Not direct democracy, not the rule of the people

[koikaze]

Good Morning, Michael

Your most recent creates something of a dilemma for me.  On the one
hand, I feel compelled to respond even though I disagree with most of
the points you make, and, on the other, I want to support your effort,
not criticize it.  After thinking about it, I've decided the best
thing I can do is cite my disagreements and then explain why I support
Votorola.

In response to the example you challenged me to make, you said ...

  "I foresee several related issues, all of them budgetary in
   focus: (1) the division of budget responsibility between the
   public and the government; (2) the detailed allocation of
   the one by the public; (3) the detailed allocation of the
   remainder by the administration."

... and go on to describe how that might occur.  My demur is multi-
faceted ...

* There is no political system extant in which the disbursement of tax
money is effected by anyone except the administration, nor any reason
to imagine one is possible.

* Governmental budgets are built on tax revenue.  Tax revenue is, and,
of natural right, ought to be, dedicated to the sole purpose of
running the government.  Imagining a system that taxes the people and
then asks them how to spend the tax money borders on the ludicrous.

* The public has the means of directing its money to matters that
concern it ... it's called charity.  We have no shortage of
charities.  Of course, many charities provide greater benefit to their
administrators than to the indigent, but that is no less true when the
charity is administered by the government.

* This entire discussion, including the example I gave, is a
digression and a distraction.  It does nothing to improve public
participation in government.


re: "I should point out, however, that the method is explicitly
     designed to facilitate consensus."

The phrase, "the method is explicitly designed to facilitate
consensus", while undoubtedly true, should be qualified by pointing
out it is not a consensus of the electorate.  It is only a consensus
of the participants.  The participants, by definition, must be
computer users.  That makes the system elitist, even if the elite's
intellectual capacity only extends to "if u cn rd ths".

You and I exchange ideas reasonably well in English text, but we are
atypical.  I am not yet comfortable envisioning a political system
based on written communication on the internet.


Now, having cited most of my disagreements with your message, let me
proceed to the much more important matter of why I think your efforts
are important:

Votorola is the only practical method I've seen of giving any part of
the public a way to influence government.  It is a process that
doesn't need further debate ... it needs seeding. It needs an issue
that inspires participation in a community.  It is independent of
community size, or even community type.  That is, it will work as well
in Little League as it will in Town Hall.  It is available for use,
and it needs to be used.

I may carp that Votorola will not reach 'all' the people, but in terms
of giving public a way to influence its environment, it's 'way ahead
of whatever's in second place.

Fred Gohlke