It will be a fart in space.

[Michael Allan]

Martin Gustavsson 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:

  http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=007088

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  quote
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.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  end quote

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.

Cheers,
-- 
Michael Allan

http://zelea.com/