Can our party pick your brain?

[Michael Allan]

Kevin Morais wrote:
> Hi Mike, I live in Toronto / London...long story, when I am in
> Toronto I am hard to reach by internet as I do not have internet in
> the City, in London I have internet.  I have been in the City for
> the last 2 days which is why I have been off line.

London Ontario, my mistake!  :-)  Kevin and I spoke briefly, and I
think we decided - now there is no longer an ocean between us - to
meet for coffee.  Please suggest a day/time, Kevin.  Afternoons or
early evenings are best with me.
 
Rohan Jayasekera wrote:
> 2. If the riding does indeed elect the Transparency Party's chosen
> representative (and it doesn't matter who it is as long as s/he
> doesn't renege on the promise to follow the orders of the people),
> then every eligible voter who is not already a party member, and who
> desires a voice in what that representative does, will join the
> party.  And then that riding has direct democracy.

Except they needn't join the party to have that voice.  Whatever
voting facilities the party has (as such), the residents will have the
same, or better.  Whatever votes the members cast on their privledged
servers, the residents will "simulcast" those same votes on their
public servers.  (You are probably unaware, but Thomas's invention of
vote mirroring assures us of this.)  The upshot is that the party's
voting facilities serve no purpose, and the purpose of the party
itself is called into question.

Thomas von der Elbe wrote:
> Yes I agree, in the end it all falls together into one! It's
> beautiful! ...  I have been talking offlist with Kevin and it feels
> like we should do this thing! And ofc everybody is invited too! ;-)

Ah, you put your finger on it!  There's beauty and irony all rolled
together.  Ofc everyone is invited, because they could not possibly be
excluded.  That's the beauty of it.  Only nobody sees it yet, so
there's the irony, or hidden meaning, rolled up with it.  I guess we
could say that the un-rolling of that combination is the purpose of
the un-Party.

That would entail the destruction of the party system as a side
effect.  Here again is something that people will have trouble
understanding at first.  Maybe the un-Party could help to lighten up
the revelation with a little wry humour?  The irony of the situation
seems to demand it.

Are we still together?  Because I like this very much.  It has a more
constructive side, of course, because it not only takes the tools of
politics out of party hands, but it places them in the hands of
everyday people.  The technical side of that provision is no longer an
open question, all that remains is the social side.  Maybe the
un-Party (or Transparency Party) can help to get that side of it
rolling?

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
http://zelea.com/