Direct democracy

[Michael Allan]

Martin Gustavsson wrote:
> If you put "consensus" on a pedestal you will in fact be in favor of
> minority rule. Majority rule is the less evil if it first strives for a
> relative consensus. Striving for consensus in absurdum is just plain
> stupidity and disables democracy.

Consensus does not entail a minority.  I don't understand your
comment, Martin.
 
Take a concrete example.  Voter turnout is 65%.  Here are the results
for the top candidates (%):

  Candidate A   40

  Candidate B   20

  Candidate C   15

  Candidate D   10

It does not matter whether this is an open election, or a state (or
party) administered election.  People will generally *interpret* the
results in the same way.  Candidate A is the winner.  (There is no
question here of majority or minority.)

The difference between open and ordinary elections is in how the
interpretation translates to *action*.  In a state election, it's the
state's own interpretation that matters.  It actualizes its own
interpretation, and enforces it.  The candidate is enrolled in office.

In an open election, the state's interpretation does not matter.
There is no bureacracy, no administration, no central authority that
acts (machine-like) based on the results.  Instead it's people who
act, as free individuals.  Candidate A sees that she is popular.  She
decides to register for the state elections.  On election day, her
name appears on the ballot.  That's all.

Or, if this is a legislative election, then probably *nothing*
happens, yet.  Some legislators in the assembly may be looking at
Candidate A's draft bill, and thinking about it.  Probably they will
*not* introduce it to a vote in the legislature.  Probably they will
judge anything under 50% (a minority) as *not* a consensus.  But
that's their decision.  They make it as free individuals.

Open elections are not about administrative machines that blindly
follow rules of minority, majority, or proportional allocations.  This
is the difference.  Open elections are about *communities* and
*individuals*.  Free individuals, in open communication with each
other, make all of the decisions.

(I have tried to summarize the full meaning of open elections in a
story.  It's part of the home page now.  Comments and critique are
welcome.)

  http://zelea.com/project/votorola/home.xht

-- 
Michael Allan

http://zelea.com/