Re: [WDDM] Weighted voting

From:	Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>
Date:	Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:40:23 +0200
Subject:	Re: [WDDM] Weighted voting

On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it> wrote:

Joseph Hammer ha scritto:

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.

You are suggesting that causation runs from good people to good government. I require evidence here, rather than conjecture. What I see in case after case is that causality tends to runs from good social framework to socially advantageous value norms.

I would point to the drastic social change that communism caused in Romania, Ukraine, and China. A political system changed the character of the people in these societies in a single generation. There is a strong tendency in this case to run from bad social reward system to anti-social behaviors.

Are you sure?

I do not see any change in tha character of people there,
provided that people underwent rather passively to a political
system before, and underwent the same passively to a different
political system later. Did it the characher of the people change
substantially? I think it did not. It is the ruling system that
changed over them, not because of the responsible wish of the
people inside, but because of some foreign forces working over
the people from the people's outside.

Also, note views on women in different countries.

Women never achieve social equality until after they are granted
political equality, and a change in the political status of women is
the single best indicator of when they will begin, historically to be
viewed as equals in mainstream society.

To obtain political equality, women had to struggle very hard,
in the past centuries, after the French revolution, methinks.
No one granted them any gender parity spontaneously, i.e.,
without being compelled by women to do it, here in the West.

I would also point to religion. In states where religion is heavily involved, entire cultures tend to develop according to the particular dogmas embraced by the state, rather than the underlying religion. For example, Catholicism and Islam have played out very differently in times and places where they have had differing degrees of collusion with the "official" government.

Ok., but people behave almost the same under different dogmas,
as far as I can see. Very simply, they undergo.

However, fundamentalist people do not accept any degree of
freedom from the religious dogmas of their religions, and their
religious leaders have a good hand in dominating them - see
for instance some Islamic countries. In the West vice versa, the
freedom degree from fundamentalistic dogmas is greater, and it
parallels the degree of gender parity. I would ascribe the merit
of this democratic success to women's past struggles for a state
of social parity.

The rules of government have a LARGE impact on our value systems... such as how we feel about sex, drugs, violence, and theft. Think of the sociopolitical changes that accompany a welfare state... involuntary conscription... censorship... government controlled schooling.

In short, a type of government creates a type of citizen. If society does not reward honesty, integrity, thrift, labor, and commitment, then these values will be in short supply.

Sorry. Today's society does not. The sad evidence is, if society
would reward these values fairly, there would be no need of
improving democracy, and our discussions would be nonsensical.

In real life, bureaucracy acts as a shield against the good intentions and kind nature of citizens. It makes decisions on our behalf, claiming to be by our will... and they are important decisions, and sometimes they are bad decisions. It makes us think that we are responsible for this mess... this political garbage masquerading as the public conscience.

My humble two-cents on this topic are free at:

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/rossin11.htm

Comments welcome.

Regards, antonio

Slavery in our name.

Corporatism in our name.

Populism, Imperialism, Torture, Lying and WAR... in our name!

Yet, THIS IS NOT US.

This DAMNED government has duped us into believing that all these mistakes are a result of our nature. They are a result of politics, and the political process.

The simple majority rule pits us against each other and puts us on little teams. We ride into war on our elephants and asses, and rather than joust, we talk past one another with platitudes like, "Politics is compromise", "Change must be slow", "There will always be war".

The world is changing. It is time to roll with it.

A direct democracy will demand more of an individual, and it will create the type of individual that we keep proposing as a precondition of it's inception.

As for Implicit/Explicit...

If I asked WDDM to send a representative to Parrhesia Group, and you sent one...

Would that implicitly give the representative you sent the ability to enter into binding agreements in your name?

Could this representative sign a contract in your name allowing me to garnish your wages for some project he finds fanciful?

People at the outset of this country never gave up the right to vote directly on the terms of the US Constitution. They were never asked. The US Constitution is a hatchet to the skull of liberty. It was a recreation of parliament... with elections stirred in.

It's "ingenious" checks and balances are subvurted by a system that invites vote pooling, and thus political parties... and thus Republican presidents appoint judges friendly to the republican agenda and ditto for democrats... And it becomes two parties, instead of three branches... and one party is always "in power".

It must be explicit, because politics is corrupt. If you allow a politician to have "implied powers" (I hate you, Hamilton) they get very creative with the idea.

"Implied power abuse"

A man was fined for selling his corn for lower than the federally mandated price, justified by the interstate commerce clause. The man grew and sold the corn in a single state... and yet the interstate commerce cause IMPLIED that the government could intervene... BECAUSE

(mix in political creativity and implied powers... AND)

If the man was NOT selling the crop locally, then it could have been released into interstate commerce... and therefore, price controls were valid, even if no state lines were crossed... because it COULD have been crossed if the farmer hadn't hoarded the corn in the local market.

Also... California's pot legalization!!! Invalid... beeeeecause... The interstate commerce clause. Creative. (The Marijuana Tax Act was similarly creative - sinister).

And then there's Alexander Hamilton. He was ALL about implied powers. We should learn from his mistakes and NEVER repeat them.

If we properly respect the authority and danger that government represents, then we cannot accept implied power doctrine. It is easily abused.

Parrhesia

On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it> wrote:

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 <rossin(at)tin.it> 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 <rossin(at)tin.it>
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 <parrhesiajoe(at)gmail.com>
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 < latalondon(at)yahoo.co.uk> 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/

02389: Re: [WDDM] Weighted voting