<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>WDDM Forum</title>
    <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/index.php</link>
    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>EN</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 22:13:57 -0400</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 22:13:57 -0400</lastBuildDate>
    <category>WDDM Forum</category>
    <generator>Phorum 5.1.10</generator>
    <ttl>600</ttl>
    <item>
      <title>[Unclassified comments] Some recent releases on Direct Democracy</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?17,934,934#msg-934</link>
      <author>mantell</author>
      <description><![CDATA[May I mention a few useful recent releases on direct democracy?

- 1.  Mike Gravel calls for a new DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 2008.  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdzmP9psPcU  
In this professionally produced YouTube speech Mike puts forward a gripping, and yet logical explanation why we need DD in the US.
  
A little more background on Mike: Mike is a shining light in the direct democracy (DD) movement.  His central call for over a decade has been for a National Initiative For Democracy (NI4D).  He has got political creds.  He was the US senator back in the 70's who released the entire ‘Pentagon Papers,’ a document which showed how information on the War in Vietnam had been doctored, spun, or created to support the war effort.  Recently he ran shoestring, but real, campaigns for the Democratic Party nomination and then the Libertarian Party nomination for President.  

- 2.  The Center for Governmental Studies has released DEMOCRACY BY INITIATIVE, a review of the history and experience of DD in California.  Most excitingly DEMOCRACY BY INITIATIVE provides excellent suggestions on how the existing DD process can be improved with a heavy emphasis on ...... deliberation!   Advocates of direct democracy should read this book.  No excuses!  It’s free on the internet  from the CGS site: 
www.cgs.org

- 3.  Finally, I direct your attention to, DIRECT DEMOCRACY: FACTS, ARGUMENTS AND EXPERIENCES ON THE INTRODUCTION OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, by Verhulst and Nijeboer.  This book has a worldwide perspective on DD.  It is perhaps most exciting in its discussion of the underlying philosophy of DD.  This is a useful read.  Again, no excuses.  It’s free @ http://democracy-international.org/book-direct-democracy.html

Mark Antell, editor
CitizenPowerMagazine.net]]></description>
      <category>Unclassified comments</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?17,934,934#msg-934</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 22:13:57 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Announcements] An interesting development? Possibly</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?6,933,933#msg-933</link>
      <author>RoyDaine</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Hi All,

Many of you have read Fred Gohlke's 'troika' method of selecting candidates for office.

We are working on a version, which we have re-named and amended to suit the real world. It is my intention to ask my local council to consider it and possibly trial it in my local ward.

It requires no adjustment to any laws and can be trialled alongside the existing system.

When we have completed the document, it will be published online, with links to any relevant council sites, so that anyone interested may follow the procedure.

Regards

Roy]]></description>
      <category>Announcements</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?6,933,933#msg-933</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:17:45 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Proposals and Initiatives] Re: DD Constitutions</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,863,932#msg-932</link>
      <author>RoyDaine</author>
      <description><![CDATA[A final note on majorities.

I am now entirely convinced of the rightness, in all instances, of an absolute majority. 50% + 1.

This is due to my realisation of what democracy is all about.

'Democracy is government by the people, either directly or through elected representatives. Its nature is, that the will of the majority has power of decision. In a stable democracy, the minority has a duty to accept the will of the majority.'

It is my intention to always consider this, in any future discussion of a political nature.

Regards to all

Roy]]></description>
      <category>Proposals and Initiatives</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,863,932#msg-932</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:53:23 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Proposals and Initiatives] Re: Helping to realise DD</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,930,931#msg-931</link>
      <author>PVR</author>
      <description><![CDATA[I second this idea. I would suggest that one particular state is chosen and researched thoroughly. 

PVR]]></description>
      <category>Proposals and Initiatives</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,930,931#msg-931</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2008 07:36:54 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Proposals and Initiatives] Helping to realise DD</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,930,930#msg-930</link>
      <author>RoyDaine</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Hi All,

I've been pondering on democracy.
  
What is a democracy - From a dictionary I find -
 
&quot;government by the people; especially : rule of the majority. b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.&quot;
 
What is its nature - 
 
In a stable democracy, the majority has the power of decision. Minorities have a duty to accept the majority decision.
(I paraphrase Thomas Jefferson)

I would assume that most members here are proponents of Direct Democracy.

It seems to me that the introduction of Initiative, Referendum and Recall, in any society, give the people the means to affect decision-making in their communities and to implement further enhancements in their governance.

We know the Swiss have such a system, as do about 28 states of the US, in some form or other.

Could it be a project/goal of WDDM, to research how and when I,R&amp;R was implemented in these communities and who was responsible for amending their constitutions.

We could further research the feelings of these communities, before and after implementation of I,R&amp;R.

My point here, is that we have existing, recent models, that we could describe in detail, for the benefit of communities who wish to find a way of integrating any parts of DD into their systems.

A project such as this avoids the need to discuss individual preferences or terminologies or definitions. Everything described would be in context.

WDDM could be saying - Here are some examples of communities, who have some form of DD.

These are the reasons they did it.

This is how they went about it.

This is how they feel about it.

These are some of the things they have achieved.

These have been the disadvantages.

Here are some arguments against DD.

And here is the evidence to support or refute these arguments, using real-world examples of communities that practise some form of DD.

Regards to you all.

Roy]]></description>
      <category>Proposals and Initiatives</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,930,930#msg-930</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2008 18:26:57 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Proposals and Initiatives] Re: Elections</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,809,929#msg-929</link>
      <author>koikaze</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Good Morning, Bruce

What you said was crystal clear.

Fred]]></description>
      <category>Proposals and Initiatives</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,809,929#msg-929</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:13:14 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Glossary] Democracy</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?27,893,928#msg-928</link>
      <author>BrEggum</author>
      <description><![CDATA[I do not intend this to be the end all of definitions however it does consider some of the confusion we have experienced. If you agree or disagree with the three terms of democracy suggested please comment.

Democracy, Direct Democracy, Swiss Democracy

From US INFO STATE GOVERNMENT   http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/whatsdem/whatdm2.htm  is a good definition of various “Democracy”. In the dictionary definition, democracy &quot;is government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.&quot; In the phrase of Abraham Lincoln, democracy is a government &quot;of the people, by the people, and for the people.&quot;

We have had difficulty in defining “direct democracy” however. This article defines it thus: Democracies fall into two basic categories, direct and representative. In a direct democracy, all citizens, without the intermediary of elected or appointed officials, can participate in making public decisions.

This direct democracy is the type found in “Town Meetings” and small groups. 

Swiss democracy is often referred to as “direct democracy” however it is not “direct democracy” by this definition. Swiss democracy uses Initiative and Binding Referendum to provide Representative Democracy over site. 

This seems to have caused confusion in our discussions as some try to discuss or justify “True Democracy” and other terms.

I suggest we need a definitive term when we are talking about Swiss Democracy which is actually over site of Representative democracy. For out continuing discussions I suggest we use the three terms, democracy, direct democracy and Swiss democracy. 

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I include this definition from the US government.

DEMOCRACY
US INFO STATE GOVERNMENT   http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/whatsdem/whatdm2.htm
Government of the People
Democracy may be a word familiar to most, but it is a concept still misunderstood and misused in a time when totalitarian regimes and military dictatorships alike have attempted to claim popular support by pinning democratic labels upon themselves. Yet the power of the democratic idea has also evoked some of history's most profound and moving expressions of human will and intellect: from Pericles in ancient Athens to Vaclav Havel in the modern Czech Republic, from Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence in 1776 to Andrei Sakharov's last speeches in 1989.
In the dictionary definition, democracy &quot;is government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.&quot; In the phrase of Abraham Lincoln, democracy is a government &quot;of the people, by the people, and for the people.&quot;
Freedom and democracy are often used interchangeably, but the two are not synonymous. Democracy is indeed a set of ideas and principles about freedom, but it also consists of a set of practices and procedures that have been molded through a long, often tortuous history. In short, democracy is the institutionalization of freedom. For this reason, it is possible to identify the time-tested fundamentals of constitutional government, human rights, and equality before the law that any society must possess to be properly called democratic.
Democracies fall into two basic categories, direct and representative. In a direct democracy, all citizens, without the intermediary of elected or appointed officials, can participate in making public decisions. Such a system is clearly only practical with relatively small numbers of people--in a community organization or tribal council, for example, or the local unit of a labor union, where members can meet in a single room to discuss issues and arrive at decisions by consensus or majority vote. Ancient Athens, the world's first democracy, managed to practice direct democracy with an assembly that may have numbered as many as 5,000 to 6,000 persons--perhaps the maximum number that can physically gather in one place and practice direct democracy.
Modern society, with its size and complexity, offers few opportunities for direct democracy. Even in the northeastern United States, where the New England town meeting is a hallowed tradition, most communities have grown too large for all the residents to gather in a single location and vote directly on issues that affect their lives.
Today, the most common form of democracy, whether for a town of 50,000 or nations of 50 million, is representative democracy, in which citizens elect officials to make political decisions, formulate laws, and administer programs for the public good. In the name of the people, such officials can deliberate on complex public issues in a thoughtful and systematic manner that requires an investment of time and energy that is often impractical for the vast majority of private citizens.
How such officials are elected can vary enormously. On the national level, for example, legislators can be chosen from districts that each elect a single representative. Alternatively, under a system of proportional representation, each political party is represented in the legislature according to its percentage of the total vote nationwide. Provincial and local elections can mirror these national models, or choose their representatives more informally through group consensus instead of elections. Whatever the method used, public officials in a representative democracy hold office in the name of the people and remain accountable to the people for their actions.
Majority Rule and Minority Rights
All democracies are systems in which citizens freely make political decisions by majority rule. But rule by the majority is not necessarily democratic: No one, for example, would call a system fair or just that permitted 51 percent of the population to oppress the remaining 49 percent in the name of the majority. In a democratic society, majority rule must be coupled with guarantees of individual human rights that, in turn, serve to protect the rights of minorities--whether ethnic, religious, or political, or simply the losers in the debate over a piece of controversial legislation. The rights of minorities do not depend upon the goodwill of the majority and cannot be eliminated by majority vote. The rights of minorities are protected because democratic laws and institutions protect the rights of all citizens.
Diane Ravitch, scholar, author, and a former assistant U.S. secretary of education, wrote in a paper for an educational seminar in Poland: &quot;When a representative democracy operates in accordance with a constitution that limits the powers of the government and guarantees fundamental rights to all citizens, this form of government is a constitutional democracy. In such a society, the majority rules, and the rights of minorities are protected by law and through the institutionalization of law.&quot;
These elements define the fundamental elements of all modern democracies, no matter how varied in history, culture, and economy. Despite their enormous differences as nations and societies, the essential elements of constitutional government--majority rule coupled with individual and minority rights, and the rule of law--can be found in Canada and Costa Rica, France and Botswana, Japan and India.
Democratic Society
Democracy is more than a set of constitutional rules and procedures that determine how a government functions. In a democracy, government is only one element coexisting in a social fabric of many and varied institutions, political parties, organizations, and associations. This diversity is called pluralism, and it assumes that the many organized groups and institutions in a democratic society do not depend upon government for their existence, legitimacy, or authority.
Thousands of private organizations operate in a democratic society, some local, some national. Many of them serve a mediating role between individuals and the complex social and governmental institutions of which they are a part, filling roles not given to the government and offering individuals opportunities to exercise their rights and responsibilities as citizens of a democracy.
These groups represent the interests of their members in a variety of ways--by supporting candidates for public office, debating issues, and trying to influence policy decisions. Through such groups, individuals have an avenue for meaningful participation both in government and in their own communities. The examples are many and varied: charitable organizations and churches, environmental and neighborhood groups, business associations and labor unions.
In an authoritarian society, virtually all such organizations would be controlled, licensed, watched, or otherwise accountable to the government. In a democracy, the powers of the government are, by law, clearly defined and sharply limited. As a result, private organizations are free of government control; on the contrary, many of them lobby the government and seek to hold it accountable for its actions. Other groups, concerned with the arts, the practice of religious faith, scholarly research, or other interests, may choose to have little or no contact with the government at all.
In this busy private realm of democratic society, citizens can explore the possibilities of freedom and the responsibilities of self-government--unpressured by the potentially heavy hand of the state. 
THE PILLARS OF DEMOCRACY
Sovereignty of the people.
Government based upon consent of the governed.
Majority rule.
Minority rights.
Guarantee of basic human rights.
Free and fair elections.
Equality before the law.
Due process of law.
Constitutional limits on government.
Social, economic, and political pluralism.
Values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise.]]></description>
      <category>Glossary</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?27,893,928#msg-928</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 26 Apr 2008 14:43:20 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[How to promote DD?] Re: 5 year dictator</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?5,660,927#msg-927</link>
      <author>BrEggum</author>
      <description><![CDATA[The five changes are a good beginning plan.
I do not understand Africa &quot;states&quot;. Do the communities within Africa have any democratic elections? Is it possible for the electorate, meaning all African citizens, to petition the African government? There is &quot;rumor&quot; that some form of WI-FI or internet is making it's way into Africa. Is this fact and if so how far has this happened? Is it conceivable that in the next 5-10 years that Africa will indeed be connected by cyber - internet?

Thanks for this post. There is a growing Global peoples government initiative and Africa must be included. Who would be interested in developing this link?

Sincerely, Bruce Eggum, Wisconsin, USA]]></description>
      <category>How to promote DD?</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?5,660,927#msg-927</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 26 Apr 2008 04:08:48 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Unclassified comments] Microtargeting us voters</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?17,926,926#msg-926</link>
      <author>BrEggum</author>
      <description><![CDATA[This is downright scary. Manipulating people to vote &quot;their&quot; way. The game is serious, the plot thickens.


        Microtargeters know all about you, and try to push your personal hot button so you'll cast your vote for their candidate.

Well before the party conventions, it's fair to say that technology has made its mark on the 2008 election cycle. Bloggers are at the center of the political conversation, and the Pandora's box of YouTube is an endless source of macacas, ObamaGirls and incendiary pulpit sermons. But within the campaigns themselves, the talk is of a technological advance based on number-crunching, databases, selective surveying and laser-focused voter contact. To political technocrats, 2008 marks the maturation of &quot;microtargeting&quot;—a technique that, if things are as close in November as expected, may well affect who takes the White House.

Microtargeting, as its name implies, is a way to identify small but crucial groups of voters who might be won over to a given side, and which messages would do the trick. It's also a bit scary, because instead of trying to figure out how to direct media and mailings to a fuzzy cohort like &quot;soccer moms,&quot; microtargeters know who you are, and try to push your personal hot button so that you'll choose their candidate.

I got an explanation of how this works from Colin Shearer, a former artificial intelligence scientist who is now a VP of SPSS, named after a software project called the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. His company provides the key tools of what it calls &quot;predictive analytics&quot; (the secret sauce of microtargeting) to commercial concerns and, increasingly, political customers. SPSS's customers include companies you may not have heard of—Strategic Telemetry, Catalist, TargetPoint and Penn, Schoen &amp; Berland—but they are the key consultants for microtargeting efforts of both parties. (Strategic Telemetry is currently working for Obama, Penn for Hillary, Catalist works with the DNC and TargetPoint worked for Mitt Romney but is widely expected to be onboard for McCain in the general election.)

The process involves gathering elaborate information on voters (Alex Lundry, research director of TargetPoint, talks of a &quot;data DNA profile&quot;) that can include public items like party affiliation, ZIP code-based assumptions on income level and housing, and fairly detailed consumer preferences such as which car you drive, where you vacation and which entertainment you prefer. (Yes, that stuff is for sale, enabled greatly by a widespread neglect of those &quot;opt out&quot; checkboxes in the fine print of privacy policies.) That information is augmented by surveys that link those traits and behaviors to attitudes on political and social issues.

Careful analysis can yield counterintuitive opportunities to win votes. In 2004, Republican microtargeting in New Mexico found a strain of education-obsessed Hispanic moms who responded positively to mailings and phone calls touting George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind law. Democrat microtargeters discovered what they called Christian Conservative Environmentalists. Find such people (by data-mining the information), craft a message that resonates with their particular bugaboos, contact them directly, and you may get votes that otherwise would never have found their way into your tally.

In 2008, microtargeting is coming into its own. Not only are the techniques more refined, but the software has been improved and more powerful hardware allows standard laptops to quickly churn out results that previously could be done only with bulkier and slower computers. Databases can be mined more efficiently. As a result, says Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, &quot;this is the first time when campaigns can go beyond directing a mailing to the Hispanic or Jewish community, and instead can figure out what John Smith at 286 Main Street is thinking.&quot;

Rotenberg worries that voters, who have no idea of what campaigns know about them, can be unfairly manipulated. Consider this example from TargetPoint's work for Romney this winter. According to Lundry, Romney voters were strongly represented among &quot;country-club Republicans&quot;—well-off folks who care deeply about financial issues that favor their portfolios. But TargetPoint identified another group, one not quite sold on Romney, but susceptible to a pitch on his economic policies. These were people who didn't make as much money as the country-clubbers, but displayed consumer habits similar to the snob set—drove SUVs, went to the theater, bought natural foods. What's more, says Lundry, &quot;they identified with the politics of those they are emulating.&quot; Calls to those strivers with messages about Romney's tax policies got results.

On the one hand, that's simply efficient communication, matching voters with a candidate who shares a point of view. But seen another way, the Romney camp has sorted out individuals whose striving makes them vulnerable to a pitch that, at least with their current financial status, is at odds with their economic interests. Would they have been as susceptible if the caller informed them why they were the ones receiving the call? According to our data, you're living beyond your means. Wouldn't you like to vote that way, too?

That's troubling, but the real problem with microtargeting isn't its practice, but the way it embodies how overpolled and overcalculated our elections have become. How can a candidate be great if his or her targets are micro?

Source: www.newsweek.com/id/132853
http://www.newsweek.com/id/132853]]></description>
      <category>Unclassified comments</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?17,926,926#msg-926</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:22:51 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Proposals and Initiatives] Re: DD Constitutions</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,863,925#msg-925</link>
      <author>BrEggum</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Dear Roy,

We are plagued by our delusions. I would like to think that all people want to vote. But that ain't the way it is. For whatever reason, we can count on only about 40% of eligible voters voting unless there is a hot issue, than maybe 50%.

So, Missedville with eligible voters numbering 100,000, can expect 40,000 to 50,000 votes in a major election. Some of these people, perhaps 10% [400 - 500] would participate in a recall or initiative referendum. I suggest that these people are most concerned about the community and are unlikely to be swayed by media or bribery. 

The same with your neat site. Not many participate, but more will participate as cyber tools are used. A small percent will be active, but many will come view it. Democracy takes time. If only 40 - 50%  will vote once a year, what percentage will actively participate once a month? Perhaps those choosing to be active really do represent their community, really can make good initiatives, and the community really will vote annually or semiannually to approve or junk those referendums. 

Look at the US and Bush. Violation of the Constitution is surly an impeachable offense, yet no proceedings were done. The people do not have to determine guilt, they only request a trial to determine if Bush was indeed guilty of charges. The people would not even vote to have the trial! Even now with millions killed, the lies exposed, our economy in ruin, our infrastructure shattered, unending war, STILL no major momentum to impeach. Recently I hear 70% think bush is failing, but  there is no strong movement to impeach.

If the recall was wrong, so what? All it does is replace a person with a person.
If a decision to change the Constitution is wrong, so what? 
With 50% + 1 it can be changed back or changed better.

If you make the process so tight, nothing can be changed or fixed.

Bruce]]></description>
      <category>Proposals and Initiatives</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,863,925#msg-925</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:46:40 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Proposals and Initiatives] Re: DD Constitutions</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,863,924#msg-924</link>
      <author>RoyDaine</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Bruce,

We've had this argument before and I agreed with your 51%. I am talking here about two specific instances, for my mythical constitution of Missedville.

1. Forcing the rep to advocate the peoples opinion and

2. Recall

As 51% of constituents still constitutes a far larger vote than those that see reps elected I think I'm almost persuaded again.

Let me think on it overnight.

Roy]]></description>
      <category>Proposals and Initiatives</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,863,924#msg-924</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:59:06 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Proposals and Initiatives] Re: DD Constitutions</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,863,923#msg-923</link>
      <author>BrEggum</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Dear Roy,

You seem to have missed the point. I am generally against super majority decisions. It may be requested on specific issues but not by default.
You say a certain level of trust is necessary regarding representatives, that trust is also necessary for the people. If a  rep does not show up for a vote, likely I don't want that person voting. Same with people. If the person does not show up to vote, I don't want their vote as it indicates they are to absorbed to cast their decision. 

Those of us who do vote, like you and I have likely considered the matter and the majority of us who vote are likely to make good decisions. By maintaining the 50% + 1 we can also change a decision easily. If you make things to tight, people will not be involved. 

Keep your site up Roy, times are changing for the better. Slow but sure.

Bruce]]></description>
      <category>Proposals and Initiatives</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,863,923#msg-923</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:08:10 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Proposals and Initiatives] Re: DD Constitutions</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,863,922#msg-922</link>
      <author>RoyDaine</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Bruce,

You seem to have missed the point.

Decisions would still be taken because legislative power is vested in the council. The people can force their representatives to advocte a specific position if and when they demonstrate an 'overwhelming' majority.
 
We elect representatives to make decisions on our behalf. There must be some measure of trust that they will carry out their duties responsibly. 

The business of governance must be able to continue.

Now, while I'm a firm believer in direct democracy, it is apparent that it would be virtually impossible to get any sort of majority, on any issue, from the people.

They simply, as a whole, can not be bothered. So in the normal case of events, we must let the council get on with its job.

'Enforcement of Advocacy' however, gives the people the power to make the decision, on any issue, where they choose to use it.

The overwhelming requirement is necessary I feel, in order to stop a minority holding an inordinate amount of power.

I refer to previous arguments on majorities.

If a vote is split 50% to 50%, then 1% of the voters have the power. Only 1% need to be persuaded, possibly by underhand means, to vote a certain way.

There is no point in having a small minority hold the power of decision making, we've already elected a representative to do that.

Roy]]></description>
      <category>Proposals and Initiatives</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,863,922#msg-922</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:02:37 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Announcements] Re: WDDM Nuts and Bolts</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?6,867,921#msg-921</link>
      <author>BrEggum</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Perhaps we need to consider a different process for WDDM. We do not have enough active people to &quot;run&quot; this organization in this infrastructure. There  are email member for instance who do not participate, and that is fine. However there needs to be an identified &quot;&quot;core group&quot; who make decisions for this WDDM community. People could volunteer for this core group with the understanding if they were inactive they would be asked to leave the core group, remaining a member in good standing of WDDM.  

Meetings could be held on WDDM Forum. This core group could pay bills, account for expenses and income, plan initiatives to broaden WDDM, develop ways to support WDDM and the Educational, Coorporate, National awareness and participation in DD.

WDDM Core Group Initiative

All those volunteering to join this Core Group please indicate so.

The Core group will meet monthly on Forum to develop an infrastructure for WDDM.

Volunteers:
Bruce Eggum]]></description>
      <category>Announcements</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?6,867,921#msg-921</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:57:09 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Announcements] Re: No Sir, I will not support your candidacy</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?6,872,920#msg-920</link>
      <author>BrEggum</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Appalled for sure. I agree with Mark. This racist, class enforcing, war-ring person is not fit for any political office.
Bruce Eggum]]></description>
      <category>Announcements</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?6,872,920#msg-920</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:19:52 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Announcements] Re: The 'BOOK'</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?6,912,919#msg-919</link>
      <author>BrEggum</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Where is your sand box? I may want to play too.]]></description>
      <category>Announcements</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?6,912,919#msg-919</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:12:07 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Proposals and Initiatives] Re: Initiative changes in Charter Statues #9 and #11</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,843,918#msg-918</link>
      <author>BrEggum</author>
      <description><![CDATA[I ask for seconds on my Initiative located on the forum above.
Do we not have enough active members of WDDM to process present policy?
Bruce Eggum]]></description>
      <category>Proposals and Initiatives</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,843,918#msg-918</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:10:15 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Proposals and Initiatives] Re: The Significance of our efforts for DD</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,906,917#msg-917</link>
      <author>BrEggum</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Direct Democracy is not about the decisions, it is about having the authority to make decisions.

Initiative is the way to introduce a matter, Binding Referendum is the people's decision to implement the matter. 

DD must be at all levels of government. If you have it at local community's but are still ruled by State or National than you may not be able to implement your decisions.

Once DD I&amp;BR is implemented the people have the authority to make decisions. The people will than have to construct the infrastructure of their own jurisdiction to make decisions. That is their responsibility and no one else should or can do it for them. 

Regards, Bruce Eggum]]></description>
      <category>Proposals and Initiatives</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,906,917#msg-917</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:06:47 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Proposals and Initiatives] Re: A definition of DD?</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,810,916#msg-916</link>
      <author>BrEggum</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Mirek said: As PVR suggested, I can easily start another voting to rate various DD definitions, maybe an &quot;open&quot; one this time so people have no problems with forgotten personal voting keys, to accompany this discussion. Again it would be possible to add new alternative definitions.
Can I get at least one more second for this (one more besides PVR)?


I second the votation. I also agree to the open vote. I did not understand the concept of a key at the time.

Perhaps we can now discuss and add new definitions to be considered. I suggest we open a new Direct Democracy Definition thread.

Regards,
Bruce]]></description>
      <category>Proposals and Initiatives</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,810,916#msg-916</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:56:13 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Proposals and Initiatives] Re: DD Constitutions</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,863,915#msg-915</link>
      <author>BrEggum</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Be cautious of &quot;overwhelming majority&quot;. It may be desired but seldom accomplished. This could keep you from any decisions. With I&amp;BR any decision can be changed.
Bruce]]></description>
      <category>Proposals and Initiatives</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,863,915#msg-915</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:41:46 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Proposals and Initiatives] Re: Elections</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,809,914#msg-914</link>
      <author>BrEggum</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Dear Fred, 

Although what I said is condensed, I do not think you understood what I meant. 

&quot;WDDM Forum : Proposals and Initiatives&quot;


&quot;Any member can post here proposals concerning WDDM (its function, mission, goals, organization), gather support (seconds) required by Charter, and if enough support is received, prepare the final wording of the proposal to be voted on.&quot;


WDDM entertains only PROPOSALS CONCERNING WDDM ---- Please note WDDM has no authority to make any decisions for any other group, person, or nation. 


Please continue this discussion Fred, it is important that we understand each other. I believe often it is a problem that we think we know what we heard, but do not know what the other person meant. Thus these clarifications are very important.

Bruce]]></description>
      <category>Proposals and Initiatives</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,809,914#msg-914</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:34:33 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Proposals and Initiatives] Re: Elections</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,809,913#msg-913</link>
      <author>koikaze</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Gosh, Bruce

I've been slow about getting back to you, but posts like yours have cooled my ardor for the site.

May I direct your attention to the top of this page.  If you look carefully, you'll find:

&quot;WDDM Forum : Proposals and Initiatives&quot;

&quot;Any member can post here proposals concerning WDDM (its function, mission, goals, organization), gather support (seconds) required by Charter, and if enough support is received, prepare the final wording of the proposal to be voted on.&quot;

Perhaps you should ask the directors to change the message, since you so strongly disapprove of its purpose and implementation.

Fred]]></description>
      <category>Proposals and Initiatives</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,809,913#msg-913</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:58:31 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Announcements] The 'BOOK'</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?6,912,912#msg-912</link>
      <author>RoyDaine</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Hi folks,

I'm back to bore you some more.

Fred and Me are writing a book, based on our discussions, that will tell of the disintegration of a local government, the public outcry that follows and the implementation of a new system of governance we call 'Representative Direct Democracy'.

It's written in the style of ongoing newspaper coverage of the tumultuous events and hopefully has a humorous slant.

Each page is posted at myverdict.net(mow a blog), in its draft form and any and all comment is invited, positive or negative, on the writing or the ideas behind it. Articles on which the book is based are also available at the site.

Some comments may be incorporated into the book, as in 'letters to the editor'. Suggestions for edits, character names, plot lines are also welcome. You could for instance post comment in the guise of an angry resident of our imagined community, stating your own ideas for better government.

All in all, it's a different approach to introducing DD to people. You might want to come and play.

Best Regards

Roy]]></description>
      <category>Announcements</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?6,912,912#msg-912</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:32:07 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Announcements] Direct Democracy Inaction</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?6,911,911#msg-911</link>
      <author>RoyDaine</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Hi All,

Just a quick post to inform everybody that myverdict.net has now closed down due to apathy.

It is apparent that there are not enough people, concerned enough about DD, for it to be viable. With that in mind, I now intend to devote the rest of my life to the pursuit of self-interest, at the expense, where necessary, of everybody else.

The rest of the world can carry on as it sees fit.

I wish you all the best of luck with your endeavours, I know many of you have put a great deal of time and effort into DD but maybe it's time to face facts - The people aren't interested.


Best Regards

Roy]]></description>
      <category>Announcements</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?6,911,911#msg-911</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:18:02 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Proposals and Initiatives] Re: DD Constitutions</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,863,910#msg-910</link>
      <author>PVR</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Roy Daine,

I agree that it would be appropriate if people are enabled to make known their preferences on matters that concern them and not on every issue. The representative should be trustworthy (selfless) enough to take decisions on behalf of the people and for this the 'Active Democracy' (Troika) method of electing candidates would be ideal.

My interest in Daniel Rosen's &quot;America Vote Direct&quot; mechanism is that once the 'Active Democracy' method is being tried on the ground, it can be made known (as a further merit to it) that the elected person would use a mechanism similar to the 'vote direct' one so that the elected person would be in direct touch with those who elected him and would have a constant understanding of their preferences on various issues. 

PVR]]></description>
      <category>Proposals and Initiatives</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,863,910#msg-910</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2008 01:23:51 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Proposals and Initiatives] Re: DD Constitutions</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,863,909#msg-909</link>
      <author>RoyDaine</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Hi PVR,

Daniel Rosen's website that you mention appears to be inoperative.

Furthermore, his policy was one of enforcement of advocacy on every issue. This would entail the citizens making their views known on every issue.
In practise, I don't believe a majority of citizens would take part in every decision. This would lead to minority interests and lobby groups carrying the day. Not really what we want to see.

I feel it would be more feasible to let representatives make decisions on our behalf, as they do now, unless their constituents deem an issue to be of such import, that they can demonstrate an overwhelming majority opinion.

It could be envisaged that this would happen rarely, if at all and is thus more likely to be enacted.

Once enacted however, it would be an immensely powerful tool, which could lead to much greater involvement by the citizens and further enhancement of DD.

Roy]]></description>
      <category>Proposals and Initiatives</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,863,909#msg-909</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2008 07:36:48 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Proposals and Initiatives] Re: DD Constitutions</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,863,908#msg-908</link>
      <author>PVR</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Roy Daine,

For your suggestion of 'Enforcement of Advocacy' as a tool for DD, please note that the following website fulfills this requirement: http://www.vpsystems.net/AmericaVoteDirect/ 

Regards,

PVR]]></description>
      <category>Proposals and Initiatives</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,863,908#msg-908</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 06 Apr 2008 03:47:37 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Proposals and Initiatives] Re: DD Constitutions</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,863,907#msg-907</link>
      <author>RoyDaine</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Hi All,

In the 'Missedville' constitution that Fred and I are constructing, we're making use of several facets of DD:- Fred's 'active democracy' for selecting leaders; I&amp;BR; recall and what I've called 'Enforcement of Advocacy'.

From all I've read, it appears that most agree that any implementation of DD, will be by small incremental steps, probably from the local level up.

Enforcement of advocacy - Where a representative's constituents demonstrate an 'overwhelming' majority, said representative, is obliged by law, to advocate said majority opinion and vote accordingly.

We elect representatives at present, to make decisions on our behalf. In many cases, the people are content to carry on their own lives and let the people they elect carry out the business of governance. With 'enforcement of advocacy', this could continue.

There are issues however, that exercise the populace greatly and it is only right that in such a circumstance, the majority view carries the day. All democracies, after all, are based on majorities of one sort or another.

This enforcement of advocacy would vest sovereignty with the people, while allowing present systems to continue. It could be implemented via the interweb at low cost. Politicians, realising that a large majority is difficult to achieve, may be more amenable to enacting such legislation, aware that it would rarely be effective.

Once in place however, it would enable other facets of DD to be implemented, if that was the wish of the people.

I suggest an overwhelming majority is 65 - 75%.

Best Regards

Roy]]></description>
      <category>Proposals and Initiatives</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,863,907#msg-907</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Apr 2008 12:35:57 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Proposals and Initiatives] The Significance of our efforts for DD</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,906,906#msg-906</link>
      <author>PVR</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Dear All,
The paradox we are facing is that while many people would agree that DD is desirable, when it comes to action on ground most of them would have second thoughts. It is as if they would prefer to wait and watch rather than getting involved in, say, 'trying to move a mountain'.

To understand this situation we need to first know why many of us seek to usher in DD. Why can't we go about our daily routine as most people seem to decide wisely? Or is it a matter of time before we reach our limits and then take a 'wise' decision?

Everything in this world can be seen to fit into one of two streams. One is moving towards 'peace' the core of our reality, the final resting place of our 'heart' or 'soul'. The other is moving outwards towards the material world through our senses and the mind.

Individuals who believe in the centrality of 'peace', feel kinship with the rest of humanity and seek conditions conducive to attaining the goal of universal peace and harmony. Others who tend to believe in the centrality of the material world would consider conditions leading to mastery of the latter worth pursuing.

Most people are in between these two extremes; they believe in a balance between spiritual and material aspects of life both being unavoidable. The institutions man has created, right from the family to the society, the nation and the international bodies - all have these two streams contained within them. The outward material vision is by nature analytic and divisive. The inward spiritual vision is by nature integrative and unifying. 

It does not matter towards which end one is at present. There may be many reasons for a person being more spiritual than material and vice versa. What matters for today's world is towards which direction a person or an institution is heading. Those who are inclined towards the spiritual end tend to be integrative and unifying in their thought and action, while those who are inclined towards the material end tend to be analytic and divisive in their thought and action, further aggravating the already divided world. While the former harness their heart the latter harness their mind.

Since the purpose of DD is to counter the false and usher in the true, to fight injustice by empowering people to exert their rights, it is basically inclined towards the spiritual end of the spectrum. It is therefore natural that DD faces indifference if not resistance in today's world that is predominantly inclined towards the material end. When 'money power' is the dominant force, talking about matters related to 'soul power' would naturally be out of place. 

The best way to propagate DD would be for the individual proponent to exert his influence on his neighbours through his own way of life. He can promote true democracy in whatever sphere of activity he is in and discourage authoritarianism. Harnessing the heart can be given preference over harnessing the mind. Such an approach would be meaningful in every sphere of activity like education, health, business and even the legal profession. 

If he is inclined to do so, the proponent of DD can seek public office through election, from where the sphere of  influence of his 'soul power' would be much more. The WDDM should give primacy to harnessing the heart and make it the undercurrent of all its efforts. We need to understand the significance of whatever we are doing and keep going.

If we base our decisions on the integrative and unifying qualities of our heart then we would be moving forward meaningfully. Let us decide on a comprehensive definition and an action plan that carries forward the idea. We can set up task forces to improve and integrate the initiatives already available. The charter itself may need some fine tuning.

May Peace be with us.

PVR]]></description>
      <category>Proposals and Initiatives</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,906,906#msg-906</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 07:20:47 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Announcements] Missedville Constitution</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?6,905,905#msg-905</link>
      <author>RoyDaine</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Hi All, 
Fred Gohlke and I, have begun a project to write a constitution for a community with an electorate of 10,000. It stemmed from a discussion about direct democracy, where we envisaged an off ramp from a highway, being suggested for a community that had been by-passed when the highway was built and how our 'ideal' community would accomplish this real-world task, if it was governed as a direct democracy. 

We came at this from opposite sides of the DD debate, our views originally seeming irreconcilable and found, during discussion that we were in fact, closer together in our stances than we had first thought.

The initial stage of this constitution is now posted at http://www.myverdict.net 

We invite you all to criticise it and to put forward any ideas you might like to see incorporated. 

The link for our constitution is - 

http://www.myverdict.net/articles/article.php?articleID=36

My Best to all

Roy]]></description>
      <category>Announcements</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?6,905,905#msg-905</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2008 07:48:04 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
