Re: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree

[Bruce Eggum <bruce.eggum(at)gmail.com>]

Doug,

I believe you meant sociocracy. I agree with the sociocracy concept, however I do not believe you can always reach consensus although a decision is necessary. Democratic methods would need to be made in those cases.

How could you reach "consensus" on; abortion, war, tax rate, climate issues, individual election to office etc. Nested networks are great ways to deliberate but they may adamantly disagree and have totally opposite views. [IE: right vs left]

Cheers, Bruce

Bruce Eggum
Gresham Wisconsin, USA
Health Care http://tinyurl.com/ycx9vpz
http://usinitiative.com
http://vote.org/

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 1:53 AM, <Doug Everingham> wrote:

Hi, Hamid. 

As sociography web sites may explain, sociography started as a commercial  management system.  Each planning and decision-making section and level of the organization is split into more manageable sized parts if it becomes unwieldy. Rather than a pyramidal hierarchy structure. each administrative unit strives to reach consensus decisions with all agreed or at least no-one persisting in dissent. Each unit includes liaison persons who are each also a member of a related unit or levels of responsbility. Similar 'nested networking' work in Spain's Mondragòn Cooperatve Corporation incorporating thousands of people, and various stakeholder (employee, customer etc.) cooperatives in USA. 

Dr Shann Turnbull's papers  http://ssrn.com/author=26239  etc. are relevant, He is Principal of the International Institute for Self-governance . 

Cheers, 

–Doug 

====

On 16/11/2009, at 3:17 PM, Hamid Mohseni wrote:

Why?
Could you explain yourself?

Regards
Hamid

---

From: dnevrghm(at)powerup.com.au
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 11:47:18 +1000
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree

It seems to me that DD is more attainable using the 

consensus--seeking nested network principles of sociocracy

(several google links)

than any multi-party, one-party or other majority-vote system,

–Doug 

===

On 16/11/2009, at 4:13 AM, Hamid Mohseni wrote:

Hi Jim

If voters don't trust or are not satisfied with what politicians do, they should be able to take their political destiny in their own hands. Nobody is allowed to make decisions
in behalf of you in your private life as long as you have not officially and lawfully accepted be represented by others, with execption for children and mentally sick people.
Why should this be allowed in political systems.
I feel that you are worry for politicians to loose their power and easy earned advantages by changing the political system to DD but I don't understand why.
Do you work as politician or are there any other reasons for that?
Everybody should be able to bring up political questions important for him / her for discussion and voting without asking politicians to permit it. Of course for people
who prefer it there should be possibile to let others (you can call them politicians) to represent them in some or all questions but this does not mean an obligation for
everybody. As you told before politicians are employees of voters, so if voters like they can fire their employees and take the political power in theri own hands.

Do you agree?
Hamid

---

From: autoinfo(at)acenet.co.za
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:15:12 +0200
Subject: RE: RE: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree

Hi Vijayaraghavan,

We do not have to have an alternative to political parties. This would be imposing an alternative on the voters. Politicians have a job to do so that the average person can get on with his/her life.

Voters just need the power to reject, modify or create legislation. Our energies need to be in this direction

Regards

Jim Powell South Africa

From: Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan [vijayaraghavan.p(at)rediffmail.com]
Sent: 15 Nov 2009 04:57 PM
To:wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: RE: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree

For people to be really able to do this, an independent setup (free from party influence) is needed. We need to conceptualize an alternative to political parties.

Vijayaraghavan



On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:12:23 +0530 wrote

Hamid,

Thatis exactly the point of DD.  If people have the power to make decisions, makemistakes,

learnfrom their mistakes, and then correct them, they will ultimately mature into

grownupcitizens.   Otherwise, we live in our parent's house forever.

B. T.Marking

www.sdindie21.org

---

From: Hamid Mohseni[esi1mohseni2(at)hotmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, November 13, 20093:16 AM
>To: World Direct Democracy
>Subject: RE: [WDDM] Agree orDisagree

Outcome of bad laws decided by people by refrandom willaffect people badly and make them to changethe law later on
>by new refrandoms.
>
>Regards
>

.
.
.
.