I like it. We have now so many programmers now "doing their thing" it
is amazing.
It is however as obvious as the bottom of a mandrill that REAL success
will come ONLY when you do what SHOULD be done.
If you join a direct democratic organization and discuss and analyze
the need for that the organization and THEN do the programming it
might ACTUALLY be useful.
Martin Gustavsson wrote: > ...REAL success will come ONLY when you do what SHOULD be done.
> If you join a direct democratic organization and discuss and analyze > the need for that the organization and THEN do the programming it > might ACTUALLY be useful.
Martin, I disagree. You assume the need of a political organization. That's your mandrill's bottom.
Direct democracy hinges on the ability of a community to acheive consensus (general agreement) on matters of public policy, legislation, appointments and so forth. Votorola would be useful for this -- that's its purpose. So I understand what brought you to the list. But I don't agree with your point; I don't see how an organization (of any kind) could be an aid to consensus. On the contrary, I foresee how it could do harm. Communities can only arrive at a consensus by engaging in free and open discourse. This comes quite naturally to them, and they certainly don't need any guidance to help them along. Organizations, such as political parties and governments (none of which operate by free and open discourse), are best kept out of the process. Otherwise, they could only interfere with it. Do you follow my argument?
So let's say you make a decision of magnitude. Ex. "People should be
bugged if there is a court order and there is resonable suspicion and
thereafter be informed about it."
- Then what? It will be a fart in space, wouldn't it?
Because the decision that actually could make it happen is not
connected with a political party with power into the parliament.
On Feb 15, 10:29 am, Michael Allan <m...@zelea.com> wrote:
> Martin Gustavsson wrote:
> > ...REAL success will come ONLY when you do what SHOULD be done.
> > If you join a direct democratic organization and discuss and analyze
> > the need for that the organization and THEN do the programming it
> > might ACTUALLY be useful.
> Martin, I disagree. You assume the need of a political organization.
> That's your mandrill's bottom.
> Direct democracy hinges on the ability of a community to acheive
> consensus (general agreement) on matters of public policy,
> legislation, appointments and so forth. Votorola would be useful for
> this -- that's its purpose. So I understand what brought you to the
> list. But I don't agree with your point; I don't see how an
> organization (of any kind) could be an aid to consensus. On the
> contrary, I foresee how it could do harm. Communities can only arrive
> at a consensus by engaging in free and open discourse. This comes
> quite naturally to them, and they certainly don't need any guidance to
> help them along. Organizations, such as political parties and
> governments (none of which operate by free and open discourse), are
> best kept out of the process. Otherwise, they could only interfere
> with it. Do you follow my argument?
> So let's say you make a decision of magnitude. Ex. "People should be > bugged if there is a court order and there is resonable suspicion and > thereafter be informed about it."
> - Then what? It will be a fart in space, wouldn't it? > Because the decision that actually could make it happen is not > connected with a political party with power into the parliament.
A similar question was asked, recently, in another forum. What follows is copied from:
Pogo wrote: > I am a bit lost. A citizen consensus even if it was overwhelming > does not change the law. As an example I think of when prisoners > were given the right to vote. The knee-jerk consensus at the time > was overwhelmingly against this change but that didn't change the > law... The internet helps provide a clearer reading of peoples > views, but the right to change laws still resides with politicians.
On balance, I think the assertion at page top is true. "No parliamentary government could stand against a willful and clearly expressed consensus." For example, prisoners may have a legal right to vote, as you say. But suppose we came to a general agreement, after deliberation, that prisoners ought *not* to vote. In that case, the law would be changed.
To understand why, it is important to bear in mind that our ability to form consensus is not restricted to questions of legislation. We can also form consensus on questions of public office. In particular, we will be reaching agreement on who (in our separate ridings) the MPs should be. Any sitting MP who failed to pledge her support for the community's legislative agenda (as clearly expressed in consensus bills) would immediately lose support in the open election for her own seat. She would be unable to regain that support without some explanation to voters, or some action, directed at improving her standing in their eyes. Failing that, she would be that much more likely to lose her next bid for re-election. Do you see how this ensures the passage of consensus legislation?
(The key thing is, open elections serve as a kind of public memory. They are not like the one-off opinion polls of pollsters, which are easily forgotten by the public. Open elections are a continuous poll. Moreover, a loss for a sitting MP will be a gain for a rival, just waiting to replace her. And that rival will often be vocal in her opposition to the MP.)
Do you see how action follows from consensus? You were assuming that the Swedish government would not act if faced with a public consensus. None of us (neither you, nor Pogo, nor I) has ever seen a government act in this way. And we have always assumed that this failure was owing to a deep recalcitrance on the part of government. But the truth is, government never had a clear consensus to act on. The failure was ours. We (Swedes, Canadians) never once told government what, exactly, it ought to *do*.
Also, none of us foresaw that the method of forming consensus (once it was invented) would apply not only to legislative and policy intitiatives, but also to *politicians*. We perhaps thought that the candidates on the election ballots would continue to be decided by political parties. We did not foresee that that choice, too, would be decided by public consensus.
Your political party (Aktivdemokrati) runs on a promise to *act* on public consensus. But you have no magical way to discover what that consensus is. Once in parliament, an Aktivdemokrati representative would be just as confused, on that point, as her colleagues.
Before it can be known, consensus must be formed. That's the purpose of open elections, and Votorola. They'll help the public to form consensus. Once the consensus becomes known to politicians (and to public-minded people like yourself), they'll be able to act with the full confidence of public backing.
Swedes will want open elections too, I believe. (That's one consensus you can count on, up front.;) If you wish to help them, I'm at your service.
So...
Does this system supports current system with polititians who can
decide whatever they wish during their mandate period and during
theese years be as unwilling as they wish?
Is it a long lines of connected e-mailadresses with no proof of actual
persons existing behind them?
Does this system aim to be a party that gives people actual control,
s.c. direct democracy?
On Feb 17, 8:29 am, Michael Allan <m...@zelea.com> wrote:
> > So let's say you make a decision of magnitude. Ex. "People should be
> > bugged if there is a court order and there is resonable suspicion and
> > thereafter be informed about it."
> > - Then what? It will be a fart in space, wouldn't it?
> > Because the decision that actually could make it happen is not
> > connected with a political party with power into the parliament.
> A similar question was asked, recently, in another forum. What
> follows is copied from:
> Pogo wrote:
> > I am a bit lost. A citizen consensus even if it was overwhelming
> > does not change the law. As an example I think of when prisoners
> > were given the right to vote. The knee-jerk consensus at the time
> > was overwhelmingly against this change but that didn't change the
> > law... The internet helps provide a clearer reading of peoples
> > views, but the right to change laws still resides with politicians.
> On balance, I think the assertion at page top is true. "No
> parliamentary government could stand against a willful and clearly
> expressed consensus." For example, prisoners may have a legal right to
> vote, as you say. But suppose we came to a general agreement, after
> deliberation, that prisoners ought *not* to vote. In that case, the
> law would be changed.
> To understand why, it is important to bear in mind that our ability to
> form consensus is not restricted to questions of legislation. We can
> also form consensus on questions of public office. In particular, we
> will be reaching agreement on who (in our separate ridings) the MPs
> should be. Any sitting MP who failed to pledge her support for the
> community's legislative agenda (as clearly expressed in consensus
> bills) would immediately lose support in the open election for her own
> seat. She would be unable to regain that support without some
> explanation to voters, or some action, directed at improving her
> standing in their eyes. Failing that, she would be that much more
> likely to lose her next bid for re-election. Do you see how this
> ensures the passage of consensus legislation?
> (The key thing is, open elections serve as a kind of public
> memory. They are not like the one-off opinion polls of pollsters,
> which are easily forgotten by the public. Open elections are a
> continuous poll. Moreover, a loss for a sitting MP will be a gain for
> a rival, just waiting to replace her. And that rival will often be
> vocal in her opposition to the MP.)
> Do you see how action follows from consensus? You were assuming that
> the Swedish government would not act if faced with a public consensus.
> None of us (neither you, nor Pogo, nor I) has ever seen a government
> act in this way. And we have always assumed that this failure was
> owing to a deep recalcitrance on the part of government. But the
> truth is, government never had a clear consensus to act on. The
> failure was ours. We (Swedes, Canadians) never once told government
> what, exactly, it ought to *do*.
> Also, none of us foresaw that the method of forming consensus (once it
> was invented) would apply not only to legislative and policy
> intitiatives, but also to *politicians*. We perhaps thought that the
> candidates on the election ballots would continue to be decided by
> political parties. We did not foresee that that choice, too, would be
> decided by public consensus.
> Your political party (Aktivdemokrati) runs on a promise to *act* on
> public consensus. But you have no magical way to discover what that
> consensus is. Once in parliament, an Aktivdemokrati representative
> would be just as confused, on that point, as her colleagues.
> Before it can be known, consensus must be formed. That's the purpose
> of open elections, and Votorola. They'll help the public to form
> consensus. Once the consensus becomes known to politicians (and to
> public-minded people like yourself), they'll be able to act with the
> full confidence of public backing.
> Swedes will want open elections too, I believe. (That's one consensus
> you can count on, up front.;) If you wish to help them, I'm at your
> service.
Martin Gustavsson wrote: > Does this system supports current system with polititians who can > decide whatever they wish during their mandate period and during > theese years be as unwilling as they wish?
Yes. The political actor remains free (as now). She is not bound (as an Aktivdemokrati politician) by any kind of formal contract. However, as indicated in my last post, community consensus decisions will naturally find *allies* in government, and among candidates for government. The best strategy for these actors, in order to retain and enhance their power and authority (things a politician cares about) is to employ their power in line with each community consensus that forms -- to *do* whatever the community decides.
> Is it a long lines of connected e-mailadresses with no proof of actual > persons existing behind them?
No. We have authenticated voter lists. This part is poorly documented (yet to be coded). The electoral register (from which the lists are derived) is authenticated by a neighbourhood trust network. Every voter is a real resident (not an alias):
> Does this system aim to be a party that gives people actual control, > s.c. direct democracy?
Not in the sense of actual power, or formal control. From my reply to Pogo (see link in previous post):
Power itself will remain in government hands. The government will only have less scope, on its own, for deciding how that power should be used. So it will come to be used, more and more, to serve community needs (rather than government needs). This separation of concerns would *rationalize* government. Without going into theory (again, I'm no expert) the government is good at exercising power, but *bad* at deciding the needs, wants, and desires of the community it serves. Communities, on the other hand, are *good* at deciding on their own needs, wants, and desires. Social skills equip us for the task of reaching understanding and agreement on anything that's generally sensible. However, for this to work, the communities must be left in peace, free from the interference of external powers. A separation of power and decision making, therefor, would seem to make sense.
Lately, I've been buzzing around in literary discussion lists (poets, writers). We're trying to come up with a slogan to capture the idea. Here's what I have, so far:
Tame the Machine
And:
We know what government aspires to (power). We know what a business aspires to (wealth). Who can predict what a community will aspire to?
Yes. Authenticated voter lists would make more sense, in a system like
yours, but as I interpret the system it is NOT a direct democratic
system. Do you agree?
> Yes. Authenticated voter lists would make more sense, in a system like > yours, but as I interpret the system it is NOT a direct democratic > system. Do you agree?
In a direct democracy, the citizenry is sovereign. Ideally, state decisions are made by the assembly of all citizens (not by a smaller body of representatives). Ideally, state magistrates are citizens (not professional politicians). Classical Athens, for example, came close to these ideals (following on the reforms of Kleisthenes).
(Let us assume that direct democracy and participatory democracy are more-or-less interchangeable terms. They both mean 'democracy' pure and simple. In the original Greek, it means 'the people rule'.)
In open elections, yes, decisions are made by the assembly of all residents (the community). The community decides who the magistrates are; what their policies are; and what the laws are. With regard to direct democracy, this raises two questions: 1) Are these decisions acted upon? 2) Are the chosen magistrates ordinary citizens, or are they professionals?
With respect to action: I have argued (in previous posts) that, yes, in *practice* a consensus decision will be acted on. But that practice is not enforced by law -- not unless the constitution is changed (per further below).
With respect to magistrates (executives): In open elections, the elected magistrates may be either professionals or ordinary residents. Ordinary residents will enjoy a rough equality vis professional politicians. Cascade voting can elevate any person to a high position of responsibility, step by step. But she would have to win the public's confidence at every step. She would have to engage her backers (ordinary residents) in a direct and continual dialogue. So, whether the magistrates turn out to be ordinary residents, or professionals (and it will probably vary, case by case) they will all have the direct support of the community assembly.
Whoever the magistrates are, one thing seems certain, they will be very different from today's politicians. In order to retain power, they will have no need of financial backing; no need of political organization or party discipline. Their power will derive directly from the support of the community. They will answer directly to the community (and to the laws). They will answer to nobody else.
Arguably, this is already a direct democracy. One more step might bring it closer. This step would depend on a *constitutional change*. If the community assembly were to agree to formalize its own political function, to give that function a legally binding force, then it could. But it would have to reach a further consensus, in addition, on some specific constitutional changes. Then the open electoral system could be established as a formal institution, replacing the existing electoral system and legislature, and being backed by state power. That would constitute a traditional direct democracy that would match (or even surpass) ancient Attica.
But it is not clear (to me) that such a change would be more effective. It would be difficult to formalize. It would be difficult to design a mechanism for deciding when, exactly, a community consensus had formed and ought to be enforced. Maybe (I am thinking) it is better to just let the politicians (executive and legislative) continue to use their own judgement? So, if an eager politician were to jump to a premature conclusion and begin acting on a consensus that had not yet fully matured, she might be held back in her efforts by her more cautious colleagues. Unable to act alone, she'd then have to stop. She'd have to wait for her colleagues to agree that, yes, a consensus had emerged. Then, together, they could proceed to act on it. (I have heard that the wheels of government turn most easily when motivated by a consensus. I have heard that even presidents and prime ministers are ineffective without a consensus to help them.)
Three reasons in support of the default, informal connection between the community assembly and state power:
1. When in doubt, allow actors to *pull* information, rather than *push* it at them. (A systems engineering rule of thumb.)
2. It is to the advantage of every politician to act on a consensus.
3. The 'antennea' of politicians are naturally sensitive to consensus.
Politicians will know better than anyone how to interpret a consensus as it forms. They'll know, for example, the appropriate quorum for a community bill to regulate the vetrinary profession, versus one to regulate the medical profession. We ought to allow them (and the specialized bureaucracy) to use their own judgement and knowledge in deciding when a consensus is formed, when it can be acted on, and exactly how.
The last point is critical. Often the politicians (actors who understand the means) will have to dialogue with the community (deciders who understand the aims) before acting. This is because the means (known to politicians and bureaucrats) will often have a technical influence on which aims (known to the community) are actually feasible. There can be no rational dialogue between two parties if force is employed by one of them.
Only a few (the politicians and bureaucrats) can act on a consensus. To make it happen, those few must cooperate amongst themselves, more-or-less willingly. We ought not to push them.
Here are my latest slogan and sound bite (take 2):
Consensus is Sovereign
Government knows what it wants (power). Commerce knows what it wants (wealth). Yet who can predict what a community will aspire to?
What do you think, Martin? Are we headed for direct democracy -- with or without my cheesy slogans? -- Michael Allan
For me it is clear that your system does NOT support the idea of
direct democracy at the moment.
If, however it is used somehow to delegate within a direct democratic
party/organisation it would.
> For me it is clear that your system does NOT support the idea of > direct democracy at the moment. > If, however it is used somehow to delegate within a direct democratic > party/organisation it would.
In that case, let's leave aside terminology (on which we disagree), and consider a concrete scenario:
Stockholm, Summer-Fall 2008 ---------------------------
A local resident (volunteer administrator) sets up an electoral server, and calls an open election for Mayor of Stockholm. (Assume that Mayor is a directly elected office, and that any citizen is eligible.) In addition to the mayoral election, the administrator allows open policy elections (citizen initiatives) to proceed in parallel. These elections proceed roughly as described here (scenarios 1 and 2):
Suppose that one of the policy elections attains a consensus. A good many residents across the city (a quorum) are actively voting in it. A large majority has voted in favour of a particular document, a particular policy position (the consensus policy), and general opinion has it (suppose) that this consensus policy is the true expression of the will of Stockholm's residents.
Questions:
If a member of Aktivdemokrati were sitting on the Municipal Assembly, how would she act, do you think? Would she act in support of the consensus policy?
How would the remainder of the Assembly act, in general? Would they act in support of the consensus policy? Or against it? Or would they just ignore it?
If you were a politician who sought to become Mayor of Stockholm, would you seek your nomination among the members of a political party (using the party's electoral system)? Or would you seek it among the residents of Stockholm (using their electoral system)? Or both?
