It will be a fart in space.

Martin Gustavsson Martingustavsson72 at gmail.com
Mon Feb 18 01:57:41 EST 2008


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... at zelea.com> wrote:
> 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/





More information about the Votorola mailing list