It will be a fart in space.

[Michael Allan]

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):

  http://zelea.com/project/votorola/a/design.xht#electoral-register

> 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?

But I see they have objections...

    http://www.literatureandlatte.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=27332#27332

-- 
Michael Allan

http://zelea.com/