It will be a fart in space.

[Martin Gustavsson]

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/