Can our party pick your brain?

[Thomas von der Elbe]

Mike, we have the same picture in our minds. And it is a fascinating and 
exciting picture and it drives us foreward: A new democracy without the 
current party-system.

But this is future. What is the next step for now? If we are far in the 
future, there is no need for a party at all. Thats where your initial 
resistance to the party came from, right?

If we come a bit closer to the presence, something like an un-party 
begins to look useful. Still a bit closer, a midwife party starts to 
look useful ...

All of these dont oppose each other, right? They are just different 
steps ahead of us.

Now I would come even closer to something maybe simply called a "new 
type of party".  IMO we dont need to stretch the term "party" to much, 
to still call it this. And we dont need to tell everybody that this 
party is a midwife to it's own and all the other parties dissolution ... 
thats just to much imo, and not necesarry. There is already a lot new 
stuff for its members to learn.

I'll show in your lines below, how we could still use the term "party":

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 16:32, Michael Allan wrote:

> 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.

Not in the traditional way of "joining a party". They would already be 
joining us by simply taking part in our work, i.e. in collaborative 
decision making, i.e. in using our tools.

> Whatever voting facilities the party has (as such), the residents will have the same, or better.

Firstly, to get to the point, where we have this kind of competition is 
already a reason to celebrate and could be seen as the point, where the 
party has fullfilled its purpose and has become dispensable.

But secondly, since we are going to mirror their votes, they 
automatically become members of our party. There can be no competition 
of this kind.

> Whatever votes the members cast on their privledged servers, the residents will "simulcast" those same votes on their public servers.

Party members are not "priviledged". Everybody can use the parties 
tools, i.e. become a member ... there is no price to pay.

> 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?

For us it is really a good joke. And still funny after the 20th time I 
think about it. But for people who have not put so much time in e-dem, 
it will take quite a while to understand. You do agree, right?


On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 1:42, Rohan Jayasekera wrote:
> Maybe, but consider this precedent: Canada already has a party, the
> Bloc Québécois, whose goal is to eliminate Canada as we know it, and
> while I'm sure that many Bloc fans find this amusing, those outside
> the Bloc often find it offensive.  We can expect the same kind of
> reaction toward a party whose goal is to eliminate parties.

Yes, I mean the same: Before one understands it, it sounds quite alien 
and maybe frightening. Afterwards we can all laugh together :-)


Thomas