Direct democracy

[Michael Allan]

Hi Martin,

I will answer your criticisms, point by point.  But I suspect that
your critique is prompted by larger concerns/interests that are not
being expressed.  Do you view open elections as being in conflict with
government run elections?  Do you view communities (employing open
elections) as being in conflict with state power and authority?  Much
of your critique in this thread seems to imagine such a conflict.

The competition, however, will not be with *government*.  Open
elections will be independent of government elections.  Community
decision-making will be independent of administrative decision-making.
The two will not be in conflict; rather they will (I believe)
cooperate.

The competition will be with *political parties*.  Open elections
perform the same political function as do parties, but they will (I
believe) perform that function much better.  Consequently they will
out-compete and eventually replace the parties.  As a party organizer,
you will naturally wish to defend parties (or at least your own) and
attack open elections.  (Your critique is welcome, too.)  But in our
discussion, we have perhaps overlooked an opportunity.  In trying to
forecast how open elections will interplay with systems of
proportional representation (common in Europe), I see opportunities
for small parties, at the expense of larger ones.  I will come back to
this.

> From wikipedia: "A too-strict requirement of consensus may effectively give
> a small self-interested minority group veto power over decisions.

But there is no "too-strict requirement of consensus".  As mentioned
in my previous post, individuals are *free* to interpret the consensus
as they see fit.  It is not like a government or party machine that
strictly obeys procedural rules.  It's just people acting as free
individuals.  (See my previous post.)

>                                                                   Decision
> by consensus may take an extremely long time to occur, and thus may be
> intolerable for urgent matters, e.g. those of executive decisions.

But the executive will continue to make those decisions.  Executive
power and authority (like that of all other branches of government) is
unaffected by open elections.  Only, the *up-front* choosing of
executives at election time will be more open.  (And communities will
have a medium in which to effectively question executive decisions
*after the fact*, and to incubate effective opposition leaders as
candidates for *future* elections.)

(Incidentally, a disconnect between community and government
decision-making is necessary in the U.K, for reasons of legality.  It
is illegal to directly pressure a U.K. public officer or elected
representative in her work.  Not that that has directly affected the
design of Votorola, in any way.)

>                                                                    In some
> cases, consensus decision-making may encourage groupthink, a situation in
> which people modify their opinions to reflect what they believe others want
> them to think, leading to a situation in which a group makes a decision that
> none of the members individually think is wise. It can also lead to a few
> dominant individuals making all decisions.

This is not a problem with open elections.  Open elections are free of:

  * group think, where minorities are systematically pressured to
    conform with a majority decision

  * majoritarianism, where the voices of a minority are systematically
    suppressed or silenced by a majority decision

  * power and authority, where a few are granted unequal privileges

For a contrast between open elections and CivicEvolution (another
method of decision-making) on exactly these points, see this two-part
thread:

  http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/2RIQ2onSeM6V3iCDMBkJMh

  http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/6Wkn25a6zW2uouTtVxGRrH

>                                            Finally, consensus
> decision-making may fail in a situation where there simply is no agreement
> possible, and interests are irreconcilable."

That ought not to be considered a failure.  The purpose of open
elections is to allow communities to reach *understanding*, as well as
consensus.  Where the latter is not possible -- the community is split
3 ways on a particular question, for instance -- the process allows
them to discover their differences.  Consequently, they gain an
understanding of themselves.  This self-knowledge will naturally be
used by them, in reaching better, more informed decisions (consensus)
in future.

> "Polish parliament" (in swedish: polsk riksdag) is now referred to as chaos
> (kaos) in Sweden and is an example of how a consensus system totally failed
> to do any changes of society. Every member of parliament had veto right in
> Poland when this occurred. Today we could compare this to the veto in the UN
> which is the main reason why we still have invasions from the super powers
> and its allies. Palestine, Tibet, Iraq. Tyranny by a governing minority in
> Israel, China, and USA....and they get away with it thanks to
> consensus/veto!!!!

But there is no connection between consensus, on the one hand, and
unanimity or veto, on the other.  Consensus does not mean unanimity,
but 'general agreement'.  A general agreement can hold without
unanimity.  And there is no veto power in an open election.  (And
there is no equation, anyway, between open elections and government
administration.  They are apples and oranges.)  The Polish example has
no bearing.

> Tyranny by a majority, as you put it.... ex.  Taxes on ownership has always
> been seen as a tyranny by the rich. It can however stabilize society in away
> so that the poor don't get too poor and the rich don't get too rich. ....The
> greedy will however always bee poor.
> 
> No, majority rule is by far the best way I can imagine how to rule society.
> If it is rule by a few, it is NOT democracy by definition. demo = people AND
> cracy = rule
> 
> In my world it is also the best. People presently at the top of the
> hierarchy and who has accumulated to much money are usually not morally and
> socially fit to govern for the people, as I see it. Normal educated people
> in society are. Americans in general I am not sure about, but Swedish
> people? Yes. I trust them. They are educated by books based on scientific
> evidence. They do not generally believe that the planet was created by a god
> or by a spaghetti monster.

(Those comments are unconnected with open elections, per se.  You are
merely elaborating on earlier points, which I answered above.)

Proportional representation (to return to this interesting question)
formalizes the role of political parties in government.  But I assert
that open elections will outcompete parties.  So what will happen?

In places like Canada, Britain and the U.S., the answer is simple
enough.  Parties (as we know them) will cease to exist.  But what will
happen in Sweden, or other states that have parties formally written
into their constitutions?  Just for fun, Martin (accepting open
elections for sake of the argument) what do you think will happen?

-- 
Michael Allan

http://zelea.com/