Can our party pick your brain?

[Kevin Morais]

Hi Michael,

There are bugs in the actual running of the party and I would have to say
that even a team of experts sitting and working on a Direct Democracy Party
full time 24 - 7 for years would never be able to predict the infinite
variables.

The Party is small and is growing, this is one advantage and yes hurdles
will be encountered so the group conscious is going to have to solve these
problems together, but they are just problems that can be solved.  Please
don't throw the baby out with the bath water just yet, this can work,
because this type of Government has been in existence for the last 80 years,
it just never left the safety of its Anonymous Church Basements.  If we have
a leader that decides for us in the house it will be a more Efficient party
but not an Effective For Us.  I was wondering if I could chat with you,
something like this is to difficult to communicate in text for me without
possible meeting and speaking face to face through Skype.  I tried to
develop a structure for the party on my own and accidentally tied in the 12
Traditions of the 12 Step Groups.  The 12 Step Groups are a Benign Anarchy,
only difference is Transparency has removed the God aspect so it is now
fully inclusive.  Trust me any problem anyone can find we can solve :)  I
live in Toronto but I am visiting London right now, once I go back to
Toronto I will have no internet, so if we could hook up this week?

kevinmoraisevoter is my Skype, you can reach me there till the end of the
week.  My Home email is kevinmorais at hotmail.com

Peace Mike hope to speak with you soon.

Kevin



On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:32 AM, Michael Allan <mike at zelea.com> wrote:

> Welcome to the list Kevin,
>
> Without slighting the aims of your initiative, I doubt that a
> political party is a feasible vehicle for achieving them.  Maybe I'm
> wrong here, but I disagree with Rohan.  I don't think it can work, at
> least not in that form.
>
> A party candidate must first win office, if I understand.  Let's say
> she is elected to Queen's Park where she sits as an MPP for one of the
> Toronto ridings.  Suppose that a particular issue subsequently arises
> in the legislature, and the party members reach a rough consensus on a
> course of action.  The MPP is now expected to follow that course of
> action?  Is that how it should work?
>
> --
> Michael Allan
>
> Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
> http://zelea.com/
>
>
> Rohan Jayasekera wrote:
> > I'm only an "interested onlooker" of Votorola, so Kevin Morais's
> > request for more knowledgeable feedback still stands.  I'd like to
> > make a comment in passing.  I've just been to the site that he's
> > created, and have learned that the Transparency Party's plan is to
> > make direct democracy come about by electing candidates who then
> > "follow the orders" of the party members who vote online with respect
> > to each upcoming bill.  I find this very exciting because it might
> > work.  It doesn't try to change a political structure that is
> > resistant to the idea of its own elimination (a weakness of most
> > proposals I see for reforming democracy), and it provides a gathering
> > point for the "early adopters" who are a necessary step in
> > transforming any isolated interest into widespread adoption.  Perhaps
> > the route of the Transparency Party is obvious to other members of
> > this group who are more actively involved; it wasn't to me.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.reluk.ca/list/votorola/attachments/20110216/d02a919f/attachment-0007.html>