Democracy to be put in place and the
voters will sort out the rules

Regards

Jim Powell

-----Original Message-----
From: Antonio Rossin
Sent: 12 Oct 2009 12:30 AM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Weighted voting

Jim,

You stated: "People changed when the system changed".

I question: Who is it (she, he, they) who changed the system?

My answer is: It is the Swiss people who changed the system.
Clearly, in order to be able to do so, for some unknown local
reason they had to be /different/, i.e., to some extent /changed, /
re the inhabitants of other countries.

Could you offer a better, more detailed answer? It could help.


Thanks in advance, best regards,

antonio


Jim Powell ha scritto:

Antonio,

Look to the great successful experiment that is Switzerland.

People changed when the system changed.

Give them the opportunity to be in control of the politicians and it
will be taken with both hands

200 years ago the system was changed. We now have one of the most
successful governments in the worlds.

On a visit to Switzerland I interacted with many people. They all had
moans about the government.

I asked one question of the end of the conversation: What political
system would you replace the Swiss system with?

The replies varied from "none" to "are you crazy?"

The assessment from this is that those who live under a political
system that is not Direct Democracy must be somewhat crazy or more
likely that there is a natural resistance to change from a system that
seems to work in some way

Regards

Jim Powell

*From:* Antonio Rossin
*Sent:* 11 Oct 2009 08:02 AM
*To:* wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
*Subject:* Re: [WDDM] Weighted voting

Joseph,

I'm going to insert some comments to your reply.



Joseph Hammer ha scritto:

/Let me put it this way. If you talk to any politician, any business
leader, //
/any political analyst, anyone in positions of responsibility about
Direct Democracy, a very high percentage of those people will laugh in
your /
/face. "It would never work!!" they would say. Why? "Because people /
/are too dumb to govern themselves and you must be incredibly naive /
/to think otherwise"//

Just so. Therefore, to enter Direct Democracy, people must
change *_in advance_*. I laugh in the face of the contributors
of this esteemed list who believe, and behave accordingly,
that people must enter DD if they wanted to change.

So, when poll people in positions of power, they are of the opinion
that representation is a necessity. Okay. If you ask a teacher about
the necessity of teachers, I assume you would get similar results...
for similar reasons. I do not think you are trying to use that as a
supporting argument, but rather as in introduction into the theme that
the people are not informed enough to govern themselves.

Just so. Today's teaching - and most of all earliest teaching,
i.e. parenting - are aimed to grow-up "Yes-Men" people.
No wonder then, if these people will need of some one whom
they say "Yes" to, and undergo. Therefore, teaching and
parenting must be revised, if we wanted the new generation
to become fit to perform DD.

And, "Educate your child and you'll educate yourself," the
old sage said.


I'll buy that, as long as you have proof.

Compare citizen and Congressionally passed legislation. Is the quality
higher on the latter? Show me the examples. There is a VAST body of
such evidence to inspect.

Or is it that people do not WANT to govern themselves, as Antonio said,

/Very simply, average people do not want to take any //
/political responsibility upon themselves, so they manage /
/to depend on others (i.e., Representatives) for this basic /
/requirement of Democracy.//

Point to the survey in an initiative/referendum state where the
citizens want to revoke this privilege. Point to the survey of Swiss
citizens who wish to give up the same.

I have been looking in earnest for examples of where a citizenry
explicitly gave up their right to have a direct say in their
government. From what I have studied, this seems like a chimera. I
continue to search, but without a clue, I don't think I can find it.
Perhaps someone here can help.


Why, "explicitly"?

"Implicitly" is more than enough. I don't believe you'll even
get the people to discuss this point explicitly, or else make it
become an item of their Reps' political agenda.



On what evidence do we base our claims that these two propositions are
correct?

The citizens are unable to govern themselves.

The citizens do not wish to govern themselves.

"The people are too stupid or lazy to govern themselves"


The evidence is, Direct Democracy is down , there where
Representative Democracy is up

We know why this is a beneficial doctrine for a government to promote.
We know we were inundated with this during our public education. We
know that people other than ourselves will believe in the silliest
notions... but we are inoculated, individually wiser than the masses
we judge. We are better. We are vain. We are hubristic.

We are those who Socrates and John Stuart Mill spoke of. We are never
wrong, because the older we are, the more harm it causes to our pride
to admit to a 10, 30, or 50 year mistake in judgement.

There is no issue where clarity of discussion is more essential than
in the responsible use of force. Government is force, legitimated by
some base of overwhelming power. Democracy places that legitimacy in
the hands of the people.

The first specific question about government is the question of
representation. For that reason, I (seemingly incessantly, right?)
press this issue. Have we honestly evaluated a true direct democracy,
or did we jump past it to the admittedly more interesting issue of
solving the problems with representation? The whole WDDM movement
could be viewed as a campaign to solve some of the issues with
representation, but have we gotten ahead of where reason would
logically direct us...

Should the first question of a democracy not be a poll of the public
to decide the question of representation?


Wrong question (see above.)
If you were able to obtain a *_really decisive_* poll to decide
the question of representation, this would mean that DD
is already up. Vice versa, if DD were down, as it is, you
won't obtain such a poll even.


And so on. I stop here, for the time being

Regards, antonio


A public tasked honestly with the formation of a government will have
to answer this and other questions before the public or anyone can
design a democratic government to serve them. That is a requirement of
any system that claims to be a democracy. We skipped this in America.
We consolidated power and then made other decisions by proxy, on a
false foundation. This new power quickly validated ITSELF, voting that
representation was a valid expression of the public will. These
decisions were the product of self interest, because they could not
have been the result of a devotion to philosophy, a commitment to
democracy, or the available evidence.

In the beginning, do we really assume that the people would have given
up their right to vote on war, which ravaged every country they
labored to escape? Do we believe that they would trust this
government, coming from lands led by leaders with little interest in
the serfs they controlled? Would they have given up this right if
asked directly?

No. It was taken, as were all other democratic rights when
representation was not validated explicitly by the governed. The
omission of a referendum process at the creation of the union is proof
positive that this government was not an expression of the public
will... even the white male landowning public will, which is a low bar
for legitimacy indeed.

233 years later, we defend the decisions of the representatives of
white, middle and upper class males. But why?

We, the people, are afflicted with the tendency to stick to our
positions once they are publicly stated. We are also susceptible to
propaganda and conditioning. Combine with these tendencies a mass
media and endless repetition, we begin to understand why the correct
information sometimes takes a long time to surface. Geocentricism,
witch hunts, alchemy, theories of gods on mountaintops throwing
lightning and the luminiferous ether... not to mention modern
macroeconomics and the healing power of magnets.

Yes, there are benefits to representation, in theory and practice.
This is a supportable position. By focusing on this side of the issue,
it is easy to judge in favor of its existence.

We do not sufficiently appreciate the magnitude of harm that
representation causes, harm that can only partially be mitigated by
selecting the correct people for the job. We must be the United People
of America, apart from artificial institutions and princedoms. We must
be held completely accountable for the decisions of our government,
and we cannot, unless we are the same.

Direct democracy is not perfect. "One man, one vote" is not a
bulletproof concept, but it is the best of the available choices.

I have been in favor of representation for over 20 years. I didn't
change my mind until I actually started talking to people about their
views of society. I spoke to hundreds of people, a few every day,
venturing from my apartment in Seattle to simply discuss politics with
different people at Seattle Centre.

Very slowly, I realized that my comparative advantages in decision
making were illusory. Perhaps I underestimated the masses because it
fed my ego. Perhaps I had just seen SO many news reports and political
commentaries that I began to see people through the their skewed
lens... caricatures of reality. It is more than likely both reasons
that supported my misconceptions.

I would trust a vast majority of the people I have spoken with to vote
on issues, which they express to me in very plain terms. Sometimes
these terms are crude and sometimes they are different than mine, but
that's okay.I may not agree with a person, but this is their country,
too. We must decide together how to progress, and I would rather
collaborate directly than through some convoluted and corruptible
process. It is to everyone's benefit if this process is honest and
transparent... simple and efficient. We sacrifice all four of these
benefits to some degree with representation. We must be sure it is
worth the sacrifice.

When I talk to these same people about candidates, the conversation is
sometimes about political ideas and understanding of the issues, but
often it takes a back seat to other considerations. Many times, a
desire for change is evident, but not a direction. Could it be that
the actual changes we long for are impossible, so we settle for
picking a team that will let us feel we have some control over a
system that no one controls... a system out of control?

In all, I find that these "stupid" people know far more about the
issues than they know about the candidates they are electing. It is a
far easier task to research an issue than it is to correctly judge the
character of a man who seeks power.

If people are easily duped and lead, then the correct course is to
limit the impact of their ignorance. If they are responsible, then a
direct democracy poses little threat. Hitler was elected, after all,
so ignorance of the masses does not necessarily imply that
representation is superior... one could convincingly argue quite the
opposite.

Initiative/referendum states (and Switzerland) effectively give the
public the ability to override or pass any law that the public
chooses. Our analysis MUST include the quality and effects of these
laws, as well as the admission that the "public is stupid" argument
would make this situation a disaster... in theory...

How it actually plays out should dispel any fears, but we cling as
barnacles to the rock of our individuality... the makeup of which must
include our passionately held beliefs. If we correct our positions
when we are wrong, we lose a part of ourselves, but it is a cancerous
part. We should rejoice in its excise. Socrates sought wisdom for the
joy of it. Philosophy. He said to be right, and to understand was a
far greater treasure than winning an argument. What we gain is wisdom,
understanding, and a proper humility.

I cannot help but apply the most extreme scrutiny to the practice of
representative rule making. When one supposes this may be correct, and
analyzes the world through this lens, many new questions... fulfilling
questions come to the surface.

Communism, for example... if the peoples' soviet union had been
directly controlled, how would it have evolved? Would the distribution
have been more rational? Would they have evolved into a merit based
system of quasi-market distribution with limits on profit margins for
enterprises? We will never know, but this is FERTILE THINKIN' GROUND.

A look at US History is another great intellectual pursuit. We read
the inspiring words of the founders... we see the wisdom they
displayed in the checks and balances system. Why did the creation of
these people turn into what we have today? Representation plays a
primary or secondary roll in almost every bad decision, war, and
scandal in American history. This lens is clear as day.

Consider any historic issue. Say... slavery. Was there popular support
for slavery? Was it 50%? Did anyone ask? It really didn't matter, did
it? No referendums... just politicians... making all the decisions.

How about this. Extradition laws. Would the people of the north submit
to the demand that they return southern slaves and pay taxes to
support enforcement of fugitive slave laws? This was done for
political interests, and was never supported by the people. What would
have happened if any slave could simply gain their freedom by crossing
a state line? In any state with slavery, it would be excessively
expensive to employ slave labor, which could run a manageable distance
to safety. This would be extremely pronounced in states close to
Pennsylvania... freedom... so close.

Oooh... Maryland. How would that have unfolded? The state is really
thin, and it would be expensive to protect against their flight to
Pennsylvania. Would the mass of white male landowners pay to support
this enterprise, even though the majority owned no slaves in Maryland?
Would a domino effect have killed the economic viability of slavery,
because the masses would not consent to socialize the high costs of
keeping a slave state? This was pro-plantation policy... not pro-white
landowner. The two groups are not synonymous, and without the
plantation dollars lobbying representatives, would slavery have
evaporated?

History is explained so well when we pin the blame on representation
itself, as a core defect in our governing system. Every war and a vast
majority of historical blunders would not have been undertaken without
the distortions of the public will that representation inevitably
introduces.

Is our belief in representation simply a result of conditioning? How
much influence can repetition and conditioning have? Can an entire
population fervently believe some set of ideas with no proof, simply
because of the prevailing attitude?

Do I really need to answer this? Consider religion.

We believe fervently that the masses are vulnerable in this way, but
we vainly believe we are not subject to these same forces
individually. I believe that representation only exists because it
exploits our blind spots. Everywhere I look, I find evidence
supporting this finding. I just looked up the history of referendums
in my state. In the house, referendums sailed through. They were
popular at the time... unions and other groups threw their support
behind them. There was excellent public support. And it failed the
senate... and failed again... and then got enacted to much hoorahs,
with the provision that the public couldn't modify the basics of the
government... the constitution and such... like... how elections were
run... districts were drawn... trivial stuff like that.

About two hundred times a year, I stood with my classmates and pledged
my allegiance to a flag. I pledged my allegiance to the republic for
which it stands. Every morning I met with my young impressionable
peers, we faithfully recited this promise.

I no longer pledge myself to the republic, but to the people. I pledge
my support to the meek, that they may finally enjoy their inheritance,
purchased in tears and blood.

"I found that I was the wisest of all these men, because I knew I was
not wise" - Socrates.

Reason and truth above self.

Parrhesia

On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 8:56 AM, <Antonio Rossin> wrote:

Hi Lata,

No, you are not a mad, as far as I can see.

At a first sight, I like your Citizen Mundi initiative
very much. I realize, it is an excellent endeavour
to rise people's participation from bottom-up, thus
consistent with the (Direct) Democracy we look at.

IMHO, it looks like the very opposite of the top-down
"truths" with which some crazy scientists and other
aspirant leaders of Democracy (?) keep on inundating
so insistently the Yes-Men herd they want to head.


Cheers,

antonio - psychiatrist






Lata Gouveia ha scritto:

Thank you Antonio,
So I'm not crazy? Great!

I always suspected that was the case but for the last 8 weeks I've
been running Citizen Mundi and the data I've ben collecting confirms
that is the case even among relative intellectual elites. If you have
a minute, come and visit us at:

*https://citizenmundi.wordpress.com/*

Thanks again,
Lata

------------------------------------------------------------------------

*From:* Antonio Rossin
*To:* wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
*Sent:* Friday, 9 October, 2009 8:35:56
*Subject:* Re: [WDDM] Weighted voting

Lata,

I totally agree with you: (the utmost democratic
majority of) people are not fit to govern themselves.

Very simply, average people do not want to take any
political responsibility upon themselves, so they manage
to depend on others (i.e., Representatives) for this basic
requirement of Democracy.

Now the problem becomes, analyzing why when and how
such a dependent trait has been embedded into people's
relational brain.

I mean, once this imprinting mechanism had been exposed,
its reversal could be all what today's Democracy needs of.


Regards,

antonio





Lata Gouveia ha scritto:

Thank you Joseph,
I've just read your response.

Whilst I agree with most of it, I am not so confident that the "one
person/one vote" mantra is necessarily fair or sensible.
Moreover, from the point of view of a long term strategy to push for
more direct types of democracy, it is the biggest thorn on our side.
Equal opportunity, yes, but whilst demanding individual responsibility.

Let me put it this way. If you talk to any politician, any business
leader, any political analyst, anyone in positions of responsibility
about Direct Democracy, a very high percentage of those people will
laugh in your face. "It would never work!!" they would say. Why?
"Because people are too dumb to govern themselves and you must be
incredibly naive to think otherwise"

The main reason for the preservation of Guardianship and
representative systems is, above all others, the notion that people
are not fit to govern themselves.

Let me give you an example. Ireland has just approved the Lisbon
Treaty. Many people believe the Irish people were blackmailed,
intimidated or brainwashed. Others say that they were informed, as
opposed to a year ago, when they rejected the Treaty.

Let me ask you this, would it really be so unfair to ask people to
fill in the following questionnaire and shouldn't people have a
responsibility to do certain basic research before demanding that the
powers that be step down and hand everything over?

1)
The treaty of Lisbon is:
- A) document that concerns the Republic of Ireland exclusively.
- B) A document that primarily concerns the European Union.
- C) A document that primarily concerns the trade relationship between
Ireland and Portugal.

2)
The two main decision-making institutions within the EU are:
- A) The Council and the Commission
- B) The Parliament and the Commission
- C) The Parliament and the Council.

etc.

Can anyone tell me with a straight face that a person who does not
know these basic things is just as fit as someone who does to make a
binding and irreversible decision for their country and for the future
of the entire premise of geopolitics?

I guess this is my dilemma. I am a supporter of democracy, I criticise
democratic deficits wherever I see them and I believe that the next
evolutionary step for Mankind is, somehow, related to the improvement
of democracy. However, if I had to make a choice between giving the
British people a referendum on, say, the Euro, or giving a handful of
people at the top the decision, I would have to go with the second
option... simply because I don't trust the British people to know
anything that's not been fed to them by Rupert Murdock.

Bring in the multiple choice test and the weighted vote and I would
totally support the referendum instead.

Simple.
Lata

------------------------------------------------------------------------

*From:* Joseph Hammer
*To:* wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
*Sent:* Thursday, 8 October, 2009 10:26:37
*Subject:* Re: [WDDM] Weighted voting

I would tend to agree with Hamid and Jim.

The American Medical Association is a great case study for this issue.
They have more knowledge about the medical industry than the average
individual, but that is not necessarily a good thing. It would be good
if the motivation of the actors was the unbiased betterment of
mankind. This is folly. No person can recognize the extent of his or
her own bias. History tends to exonerate the idea that any group who
possesses superior knowledge will use the information asymmetry to
enrich themselves rather than society in general.

I strongly believe in the "one person, one vote" principal. If forced
to compare the relative effects of ignorance and power consolodation,
it might be a toss up. However, we will have ignorance through bias in
any category of man. What is in our power to prevent is the
consolodation of power. Wise kings start wars... uneducated peasants
seldom think it worth the cost in blood.

In most decisions of governance, it is ethical principals rather than
specific knowledge that should drive our legislation.

Plus, most people with "education" in a field will claim the ability
to make better decisions. This education is market driven, and not
motivated by truth unless the market rewards accurate, unbiased
information.

Take economics, for example. The biggest employer of economists is the
Federal Reserve. Like the alchemists of old, these rascally
intellectuals buy into a completely fictitious notion... that you can
create money from thin air... or out of lead, as the alchemists
believed. In the heyday of alchemy, many scholarly types insisted that
the layman, who doubted the wisdom of the alchemists, was unrefined
and uneducated. A college cannot attract many students to a class that
says, "Alchemy is bullshit" or "The best monetary policy is
non-intervention by the state" or "None of these sophisticated
economic models that we teach you have ever actually worked". All of
these notions would kill the entire fields of curriculum.

Plus, over a three-year period ending in October 1994, the Fed awarded
305 contracts to 209 professors worth a total of $3 million. Wow...
that's about 15k per professor.

Plus, to get tenure, you must publish. One critical way the Fed exerts
control on academic economists is through its relationships with the
field's gatekeepers. For instance, at the Journal of Monetary
Economics, a must-publish venue for rising economists, more than half
of the editorial board members are currently on the Fed payroll -- and
the rest have been in the past.

"Knowledge" is easily perverted by self interest. The assumption that
individual scholar can make better decisions is wholly dependent on
the subject of inquiry and the incentives to mislead.

If the subject of inquiry is highly technical, then I agree with
Hamid. It is in the best interest of society to hire one or more
researchers to investigate the topic. There are many ways to make this
work well, but there are far more ways to screw it up... like letting
representatives choose the investigators (unless we structure
incentives to reward politicians for effective, honest choices... a
far cry from the current situation).

We need the knowledge, but we need to guard against interested dogma,
and letting intellectuals have more say is, like Jim said, manipulable.

Parrhesia

- Vanity is hemlock to those who seek truth. Be careful what you consume.


On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 7:12 PM, <Lata Gouveia> wrote:

Hi all,

Do you agree that people who have more knowledge about a topic should
have more say in a decision about that topic?

Lata
http://citizenmundi.wordpress.com/raw-initiatives/


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