It would be inappropriate for me to suggest a way to attain true democracy without first laying some groundwork. When the United States of America was founded in 1787, it was the first nation founded on democratic principles. Many people felt it wouldn't work and referred to it as "The Noble Experiment". Over time, the noble experiment turned ignoble and many of us are here because of that. We would do well to learn from our experience.

If we want to build a better political structure, we should begin by understanding why democracy failed in America. There were, of course, many reasons, not least of which are those described in the following comments on American political parties. I urge others to challenge any they think inaccurate.

OVERVIEW
Political parties are quasi-official institutions designed to acquire the reins of government. They sponsor candidates for public office by providing the resources needed to conduct a campaign for election. As a condition of their sponsorship, they require that the candidates support the party, thus giving the party ultimate control of the elected officials.

In America, our governmental system is defined by our Constitution, and nothing in our Constitution expresses or implies the need for political parties. They are an extra-Constitutional invention, devised to advance partisan interest. The problem of partisanship was well understood by the framers of our Constitution:

"When the Founders of the American Republic wrote the U.S. Constitution in 1787, they did not envision a role for political parties in the governmental order. Indeed, they sought through various constitutional arrangements such as separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, and indirect election of the president by an electoral college to insulate the new republic from political parties and factions."
Professor John F. Bibby
[www.fec.gov]

A party system developed in our nation because our early leaders used their standing to consolidate their power. Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, two men who were intimately familiar with the way the non-partisan Constitutional Convention had sidestepped some issues and compromised others to produce an impressive document, did not have confidence in the judgment of their peers when they felt their vital interests were threatened.

Instead, either through ego or fear, they felt compelled to supplant reason with passion to enforce their will. They rallied support for their divergent views by forming political parties and creating rules to preserve them and aid their operation:

"The Democratic-Republicans and Federalists invented the modern political party -- with party names, voter loyalty, newspapers, state and local organizations, campaign managers, candidates, tickets, slogans, platforms, linkages across state lines, and patronage."
[en.wikipedia.org])

These features advance party interest at the expense of the public interest. They show how political parties are an embodiment of human nature; they put self-interest above all other considerations. They function precisely as a thoughtful person would expect them to function.

PARTISANSHIP
Political parties are grounded in partisanship. Partisanship is natural for humans. We seek out and align ourselves with others who share our views. Through them, we hone our ideas and gain courage from the knowledge that we are not alone in our beliefs. Partisanship gives breadth, depth and volume to our voice. In and of itself, partisanship is not only inevitable, it is healthy.

On the other hand, partisans have a penchant for denigrating those who think differently, often without considering the salient parts of opposing points of view. They seek the power to impose their views on those who don't share them, while overlooking their own shortcomings. Communism and National Socialism showed these tendencies. Both had features that attracted broad public support throughout a national expanse and both degenerated into destructive forces because their partisans gained control of their governments.

The danger in Communism and National Socialism was not that they attracted partisan support; it was that the partisans gained control of government. In general, partisanship is healthy when it helps us give voice to our views. It is destructive when it achieves power. All ideologies, whether of the right or the left, differ from Communism and National Socialism only in the extent to which their partisans are able to impose their biases on the public.

Partisanship is a vital part of society ... provided it is always a voice and never a power. The danger is not in partisanship, it is in allowing partisans to control government.

OLIGARCHIC PARTY STRUCTURE
The political parties that control all political activity in the United States are in no sense democratic. The American people do not elect those who control the parties. In fact, most Americans don't even know who they are. They are appointed by their party and serve at the party's pleasure. We, the people the parties are supposed to represent, have no control over who these people are, how long they serve, or the deals they make to raise the immense amounts of money they use to keep their party in power. They constitute a ruling elite above and beyond the reach of the American people.

When we allow those who control our political parties to usurp the power of governing our nation, it is foolish to imagine that we retain the power bestowed on us by our Constitution. It is a tragedy that so few of us recognize (or are willing to acknowledge) that we have relinquished our right to govern ourselves to unknown people who proclaim themselves our agents.

CORRUPTION
Corruption pervades our political system because the parties control the selection of candidates for public office. Candidates are not chosen for their integrity. Quite the contrary, they are chosen after they demonstrate their willingness and ability to dissemble, to obfuscate and to mislead the electorate. They are chosen when they prove they will renounce principle and sacrifice honor for the benefit of their party.

The result is a circular process that rejects virtue and is ruled by cynicism:

* Candidates for public office cannot mount a viable campaign without party sponsorship, so they obtain sponsorship by agreeing to the party's terms.

* The party, assured of the loyalty of its candidates, attracts donors because it can promise that its candidates will support the objectives set by the party, i.e., the goals of the donors.

* From the donors, the party obtains the resources it needs to attract appealing candidates and bind them to the party's will.

This cycle makes political parties conduits for corruption. Businesses, labor unions and other vested interests give immense amounts of money and logistical support to political parties to push their agenda and to secure the passage of laws that benefit the donors. The political parties meet their commitment to the donors by picking politicians who can be relied upon to enact the laws and implement the policies the donors' desire. The politicians so selected are the least principled of our citizens, but are the only choices available to the American people in our "free" elections.

None of this is a secret. The parties conduct their business with our knowledge and tacit approval. We know, full well, how they operate. We know about the "party bosses", "pork barrels", "party loyalty", "slush funds", "party whips", and the whole lexicon of political manipulation. Since we know these things exist and do not prevent them, we are party to the very corruption we decry.

THE MYTH OF CORRUPTIBILITY
Some believe we cannot remove corruption from our political systems because humans are corruptible. Why should we believe such a canard?

We are misled by the high visibility of deceit and corruption in our culture. The idea that it is inescapable leads to the self-defeating notion that trying to correct it is futile.

The reality is that the vast majority of humans are honorable, law-abiding people. They have to be, for society could not exist otherwise. By far, the greater percentage of our friends, our relatives, our co-workers and our neighbors are trustworthy people.

The reason our political leaders are corrupt is that party politics elevates unscrupulous people by design. It does so by heeding the notion attributed to B. F. Skinner: "The bad do bad because the bad is rewarded". Since the goal of a party is to advance its own interest, it rewards those who do so unfettered by the restraints of honor. Once these unprincipled people achieve leadership they infect our society because morality is a top-down phenomenon.

The idea that we can't remove corruption from our political systems because we are corruptible is nonsense. It is a myth. The problem is not the people; it is a political system that demands subservient politicians at the expense of integrity. The vast majority of our peers are honest, principled people. When we make probity a primary concern in our electoral process, the pervasiveness of dishonesty in our society will diminish.

PASSION VERSUS INTELLECT
Political parties appeal to emotion by applying the principles of behavioral science to manipulate the public. They mount, finance and staff campaigns designed to inflame the passions of the electorate.

Communication during election campaigns is one-way. There is no genuine attempt to consult the public interest and the serious issues are seldom those raised during a campaign. Surveys are conducted to find "hot buttons" which generate a desired response and professionals use the information to mold "messages" which the candidates and the parties feed the public in a flood of misinformation. It is a rabble-rousing technique.

Intelligent decisions require dialogue; assertions must be examined, not in the sterile environment of a televised debate, but in depth. The electorate must be able to examine candidates and discuss matters of public concern, and, with the knowledge so gained, make decisions. They have no opportunity to do so.

SEPARATION OF POWERS
The U. S. Constitution separated the powers of government in such a way as to operate as checks upon each other. Among the methods used were the definition of separate Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches, and the further division of the Legislative Branch into two distinct bodies, each intended to represent a different constituency, namely, the interests of the several states and the interests of the people of those states, and an Electoral College to insure broad-based support for a successful Presidential candidate. Separation of Powers is lauded as a cornerstone of our Constitution. I'm unaware of any substantive disagreement with this view of the intent of our Founders.

Political parties persistently attack the Separation of Powers. They use their immense resources to maximize their power by forcing our public officials to vote en bloc on crucial issues, making a mockery of the safeguards we rely on to protect our freedoms. When a single group of people with a common interest succeeds in controlling multiple branches of our government, it is ludicrous to imagine we have a system of checks and balances (as was vividly demonstrated by our recent experience with the baneful effects of single party dominance.)

SEEKING IMPROVEMENT
Political parties, in their omnivorous quest for power have, during my lifetime, gone a long way toward destroying the greatness of my homeland. Unrestrained, they will succeed.

It need not be so.

Those who seek good government need not tolerate the corruption of party politics. We do not need partisanship, which sets one person against another; we need independent representatives who will think for themselves and reach intelligent decisions on matters of public concern. In other words, to improve our government, we must change the way we select our representatives.

We have the technological ability to support a more democratic method; the big hurdle is to get people to acknowledge the problem. Many fall victim to the common malady of believing our press clippings. We've been told so many times through so many years that our political system is the best in the world, some of us can't admit it is a cesspool of corruption, funded by special interests that buy the laws we endure.

Most Americans assume political parties are legitimate centers of power under our Constitution. That is untrue. Nothing in our Constitution authorizes, institutes or enables political parties. The difficulty lies, not in our Constitution, but in our will. We must want to build a political system that puts public interest above partisanship, a method that responds to vested interests but is not controlled by them.

Political systems are always an embodiment of human nature. Until we learn to harness our own nature, we can improve neither our politics nor our society. There is no Constitutional bar to devising a more democratic process; the only impediment is ourselves. Since we can not divorce our political institutions from our own nature, we must make virtue a desirable attribute in those who seek political advancement. That may be difficult ... but it is not impossible.

Fred Gohlke

Dear Fred,
You have brought out the truth about present day politics in a lucid manner. Your commentary on American politics is remarkable in that it can as well be called a commentary on Indian politics, if the name of the country is changed. And it would, I think, fit as a commentary on any of the other 'democratic' nations in today's world. Such is the universality of the problem and the fundamental cause underlying it.

You have rightly said that if we the voters decide to prefer candidates based on their virtues then a new political system that ensures True Democracy can be built. The problem is that many of the voters would do so if a workable honest system is really available. Hence it is imperative that such a system is at least first theoretically devised. Otherwise talk about a honest system can be dismissed as being utopian.

I have been interested in devising precisely such a system and a strategy to make it into a reality, for the past several years. I hope you have gone through my proposal titled 'Conscience-based political system'. Regarding the query you have raised in another thread, my last post on 'Conscience' contains the answer to it.

With regards,

PVR

Good Afternoon, PVR

I have, indeed, seen your post on "Conscience". I copied it yesterday so I could compose a comment, off-line. I'm sorry I haven't already done so, but I will as soon as I can.

It seems you and I have similar views. Perhaps we can exchange them, critique each other, encourage the opinions of others, and, ultimately, outline a sound foundation for true democracy.

I will comment on your "Conscience" post as quickly as I can and then add some material to this thread. We'll see if we can make some progress.

Fred

(This post contains a table and I'm not confident I can display a table properly on this site. I'll do the best I can. flg)

SELECTING LEADERS FROM THE PEOPLE

FOUNDATION
To select better leaders, we must find a way to select the most principled of our people as our representatives. The method must be democratic (i.e., allow the entire electorate to participate), egalitarian (i.e., give everyone an equal chance to participate), and it must be in harmony with natural human responses.

This outline will present such a concept in the simplest, most direct way possible. It will, necessarily, mention a few of the mechanics, but they are secondary. The important thing is the concept of harnessing human nature. Once we've seen a way to do that, we can concern ourselves with the myriad other details.

Although the process is continuous, I will describe it as having two phases. The human factors dominating the first phase will metamorphose into a different set of factors as the second phase develops. This metamorphosis is the "magic" of the process.

METHOD
1) Divide the entire electorate into groups of three people.

2) Assign a date and time by which each group must select one of the three to represent the other two.

3) Divide the participants so selected into groups of three.

4) Repeat from step 2 until a target number of selections is reached.

DISCUSSION
An Election Commission conducts the process. It names the participants of each group and supplies the groups with the text of pending ordinances and a synopsis of the budget appropriate to the group. In addition, on request, it makes the full budget available and supplies the text of any existing ordinances. This insures a careful examination of public matters and encourages a thorough discussion of partisan views on matters of public concern.

For convenience, we refer to each iteration as a "Level", such that Level 1 is the initial grouping of the entire electorate, Level 2 is the grouping of the selections made at Level 1, and so forth. The entire electorate participates at level 1 giving everyone an equal opportunity to advance to succeeding levels.

* As the process advances through the levels, the amount of time the participants spend together increases. At level 1, groups may meet for a few minutes, over a back-yard fence, so-to-speak, but that would not be adequate at higher levels. As the levels advance, the participants need more time to evaluate those they are grouped with. They also need transportation and facilities for meeting and voting. These are mechanical details.

* The public has a tendency to think of elections in terms of just a few offices: a congressional seat, a senate race, and so forth. There are, however, a large number of elected officials who fill township, county, state and federal offices. The structure outlined here provides qualified candidates for those offices, like this: At a predefined level (determined by the number of offices to be filled), the two candidates not selected to advance to the next level move into a parallel process leading to selection for offices; first in the local, then the county, then the national, and, finally, the state governments.

The initial phase of the process is dominated by participants with little interest in advancing to higher levels. They do not seek public office; they simply wish to pursue their private lives in peace. Thus, the most powerful human dynamic during the first phase (i.e., Level 1 and for some levels thereafter) is a desire by the majority of the participants to select someone who will represent them. The person so selected is more apt to be someone who is willing to take on the responsibility of going to the next level than someone who actively seeks elevation to the next level, but those who do actively seek elevation are not inhibited from doing so.

As the levels increase, the proportion of disinterested parties diminishes and we enter the second phase. Here, participants that advance are marked, more and more, by an inclination to seek further advancement. Thus, a powerful human trait is integrated into the system.

Those who actively seek selection must persuade their group that they are the best qualified to represent the other two. While that is easy at the lower levels, it becomes more difficult as the process moves forward and participants are matched with peers who also wish to be chosen.

Each participant must make a choice between the other two people in the group knowing that they must rely on that person's integrity to guide their future actions and decisions. Since they are unable to control the person selected, they must choose the person they believe most likely to conduct public business in the public interest.

However, they do not make their choices blindly. Elections are a periodic process. The majority of those seeking advancement will do so each time the process recurs. Some will be successful. They will achieve public office and their performance will be a matter of public record. When they participate in subsequent occurrences of the process, their peers can evaluate that record to help them decide the candidate's suitability for advancement. Furthermore, the names of advancing candidates are announced as each level completes. Members of the public with knowledge of unseemly acts by an advancing candidate can present details for consideration at the next level. Since, after the initial levels, the peers also seek advancement, they won't overlook inappropriate behavior.

Face-to-face meetings in three-person groups eliminate any possibility of voting machine fraud. Significantly, they also allow participants to observe the non-verbal clues humans emit during discourse and will tend to favor moderate attitudes over extremism. The dissimulation and obfuscation that are so effective in media-based politics will not work in a group of three people, each of whom has a vital interest in reaching the same goal as the miscreant. Thus, the advancement of participants will depend on their perceived integrity as well as the probity with which they fulfill their public obligations.

This is a distillation process, biased in favor of the most upright and capable of our citizens. It cannot guarantee that unprincipled individuals will never be selected ... such a goal would be unrealistic ... but it does insure that they are the exception rather than the rule.

The process is inherently bi-directional. Because each elected official sits atop a pyramid of known electors, questions on specific issues can easily be transmitted directly to and from the electors for the guidance or instruction of the official.

The cost of conducting an election by this method is free to the participants, except for the value of their time, and minimal to the government. Thus, it removes the greatest single cause of corruption in our current system ... the need for campaign funds.

I originally thought to buttress this presentation by citing two newspaper articles that discuss the (apparent) lack of interest in the election process among the majority of the electorate and the working of corruption in our system. I've decided that to do so would be superfluous.

ILLUSTRATION
This table provides a visual description of the Active Democracy (or Troika) method of selecting public officials. It uses the 2004 voting-eligible population of New Jersey reported by Dr. Michael McDonald, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.

At about the seventh level, unselected candidates may enter a secondary process for selection to positions in municipal, county, federal and state governments.

Remaining          Candidates

Level      Electors     Selected   Unselected

  1)      5,637,378    1,879,126    3,758,252

  2)      1,879,126      626,375    1,252,751

  3)        626,375      208,791      417,584

  4)        208,791       69,597      139,194

  5)         69,597       23,199       46,398

  6)         23,199        7,733       15,466

  7)          7,733        2,577        5,156

  8)          2,577          859        1,718

  9)            859          286          573

 10)            286           95          191

 11)             95           31           64

CONCLUSION
The idea presented here will be considered radical. It bears little chance of adoption because it protects no vested interest. The only way such a process will ever be adopted is if the concept can be made a topic of discussion, particularly among students interested in achieving a righteous government.

Fred Gohlke

Dear Fred,
The troika system you have described is a novel method of electing the representatives in a fair and free manner. However the first question that arises is how are the electors going to be divided into groups of three? Is it randomly or do neighbours form groups?

Leadership is a natural quality of humans; the above system by dividing the entire population into groups of threes may not allow the leadership quality to be harnessed fruitfully. Ideologies and political philosophies are also natural to the human mind. The troika system does not seem to take this into account.

Any better alternative that is suggested should be capable of competing with the existing system and coming into power on its own. No doubt the students and the youth are vital for bringing about a transformation but the transition cannot be abrupt. The battle has to be won through the ballot boxes.

Do you feel that 'mechanism of partyless governance within elected houses' that I have suggested takes into account these considerations?

PVR

Good Evening, PVR

I am a bit late to the discussion of the 'mechanism of partyless governance within elected houses', so I'm anxious to confirm that I clearly comprehend the concept. To this end, I will outline my understanding of your suggestion and offer a few comments on what I believe you intend. If my understanding is muddled, please clarify the ideas so I can participate intelligently.

I think you are proposing that WDDM maintain a section that would appear something like this (to me, at my location):

Level 2, United States

_Level 2-01, Alabama
_Level 2-02 to 29 xxx
_Level 2-30, New Jersey

With this system, if I have a view concerning a public question in Middlesex County, I would go to 2-30-12, review any existing discussion on the topic, and add my opinion. In the same way, if I wish to offer a comment on a state issue, I would go to 2-30, review the topic and add my comment. Then, as you say, "... the views expressed by voters of a particular constituency can consolidate and pave the way for action at the local level, either directly or through pressure exerted on the elected representative of that constituency ..."

This suggestion raises several issues:

1) Presumably, the method will be backed by enabling legislation requiring elected representatives to base their opposition or support for legislation on the will of the constituency, as expressed by their input.

2) The method may not accomplish the desired goal because the representative must exercise judgment as to which view of a given topic to follow. As an example of the difficulty, take these two points of view, extracted (in part) from another site, on the question of "Should it be required that the United States have only one language?"

Response FOR: "By requiring education in English, the United States defends its unity and cultural roots against those making a willful effort to overwhelm and replace the United States with... something else."

Response AGAINST: "The 'English Only' movement is utter crackpottery propounded by people who seem not to have noticed that their native language happens to be the first choice of the rest of the world to learn as a second language."

Each of us may have an opinion on this question, but how is the representative to decide which side of the issue expresses the will of the people? The probable answer is that each member of the electorate participating in the process must also provide a "Yes" or "No" vote on the issue. Then, the representative can simply vote as instructed by those who participate. However, even that is not quite as cut and dried as it appears at first blush. Two objections that come to mind are:

a) responses to yes/no questions can be influenced by the way the question is posed, and

b) the method offers no protection from what Tony Simpson (http://www.initiativesamendment.org/) referred to as "... the impact of media's ... extremely persuasive technologies." In other words, public votes are easily (and effectively) swayed by the media.

3) A possible enhancement of the concept would be to have the representative involved in the dialogue with the participants. In this way, there is a better chance the subtle nuances of the issues will be examined.

4) Is there not a danger that the 'partyless mechanism within the elected house' will not be partyless, at all? The parties, at present, maintain their power by concerted action. Although trade unions are the easiest example to cite, they are not the sole operators of "get out the vote" machines. There can be little doubt they will use the same mechanisms to get their partisans to express their views and vote in the proposed method, just as they do now. It is true that the lay citizen has the option of expressing his view and voting, but will he? When he goes to the site and sees it flooded with partisan comments and a heavy one-sided vote, will he not feel just as ineffective as he does now?

5) The method envisions continuation of 'rule by representatives' until it can be tapered down to the extent possible. During this tapering down period, would we not be best served by public officials with integrity and good judgment?

These issues are raised, not as reasons for rejection of the concept, but as matters worthy of thought which may lead us to a more complete solution.

(I must qualify these remarks by stating my opinion that it is not representative government that creates our problem. It is the poor quality of representation which results from allowing political parties to control our political process and dictate who our representatives will be.)

I will now try to respond to your questions about the troika system:

re: "how are the electors going to be divided into groups of three?"

My suggestion is that the Election Commission create the groups randomly, from the entire electorate. The process that assigns participants to groups should have a geographic bias so the people assigned to a group live near each other but be sufficiently random that no three people are assigned to the same group more frequently than once in (say) five election cycles. (This is a mechanical question that can be honed as desired.)

re: "Leadership is a natural quality of humans; the above system by dividing the entire population into groups of threes may not allow the leadership quality to be harnessed fruitfully."

When three people must select one of their number to represent them, the person with the best leadership qualities is the most likely to be selected. As the levels advance, the person with the most desireable qualities is the most likely to advance. It is true that the two people with the best leadership qualities in the nation might be assigned to the same group at level 1, in which case, one of the two would be lost for the election cycle. However,

a) the chance of such a juxtaposition is infinitesimal.

b) the concern implies some of us are irreplaceable, which is the antithesis of democracy, and

c) it can not happen (at level 1) in successive cycles, so one lost in one cycle will have an opportunity in the next.

re: "Ideologies and political philosophies are also natural to the human mind. The troika system does not seem to take this into account."

Dealing with the fact that ideologies and political philosophies are natural for the human mind is the entire purpose of the troika method. Our goal is a government that represents the will of the people and serves the public interest. Ideologies and political philosophies are, by definition, the opposite of that. They represent what someone proclaims is best for the people. Such proclamations are never devoid of self-interest and are only good for the subset of the public that the ideology or political philosophy represents. Our purpose is to de-emphasize (not eliminate) ideology and emphasize the public interest.

The troika method sets ideologies and political philosophies face to face in very small groups where they must persuade (not coerce) two other people (who also seek selection) that their view of the public welfare is better than that espoused by others, and they must do that ... not once ... but repeatedly. This process insures, not only that those who are selected are persuasive, but that they are able to present a rational basis for their selection. This is not a matter of swaying a crowd of people with glibness and inflaming public passion, it is a matter of explaining the value of one's point of view in a compelling manner ... so compelling that even those who also seek the same position accept the presentation.

re: "Any better alternative that is suggested should be capable of competing with the existing system and coming into power on its own."

B-I-N-G-O!!! You are absolutely correct. That is the weakness of the concept. It can be branded as radical, even though it is nothing more than allowing the people to select the best among themselves to serve as their leaders. It can be called "complex", even though it is almost primitive.

All I can say in its defense is that it is simple, it eliminates political campaigning, it eliminates the cost of campaigning (and the power that goes to those who finance the campaigns), it eliminates the atmosphere of cheating, lying and obfuscation that characterize politics (in America), and it makes integrity an important trait for those who wish selection to public office.

I hate to leave this exchange at this point, but I am going away in the morning and will be gone for about a week. I hope you will continue to critique what I write. I genuinely appreciate your ideas and believe we can merge our approaches into a viable method of improving our political existence ... but we have farther to go than we've come.

Sincerely,

Fred

Dear Fred,
I am giving my response below to the queries raised by you. My views do not go to the final picture straight away but instead takes into account the present situation, its possible evolution and how this can be modified by suitable action to favour True Democracy.

PVR:
The enabling legislation is not going to happen so easily. While you are discussing a situation where the representatives have to take into account the views of the people LEGALLY, I am describing a situation where the representatives have to do the same OUT OF NECESSITY, if they wish to survive politically. In the description below it is not enough if the representative acts merely as a mechanical conduit to the views expressed by the people. The overall personality and integrity would also matter.

Take for example, views are expressed for and against a particular question pertaining level 2-30-12. The views expressed will be on the True Democracy platform. Since everyone is free to express his/her will, the voice of common people has much greater chance of being heard on the True Democracy platform. This will be especially so once it is increasingly known that such a platform is available to the ordinary citizen. In the absence of legislative support the representative at level 2-30-12 can ignore the views expressed on the platform. However anyone with true democratic spirit can take advantage of the situation and announce his support to the views expressed on the platform and solemnly resolve that he would pursue the views if he gets the opportunity to serve. This will put pressure on the current representative who chooses to ignore them.

Over a period of time any person (or political party) who is truly interested in serving the public will find that the True Democracy web platform would be the ideal place to connect with the people of that constituency regarding what they actually expect from their representatives. The fact that the platform envisages the step 2 action, where those registered on the platform would campaign for the candidate who in their opinion would be best suited to represent them, in case the current representative continues to ignore their point of view would enhance the effectiveness of the platform and add to its popularity with the people.

Over a period of years when the platform is sufficiently popular the candidates who have got elected on the True Democracy platform will be in large numbers and when in majority, can make the step 3 - 'bringing in the partyless mechanism within the elected house' - a reality through suitable legislation, predictably first at the lowest level and then progressing to higher levels viz. from level 2-30-12 to 2-30 to level 2.

Fred:
3) A possible enhancement of the concept would be to have the representative involved in the dialogue with the participants. In this way, there is a better chance the subtle nuances of the issues will be examined.

PVR:
This is quite true.

Fred:
4) Is there not a danger that the 'partyless mechanism within the elected house' will not be partyless, at all? The parties, at present, maintain their power by concerted action. Although trade unions are the easiest example to cite, they are not the sole operators of "get out the vote" machines. There can be little doubt they will use the same mechanisms to get their partisans to express their views and vote in the proposed method, just as they do now. It is true that the lay citizen has the option of expressing his view and voting, but will he? When he goes to the site and sees it flooded with partisan comments and a heavy one-sided vote, will he not feel just as ineffective as he does now?

PVR:
The common man will increasingly find that the views expressed by him matters politically through the True Democracy platform. Initially it will be an uphill task when it is free for all. But once the platform proves itself by enabling candidates with true democratic spirit to get elected, then the political parties will be on the defensive. Till such time the members elected on the True Democracy platform outnumber those who are bound to political parties, views of every kind have to be met with both outside and within the elected house. A clear vision and a sound strategy would ensure the success of the platform.

Fred:
5) The method envisions continuation of 'rule by representatives' until it can be tapered down to the extent possible. During this tapering down period, would we not be best served by public officials with integrity and good judgment?

PVR:
This is the last stage and the collective will of the people expressed through the representatives will decide it. As you have said previously if the representatives truly reflect the will of the people then this stage may not be needed at all. Regarding public officials with integrity and good judgement, they will increasingly come into service once the representatives are elected in a truly democratic manner. Public officials in most of the present day democracies are probably recruited by a Public Service Commission independent of the electoral process (correct me if I am wrong). The quality of these officials will improve once the 'political interference into the bureaucracy' is on the wane through True Democracy.

Fred:
Dealing with the fact that ideologies and political philosophies are natural for the human mind is the entire purpose of the troika method. Our goal is a government that represents the will of the people and serves the public interest. Ideologies and political philosophies are, by definition, the opposite of that. They represent what someone proclaims is best for the people. Such proclamations are never devoid of self-interest and are only good for the subset of the public that the ideology or political philosophy represents. Our purpose is to de-emphasize (not eliminate) ideology and emphasize the public interest.

PVR:
You are right. However allowing the political parties outside the elected house gives every group to express its view. And it is the natural tendency of people with the same views to group together. The 'mechanism of partyless governance within the elected house' ensures that such grouping remains functional only outside the elected house. It is true that political groups can exist outside the elected house even in the troika system.

Fred:
The troika method sets ideologies and political philosophies face to face in very small groups where they must persuade (not coerce) two other people (who also seek selection) that their view of the public welfare is better than that espoused by others, and they must do that ... not once ... but repeatedly. This process insures, not only that those who are selected are persuasive, but that they are able to present a rational basis for their selection. This is not a matter of swaying a crowd of people with glibness and inflaming public passion, it is a matter of explaining the value of one's point of view in a compelling manner ... so compelling that even those who also seek the same position accept the presentation.

PVR:
The same qualities of rational thinking and sober persuasion will be favoured by the 'partyless mechanism within the elected house' and ensure that the representative with true democratic spirit makes himself heard within the elected house; again the same qualities will be needed for him to move up the political ladder. Since there is no legal necessity to fall in line with any political party and all are independents, only positive qualities will be rewarded both by the voters as well as other members within the house.

Fred:
All I can say in its (Troika system) defense is that it is simple, it eliminates political campaigning, it eliminates the cost of campaigning (and the power that goes to those who finance the campaigns), it eliminates the atmosphere of cheating, lying and obfuscation that characterize politics (in America), and it makes integrity an important trait for those who wish selection to public office.

PVR:
Since in the fully evolved 'Partyless Mechanism within the elected house' the political parties will be officially banned from election campaigns and all contestants will be independents, the advantages you have cited for the Troika system above are also applicable here. The political campaign will be business like and can be state sponsored in toto.

The Troika system will be especially useful to elect the leader of the house after the step 3 becomes a reality (in the fully evolved 'Partyless Mechanism within the elected house'). When all the elected members are independents, equals and aspiring to move up the political ladder, randomly dividing them into groups of threes and then proceeding further as you have explained, would throw up a leader and those closest to become a leader. I am not sure of the presidential system as in the US but in the parliamentary system as in Britain, the PM and the ministers can be conveniently elected in a truly democratic way by the Troika system.

With Regards,

PVR

Although it is not Direct Democracy (definitely not at the first sight), this is a very interesting proposal how to improve representative democracy. What about trying it first in small communities, or small organizations to get an idea how it is working, and whether it gives a better results than the standard election approaches.

If you think about it, this troika method is actually quite similar to the combination of the Decentralization and Federation principles of the anarchist "ten commandments" recently discussed elsewhere in this Forum ( [www.world-wide-democracy.net] ).

Couldn't a modification of it be also used directly for decision making on the most important issues? The basic citizen group could have a larger size than 3, perhaps around 10. This is still a small enough size when people (neighbours) could meet in person, discuss an issue, and make a decision on it. Then select one representative who would defend their decision at the meeting of 10 representatives of 10 basic citizen groups. These representatives would try to arrive at the common position on the issue of all 100 citizens. If necessary, they could come back to the basic groups to get approval for a compromise decision. Then one would continue to higher levels in a similar way (Fred's New Jersey example would require only about 6 levels if the group size would be increased from 3 to 10).

mk, [democracy.mkolar.org]

Good Afternoon, PVR

Thank you for your excellent description. It helped me grasp the pragmatic aspect of your proposal ... it can be accomplished with tools currently at our disposal ... a critically important point.

re: "The views expressed will be on the True Democracy platform. Since everyone is free to express his/her will, the voice of common people has much greater chance of being heard on the True Democracy platform. This will be especially so once it is increasingly known that such a platform is available to the ordinary citizen."

While I have concerns about your proposal, they are secondary to the basic premise: A method of empowering the public ... NOW!! We don't need perfection, we need a sound platform for change. I am reminded of an excellent passage in "The Tragedy of the Commons", Garrett Hardin, Science, 162(1968):1243-1248:

"It is one of the peculiarities of the warfare between reform and the status quo that it is thoughtlessly governed by a double standard. Whenever a reform measure is proposed it is often defeated when its opponents triumphantly discover a flaw in it. As Kingsley Davis has pointed out, worshipers of the status quo sometimes imply that no reform is possible without unanimous agreement, an implication contrary to historical fact. As nearly as I can make out, automatic rejection of proposed reforms is based on one of two unconscious assumptions: (1) that the status quo is perfect; or (2) that the choice we face is between reform and no action; if the proposed reform is imperfect, we presumably should take no action at all, while we wait for a perfect proposal."

Your proposal may not be perfect, but it's way ahead of whatever's in second place.

It seems likely the process will initially take root in a relatively small community. When the people of a town are able to influence the outcome of a contentious local issue, their fellow-citizens will be anxious to participate, as well. Once a level of success is achieved in one community, the mechanism will spread (See NEXUS, Small Worlds and the groundbreaking Theory of Networks by Mark Buchanan, W. W. Norton & Co., NY)

You have outlined an essential (first) step on the road to true democracy. The step does not put us in paradise, but it cracks the door a bit ... and it can be accomplished promptly by any community, as soon as the internet facilities are available.

I gather you feel WDDM should create a mechanism similar to the Roy Baine's [www.myverdict.net] site you mentioned in an earlier post. I must ask whether it would wise to implement the process at that site rather than re-inventing the wheel. It is well laid out for public participation on issues of local interest but has not, so far, attracted broad notice. If we wish to attain true democracy, wouldn't we be better served by finding a way to align ourselves with others with similar interests? Fragmentation of effort is a greater threat than public apathy.

(I must break away now, but will continue my response to you and also respond to mkolar as quickly as I can.)

Fred

Good Morning, PVR

May I ask you to reconsider your assertion, "Since ... the political parties will be officially banned from election campaigns ... "?

You and I agree partisanship is a normal human condition. As you said, "... it is the natural tendency of people with the same views to group together." That's why it would be a serious mistake to ban political parties (I understand your reference was to banning them from the legislature, but such attitudes transcend physical limits.)

The issue is not the banning of parties but learning to counter their mindlessness. If we are to improve our society, we must learn to harness human nature, not deny it.

I'm in a quandary about how to respond to the parts of your post that outline your expectations after the initial success of your proposal (that we both anticipate). I fear you seriously underestimate the power parties and vested interests will wield to influence the public, as soon as they feel their dominant position is threatened. However, views concerning what will transpire after the (anticipated, but not proven) initial success are speculative. There may be value in examining them, but the risk of diverting attention from your basic premise is too great to justify doing so.

Our primary goal must be implementation of your basic premise, as quickly as possible.

Fred

Good Morning, mk

I heartily support your suggestion of trying the troika method in small communities or organizations. I've wondered how academics would test such a concept but keep stumbling over the fact that the environment needs to offer the potential for corruption.

I'm not familiar with "the Decentralization and Federation principles" you mention. After I post this, I plan to look for the discussion you mentioned.

You ask if the process could be "used directly for decision making on the most important issues". I believe that possibility is inherent in the design. As I said in an earlier post:

"The process is inherently bi-directional. Because each elected official sits atop a pyramid of known electors, questions on specific issues can easily be transmitted directly to and from the electors for the guidance or instruction of the official."

The question of group size is interesting. Obviously, the final structure will be set by those who implement the concept. However, I'd like to give you my rationale for recommending very small groups:

In a pyramiding process of the type under discussion, it is reasonable to think that active seekers of public office will succeed more frequently than passive ones. Thus, after several iterations of the process, we can anticipate that each member of a triad will be a person seeking public office. Under such circumstances, the art of persuasion assumes mounting importance. Those making the selection want desirable qualities in the person they choose. Those seeking selection must persuade their peers they possess the qualities sought.

Whatever other qualities a person seeking office will have, we can assert with considerable confidence that two of them will be a desire for public office and persuasiveness. Our method of selecting public officials uses these traits; all three want the same thing and can only attain it by persuading the others to select them.

When persuasion occurs between two people, it takes place as a dialogue with one person attempting to persuade the other. In such events, both parties are free to participate in the process. The person to be persuaded can question the persuader as to specific points and present alternative points about the topic under discussion. In such circumstances, it is possible that the persuader will become the persuaded.

When persuasion involves multiple people, it occurs more as a monologue with one person attempting to persuade the others. The transition from dialogue to monologue accelerates as the number of people to be persuaded increases. The larger the number of people, the less free they are to participate in the process. As the number of people to be persuaded grows, the individuals among them are progressively less able to participate in the process. They can not question the persuader as to specific points or present alternative points about the topic under discussion. In such circumstances, it is unlikely that the persuader will become the persuaded.

Viewed in this light, we can say that when selecting public officials, a system that encourages dialogue is preferable to one which relies on a monologue. Discussion can best be encouraged by having fewer people in the "session of persuasion". Because the need for a definitive decision implies an odd-number group size, I believe the best group size to encourage active involvement by all participants is three.

Fred

Footnote: I would like to thank the WDDM webmaster for calling attention to my suggestion. flg

Excellent article. I must take issue with the phrase 'partisanship is healthy'
Surely in a direct democracy, individualism is what we seek. In thought, in decision making,in resposibility. Direct democracy entails policy making as a direct result of the majority opinion on an issue and the accepatance of responsibility for the consequences of that policy. When a group of people agree on any issue, there is a natural partisanship, but only on that issue. Said group may have wildly differing opinions on another issue. That's the thing about the technology we have today, you can actually easily gather everybodys' opinion on every single issue. It would be helpful if governments, and media outlets were a bit more ready to publicise the fact.

Dear Fred,
You have asked the question about banning political parties within the house and during election campaigns as described by me. This seems to be a difficult thing to understand for many. Let us say that the step 3 has been reached in the strategy I had described and most of the members within the elected house are either independents or members belonging to political parties that support the True Democracy concept (the final picture). Left as such, even though the members were elected with the support of the True Democracy platform and are free to act as independents (as per their solemn resolve made while joining the platform), they would still tend to act as a group if their political identity remains within the house, pushing their own conscience to the background. Groupism would remain in the house and this would impair their task of being true representatives of those who voted for them in the first place.

Hence even though members may be affiliated to a political party outside the house (and thus having freedom of association), inside the house to be truly independent, political parties need to be non-functional. This is not asking for too much as it appears on first sight. It is a fact that in secular states, members within a elected house belong to different religious faiths. Yet within the house, religion plays no role in the deliberations of the members. The same can happen in the case of political parties.

If political parties are to be kept non-functional within the house by law then for this to be truly meaningful, they need to be banned during election campaign also as otherwise the candidate, if elected, would be morally obliged to act on behalf of the political party that supported him during the election campaign. Thus even though a candidate may be affiliated to a political party which supports the True Democracy platform, he would have to take care of his election campaign without the party's support. This is necessary if he is to be truly representative of his people. A state funded election campaign would be possible under such circumstances.

This crucial step 3 scenario would be the pivot on which a conscience-based political system would rest. This has to be aimed at right from the start if all our plans for True Democracy is to be credible and infuse confidence among the people to support and join the True Democracy platform.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2007 12:04AM by PVR.

Good Morning, mk

As promised, I read the material on the "Anarchism and Direct Democracy" forum you mentioned. If you saw a similarity between a method of selecting our representatives FROM the people rather than FOR the people and elements of anarchy, I suspect it's because in the realm of political thought some themes are inescapably common.

Nevertheless, I'm glad I went there because it reminded me of my antipathy for the mindlessness of political sects. Under the circumstances, it might be important to offer a little insight into why I put so much thought into raising better people to positions of leadership in our government.

I'm 78 years old. I've read and heard about all manner of schemes "to make the world safe for democracy" and seen more "-isms" than I can count ... capitalism, fascism, anarchism, socialism, feminism, communism. Every single one of them is a search for power. Not one is concerned with providing better government for the people.

Among the things I learned as I watched the gradual degradation of my homeland is that no government can be better than the people who lead it. Morality is a top-down phenomenon; it flows downward from our leaders. Until we learn to select the best of our people as our leaders ... rather than the most base, as we do now ... our society can not improve.

Instead of looking for a doctrine that might create a better world for the humans among us, I started pondering why bad things happened in my country. Slowly, very slowly, I came to understand that bad things happen because the people we entrust with our government are not trustworthy. Thereafter, and even more slowly, I considered methods of finding trustworthy people for positions of leadership in our government.

You may or may not agree with my conclusions, but you can be sure they are not in service of any doctrine except the selection of better people to be our public servants.

Fred

Good Morning, RoyDaine (properly spelled, I trust)

Is it possible you'd have found the phrase 'partisanship is healthy' less offensive if you'd read the full text on the topic? The PARTISANSHIP section concluded by pointing out that:

"Partisanship is a vital part of society ... provided it is always a voice and never a power. The danger is not in partisanship, it is in allowing partisans to control government.

I believe partisanship is healthy because it is a human trait. It is better accepted than restrained. I see no reason why partisanship and individualism should be mutually exclusive. As you point out, partisanship tends to be issue based. With the free flow of ideas, some individuals opt for one side of an issue, some for another, some do not participate, and some form divergent views. Those who align themselves on one side of an issue tend to reinforce themselves, filling in tiny gaps in each other's understanding. In that sense, they broaden each other's view.

You may see that as unhealthy. I don't. It was by precisely this method I learned, slowly, that my views could be used to serve a more pragmatic, though less idealistic, goal (that I did not support).

As far as individuality is concerned, I'm a huge champion of it. Among the many horrors we've endured in recent years is the suppression of individuality. It has become impossible to get an honest answer to a question. Corporations refuse to acknowledge their errors ... they try to correct them, but they never admit they exist. The most obvious, although not the most serious example, is in major sports where participants attend classes to learn how to evade questions. The result is a neverending restatement of platitudes.

Although I've signed up on your "myverdict" site and think it a powerful concept, I'm less sanguine than you about the prospects for direct democracy.

Achieving direct democracy is not a simple matter. I doubt that the potential for rabble-rousing is any less significant on the internet than it proved to be with other forms of mass communication. It is a topic that deserves careful analysis.

Fred

Hi Fred,
I am not in the least offended by anything in any of your posts, my 'issue' regarding partisanship was the context in which it was used.

'Political parties are grounded in partisanship. Partisanship is natural for humans. We seek out and align ourselves with others who share our views. Through them, we hone our ideas and gain courage from the knowledge that we are not alone in our beliefs. Partisanship gives breadth, depth and volume to our voice. In and of itself, partisanship is not only inevitable, it is healthy.'

The paragraph appears to promote political parties on the basis that partisanship is healthy. Yet parties are riven with disagreement and generally campaign on only a few general issues.
I cannot reconcile party politics with direct democracy. It puts the party and the politicians in power, rather than the people. I tried in my earlier reply to agree with partisanship when it was confined to single issues. Otherwise you have a party.

Having perused many DD sites, I can see there is a great deal of debate about platforms and the exact form that DD should take. For what it's worth I'll give you my take on things.

We obviously cannot all talk at once in a parliament building. Therefore we need representatives. I think all representatives should be independant.
If they are to truly represent us, then they need to know what we think.
The technology exists to find out what everybody thinks and for all who wish to participate, to explore all angles of the issue in question. Once a majority opinion is found, of those wishing to participate, then the representative should be obliged to support and argue that position with other representatives. The issue may have to be taken back to the people if new peruasive arguments are found at this stage. Otherwise a vote of the representatives will ensure that policy/law is made according to the majority opinion of the electorate. I suggest a majority should be 75% of the participating votes.

I've noticed you're reference to myverdict.net. Thank you for that. Within the next two weeks there will be general discussion boards at the site. I hope it will generate the calibre of discussion I have seen here.
Regards
Roy

PS to my last.

Sanguine? I'm embarrassed to say I had to look up the definition. I'm not too sure if I'm 'cheerily confident', 'optimistic' or 'Ruddy faced', 'Of a healthy reddish colour'.

I was quite moved by the way, by your last post in answer to Mirek.

Hi all, good discussion.

I agree that "groups" factions will always be present. As to "Party's" I also agree they are destructive. But, I do not believe it is the fact that they are party's but the fact they have POWER. Their power is in their ability to "sell" their support to lobbyists, than "promote" members of their party to be elected. If party's were restricted in matters of money, they would have little power. Than they would simply be groups of like minded people. If "Clean Elections" were sponsored by the public, and if "adds" were also provided by the public instead of the wealthiest being able to media us to death, that would also even things out. The US has "licensed" media and could legislate that these licensed media provide a given amount of time for political adds. Once a person was "approved" by a majority of citizens, (I&BR) they would be eligible for money and adds provided by the public.

Many States are adopting "Clean Elections".

Common Cause was the leading advocate in the successful fight for public financing of presidential campaigns and has worked for public financing of congressional campaigns for many years. At the state level, Common Cause is a strong supporter of clean elections systems in Maine and Arizona, worked to successfully pass clean elections in Connecticut and is working with other organizations to pass similar reforms in other states, including California and Maryland. Common Cause has been a leader in passing reforms at the municipal level, including New York City, Los Angeles, and other cities.

Common Cause led the fight to ban soft money, the huge, unlimited campaign contributions that were undermining the federal system of public financing and contribution limits. In 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was enacted and a year later an historic U.S. Supreme Court decision, McConnell v. FEC, upheld the law. Initial studies show that the law has effectively banned soft money and pushed political parties and candidates to seek small donations from a broad base of contributors, broadening the participation of average citizens in campaigns. [www.commoncause.org]

Bruce Eggum Wisconsin USA
www.doinggovernment.com

With reference to parties. A party, to be able to gather support, must take a stance on a range of issues and must gain power in order to represent that stance. If said party were to change that stance, once in power, they would be seen to have betrayed their supporters. They are thus virtually unable to represent any other point of view, however meritorious it may be. They are obligated to serve the party rather than the people. That's why Britain is at war.

With regard to funding. On the face of it, any funding seems a bad idea. I haven't researched this enough to give a coherent proposal.
I personally, would have liked to see some of the money so far wasted in the UK on government computer schemes, put into something like myverdict.net. I don't say that because it's my site, but because I can see how it could have easily been established, long ago, with levels right down to individual street level if they wanted. The government has all the necessary data already. They could have spent ten years trialling it, to see how the population responded. We could have been having these discussions on the 'official' site, with our representatives joining in.
Breaks your heart, don't it.
Roy

Good Afternoon, PVR

I regret I cannot agree with your expectation for how Step 3 will transpire.

You advocate a "conscience-based political system" and suggest it will evolve naturally through development of the True Democracy concept. My experience, on the other hand, indicates that conscience is a flexible attribute. Its exercise depends on the circumstances in which it is tested. You may well say the same thing applies to integrity ... and I would agree ... which is why the troika approach subjects candidates to careful, repeated character evaluations by people with a vital interest in finding any lapses in the candidate. It's not perfect, but it's better than taking the people we must trust on faith.

Still, both our opinions are conjecture. It may be that part of the difference in our views stems from our vision of the nature of goodness. Some years ago, I wrote a letter to a friend on the subject and learned, during the course of writing it, why leaders must be kept on a short leash. I believe the rationale bears on our discussion and would like to post it. May I?

Fred

Dear Fred,
No system can be perfect. But a system can be considered to be closest to ideal when there is least chance for error (going astray) and when it is practicable. Members within the elected house when they are not bound to political parties and when they are constantly watched by the people who elected them (and recalled if needed) and where they have to use all their positive qualities to fulfil the job for which they were elected, are most likely to obey their conscience. Simply because the conditions are favourable for only such a course of action. Thus the system taps the best out of human nature.

PVR

Good Morning, Roy

re: "The paragraph appears to promote political parties on the basis that partisanship is healthy."

Oh, my goodness. How miserably I've failed.

The entire purpose of my comments on political parties (the source of the "partisanship is healthy" quote) was to show the danger inherent in a healthy human trait; a trait that has been exploited to produce ...

"Political parties, (which) in their omnivorous quest for power have, during my lifetime, gone a long way toward destroying the greatness of my homeland.

I'm sorry my purpose was obscured. Perhaps I'm too verbose. In an attempt to provide a basis for my opinion, it appears I've confused my readers. I fear few people read as slowly as I write. Maybe Evelyn Wood was too successful? (Evelyn Wood taught speed-reading ... how not to enjoy Shakespeare.) In any case, we're in agreement, for I can't reconcile party politics with any form of democracy.

Re: "I think all representatives should be independant."

I agree, but doesn't this raise the question of how we find independent representatives? Currently, we wait until someone says, "I want to represent you." and tries to persuade us why they are better than any others "standing for election".

This method requires campaigning, campaigning requires money, and money is the root of corruption. We've been partaking the bitter fruit of this process long enough to understand that it elevates the worst of us to positions of leadership. We have the means to devise a better method and it is time for us to do so. I've suggested one possibility. Surely there are others.

Ohhhh, I say, Ruddy-Cheeks. Thanks for your kind words about that post. How can we condense the ideas expressed there into simple precepts? I have an idea about this that I may present when it seems appropriate.

And, yes, Roy, it is heart-breaking that our governments are slow to change. I suspect that's a characteristic of huge entities. On the brighter side, you are furnishing the proving ground for a better way of identifying the public interest.

Fred

Good Morning, Bruce

We have at least four people who agree with some version of the idea that parties are anti-democratic (you, PVR, Roy Daine and myself). That leads me to ask if something would be possible, even though I haven't a clue about how it can be done.

Is there a way to develop a set of precepts and make them readily available for modification and reference?

THE RATIONALE
Although the four of us (and, possibly, many more) agree that parties are anti-democratic, our agreement gets lost in the tons of verbiage that surround the expression of our view and the responses to it. Others, who come later to the discussion, must dig through the verbiage to get the sense of each poster's position.

Each of us expressed our views in different ways even though (I believe) we all meant the same thing. If we had the means to present (what we believe to be) a sound precept and others could edit our presentation to refine it by making it crisper or more complete, we would, in time, build a set of important ideas. The person who edits an entry should descibe the reason for making the change, and the set of reasons should be available to anyone interested in accepting or challenging the precept.

Such a mechanism might become too confrontational. Still, it would be nice if we could refine any conclusions we reach. Can someone suggest a less ponderous method?

Re: "Clean Elections"
I do not (as yet) support public funding for campaigns. As far as I can see, it simply reduces the costs borne by the parties and gives them more money to manipulate the public and our government.

The attempt to ban of soft money sounds good, too, but the money is simply moved from party coffers to Political Action Committees where it is used to the same effect. We need to recognize that, as long as we allow campaign-based politics, the corruptible power of money will continue to dominate politics. Changing the source won't change the result, because the concept of campaigning is fundamentally flawed, and ...

We can not legislate morality!

Contradictory as it may sound, I support Common Cause in its effort to clean up the political infrastructure in the United States. They are doing something NOW, while I merely ponder the problems and possible solutions.

Fred

Well, if "the people" made a job description of the position and asked for candidates, they would have the people "willing" to take office and "take an oath of office".

Than the candidates could be evaluated like a employer (the people are employer).

All this would be public information for the electorate to consider.

Of course to make a job description, the people must make a plan of what is to be done. IE Diplomacy, Foreign Affairs, Health, Education, other welfare matters, road and utility matters etc. etc.

If "we" have the responsibility, we must accept the responsibility and initiate what needs to be done.

This is a huge amount of work !!! The people could delegate some of these matters to researchers NGO's etc. after the people approved their own budget.
ATB Bruce

Bruce Eggum Wisconsin USA
www.doinggovernment.com

Hi Everybody,this is to all.
A couple of days ago, while perusing the state of play regarding DD at various sites, I came once again to WDDM. The quality of the articles and replies made me want to contribute to the discussions. It is obvious that you have all put a great deal of thought and effort into them over a long period of time in order to try and come up with specific methods to implement DD.
My responses to articles, were an attempt to clarify or point out apparent contradictions in the posts.
It is clear to me, that had I taken the time to read everything from the beginning, I might have better understood. I'm glad I made the attempt, because the replies to my posts and ongoing debate helped clarify things for me. I love it when I'm forced to reconsider my position.
While saying that, people browsing the site, may jump to wrong conclusions, if they only skim the surface.I think a lot of people might be in favour of DD, without wanting to get involved with the intricacies of actually setting up the process.

You will all know that I set up and run myverdict.net. The next part of the site will be a 'county page'. Each 'county page', be it Shawano County, Wisconsin, or Merseyside, England, will run articles, with comments, in various categories as well as forums in each. All input will be from the user, anybody will be able to post articles and there will be no levels of user. There will obviously be links back to the voting part of the site for those wishing put questions to a vote. I think the more people that are attracted to interact with the site, the more may be persuaded to partake in DD.
I would be honoured if you all would consider contributing, inserting appropriate links to WDDM for those wishing to discuss the implementation part. In addition, I would value your comments as to whether you think this a good or bad idea. Any suggestions as to what you might want to see at the site would also be welcome.
I intend to seed each county page with one question and would like your help in writing it.
Basically along the lines of :-
'We the people demand that we are consulted on every issue'.

Should anybody consider this post inappropriate for WDDM,please tell me and I'll never mention myverdict.net again. I only felt free to do so, as others had mentioned it first.
Regards
Roy

Fred,
re: "The paragraph appears to promote political parties on the basis that partisanship is healthy."

The operative word here is 'appears'. I'm afraid I'm probably guilty of speed reading. Although I read a post through a couple of times before I reply, there is always a general feel to a post. Some things then stand out as 'apparently' contradictory or out of place according to the general feel.
There's such a lot of intricate detail in these posts that's not always easy to grasp at first glance.
Verbose? I think we all are in our efforts to properly explain our ideas. Still, we've got to rpactise somewhere.
Roy

Dear Roy,
Your myverdict.net is priceless. WDDM needs to link it in a very conspicuous place. Now, we need to do a bit of work on WDDM Infrastructure and you as members are heartily invited to participate. WDDM is an organization which has not defined itself, has not really decided the exact nature of it's purpose. The original intent was lost in many misunderstood email conversations where people of different country's interpreted words differently etc.

Now I am off the subject, but to post links it should be done by the community not one person. But we have no "policy" on it.

So Mirek if you are "listening" I propose that myverdict be linked in a prominent place with appropriate explanation of what it is and encourage all to find their own country, state, county, residence and post there. This Initiative should be brought to the WDDM Board so they could approve it. Oh, so I must write and submit an Initiative :>
process, process, process ---- where is the process? Charter?

How much room do you have Roy? I was thinking to make a US site but no sense to duplicate if we can all post to myverdict. You would eventually need a computer server the size of the Empire State building !!!????

Please advise Roy the extent we can use myverdict.

Perhaps that is why few are logging in, they may see it as a huge data base and don't want to clutter it. I thought that wy.

If the US can "use" it I will "sell" it all over the world hehehehe or at least as far as I can reach. The EU could really use myverdict, they could write a real EU Constitution there. The present corporation run EU is a danger to the whole world.

This posting is very appropriate. Please don't concern yourself with judging your posts. WE will do that LOL
ATB Bruce

Bruce Eggum Wisconsin USA
www.doinggovernment.com

Dear Bruce,
I'm stunned. I wasn't trying to get a link to myverdict.net, rather I was suggesting that any articles posted there could contain links back here.

However, if you're considering using myverdict as a base for these types of intricate discussions on general principals of DD, then I can set something up as a sub-domain. All the space you want. I could have a sub-domain for each country.

If you have ideas on the set up you'd like, rather than using an existing format such as a BB or a blog, I should be able to accomplish it.
A bit further along the road, I see no reason why countries that are participating should not have 'categories' that go down to the lowest administrative division.

Also if you have any suggestions or criticisms on the site in general or it's usability, let me know. It's easier to re-design now, before the expansion, rather than later on. I want to start within the next few days so get the digs in quick.
Regards
Roy

For now we have a link to myverdict.net in the links section: mere two clicks from the front page - just click on 'links' in the header, and then on 'Other global DD resources" at the bottom. This may change as the front page will definitely be redesigned. I think that we have to decide first on a list of all important links that will be placed directly on the front page.

webmaster



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2007 09:13PM by WddmAdmin.

Dear ADMIN - is ADMIN elected? When? By Who? Who is the administrator?
The TITLE ADMIN gives you some power over us regular folk. Like your comments are from the President. Is your name BUSH?

As previously stated re the whole Sen Gravel for president business, we need a "front page" which has some real information on it. I suggested a front page which looks like a greeting with some links to meaningful sites picked by WDDM members and Gravel would have been appropriate. That all fell through.

We can not sanction or endorse any site or candidate but we can choose to post appropriate links. This was never done, and Sen Gravels DD Initiative is not prominently displayed by WDDM. That is also what is needed with this my verdict site.

To expect people to follow links to links to links is a bit much. It is difficult to find members pages as well. One page with categories may help a bit. Yes I know there is one, but to find it takes much time and lots of luck. I suspect most of the members do not know it exists. Categorizes could be on our front welcome page, a banner on the left side.

There was a brief query for someone to "make a page" but that was lost with other "ideas"
I suggest we have a page of "Initiatives" and needed help descriptions so people could volunteer. I think others believe the management owns WDDM and nobody messes with it.
This is of course a false idea, but lacking any discussion it persists. We need to speak specifically of what we need for this WDDM community. Direct Democracy? If people can not speak directly for fear of "the powers descending on them" than we have become a dandy mess.

I hope I do not sound angry because I am not. I am however perturbed that it is increasingly difficult to process any needed change to WDDM. Part of the problem is the Charter which was modified with such tight rules, even the WDDM Board can not make a decision on it's own.
Democracy requires the people to actively participate. If none or only a few do there is no democracy.

Bruce

Bruce Eggum Wisconsin USA
www.doinggovernment.com