Direct democracy

Fri Mar 7 23:13:58 EST 2008

Do you view open elections as being in conflict with
government run elections?
- Not necessarily. In conflict with some private interests yes, but not in
conflict with the majority of people.

Do you view communities (employing open
elections) as being in conflict with state power and authority?
- Yes, especially when we short circuit corruption and give the state power
and authority directly to the people, as we do in http://aktivdemokrati.se

The competition, however, will not be with *government*.  Open
elections will be independent of government elections.
- In our case it will.

decision-making will be independent of administrative decision-making.
The two will not be in conflict; rather they will (I believe) cooperate.
- In our case it will be dependent

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.
-Yes. I agree.

Consequently they will out-compete and eventually replace the parties.
- I don't think it will happen unless the real power over government is
taken by the people and thereby given to the people through ex. the direct
democratic party http://aktivdemokrati.se.

As a party organizer,
you will naturally wish to defend parties (or at least your own) and
attack open elections.
- No, I will not. In fact I think "normal" parties like your idea better
than mine since it does not take the actual power from them. An issue in
your system will be suggestive like, please "lower your MP salary". In our
system it will lead to a direct result in parliament.

But there is no "too-strict requirement of consensus".
-Ok. Good.

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.
- Yes that is good. We do it naturally in http://aktivdemokrati.se It is
logical.

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.
- Then we agree.

what do you think will happen?
-As I said before. Open elections will not affect much. Direct democracy
straight into parliament through an elected party will.

2008/3/6, Michael Allan <mike at zelea.com>:
>
>
> 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/
>
>
> >
>


-- 
Peace vision -> More democracy -> How? -> www.aktivdemokrati.se


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.reluk.ca/list/votorola/attachments/20080308/7207b1eb/attachment-0007.html>