<?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, 15 Jan 2010 07:04:31 -0500</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Jan 2010 07:04:31 -0500</lastBuildDate>
    <category>WDDM Forum</category>
    <generator>Phorum 5.1.10</generator>
    <ttl>600</ttl>
    <item>
      <title>[Global Democracy] FROM ADVOCRACY TOWARD NOMOCRACY</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?18,966,966#msg-966</link>
      <author>fredblomson</author>
      <description><![CDATA[FROM ADVOCRACY TOWARD DIRECTDEMOCRATIC NOMOCRACY
Advocracy (representative democracy) is a kind of elected dictatorship (extremity ex. Nazi and Hitler).
Practically all the worldcitizens agree that globalization and information technology are rash, continually and progressively developed. 
It is now time to abolish the advocracy and the old nations and to unite the worldcitizens with directdemocratic laws (nomocracy) to own and to govern over all and over everything instead of leaders and owners.
The law must control the property, the production, the distribution, the consumption and all the similar.  
We must message to all the advocratic governments and to demand to introduce electronic directdemocracy in their parties/orgs.
We must write to all the governments and to demand to create an UN-committee to prepare the global transfer from advocracy to nomocracy. Proposed name: UHO United Human Organisation to replace the UNO and the abolished old nations, borders, flags, religions, conservatisms, traditions a.s.o. from the global political life. 
During the transferring period the payment and the dependence of the UHO transferring team personnel must go over from the old nations to the worldcitizens. A small monthly fee (ex 1 $ per month/human) should be enough to guarantee the salaries and the other costs.
Farther proposals for the UHO activity:
1.	At the beginning the UHO organizing team must register all the worldcitizens with a combined unique personal ID number and bank account to be able to pay their fees.
2.	At the very beginning the UHO organizing team will be depended from support of the old nations during the registration period. The old national governments must active and with all the means assist the transfer from national advocracy to the global directdemocratic nomocracy.
3.	The UHO organizing team must accept the English language as provisory common language until the scientists can create a scientific, easier, more practical, more melodic and much better global language.
4.	After the transferring period, the UHO organizing team will consist of scientific webmasters and administrators. They will be paid by the worldcitizens, the law will take over and the old nations will go over to the history.
5.	When the material heredity will not be possible any more and the global owning and governing are transferred to the law, it will not be necessary for the worldcitizens to often participate global polling. It will exist real material equality, real justice and general prosperity. Scientific experts will decide correctly when not capitalistic and or other distinct egoistic interests will exist.]]></description>
      <category>Global Democracy</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?18,966,966#msg-966</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jan 2010 07:04:31 -0500</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[DD News] Re: A vague idea on how to implement DD</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?12,604,965#msg-965</link>
      <author>BrEggum</author>
      <description><![CDATA[I agree we need to involve the people more and make it easy for them to participate. However the people must have a platform to speak. That is what WDDM can do. We can provide a simple moderated [to eliminate spam and foul language] place people can meet to talk. Of course people want to make decisions, the most popular initiatives brought forth etc. Thus a basic method to do that is necessary. The platform would be non-partisan simply a place to post.

Let's get talking.
Bruce]]></description>
      <category>DD News</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?12,604,965#msg-965</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 12:45:42 -0500</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Unclassified comments] Re: Some recent releases on Direct Democracy</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?17,934,964#msg-964</link>
      <author>BrEggum</author>
      <description><![CDATA[thanks Mark good links]]></description>
      <category>Unclassified comments</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?17,934,964#msg-964</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 12:35:39 -0500</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Starting new deliberation] GLOSSARY</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?22,963,963#msg-963</link>
      <author>BrEggum</author>
      <description><![CDATA[This  will be the draft GLOSSARY of words and phrases used in our WDDM org.
Please add your terms here, and after deliberation they could be added to the main GLOSSARY.]]></description>
      <category>Starting new deliberation</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?22,963,963#msg-963</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:42:30 -0500</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Unclassified comments] DD Towns/Colonies?</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?17,962,962#msg-962</link>
      <author>Anonymous User</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Hey is there any towns/communities around the world that have constitutionally restrained (to protect my basic freedoms) DD systems in place? I don't mind if its still in a republic a republic state for now since I'm not really into the whole shooting folk for a political reason thing..(for the mo)

A colonies or something would be cool for my family's long term future, I would be willing to buy land to add to a private colonie or something, I think I could cover up to 2500 euros per acre.

as I just bought share in good profits business, &amp; I was thinking I'm going to do some scouting with my girlfriend for a place to settle down, &amp; start a real life, without the sick feeling I get every day when i open my door (&quot;eu&quot;) &amp; see the eagles of fascism in every day life &amp; people not caring any more.

If there is no such thing i guess I'll just go buy that Vin-yard in Chile I had an eye on ;)

yours kindly michael @@@@@ga0cs@yahoo.com]]></description>
      <category>Unclassified comments</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?17,962,962#msg-962</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:33:47 -0500</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Announcements] Re: interactivedemocracy.blogspot.com</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?6,960,961#msg-961</link>
      <author>BrEggum</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Thank you for the invite. I like your blog! It seems WDDM is more active on email lists unfortunately. To compose an initiative it takes a forum and active participants. The world lacks active participants so I believe we must come up with Initiatives, develop them as best we can using people from as many country's as we can find. There are some world vote sites which could host initiatives for consideration. Simpol also provides a way to &quot;vote&quot;. Than, those which have high interest could be presented to the World community for consideration. After much time and deliberation the Initiative may be instituted by each country's adoption. I think the dangers of a World Government to the Country's Culture and sovereignty are grave.]]></description>
      <category>Announcements</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?6,960,961#msg-961</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 01 Nov 2009 19:17:23 -0500</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Announcements] interactivedemocracy.blogspot.com</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?6,960,960#msg-960</link>
      <author>AndyDavison</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Dear all
I've just become a member of this forum and wish I'd searched for Direct Democracy earlier. For the last couple of years I have been writing on this subject, especially in relation to the UK. My blog is interactivedemocracy.blogspot.com and I'd appreciate your comments and contributions.
Best regards,
Andy Davison.]]></description>
      <category>Announcements</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?6,960,960#msg-960</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2009 07:38:19 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Proposals and Initiatives] World and local Assembly's</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,959,959#msg-959</link>
      <author>BrEggum</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Overcoming the King and his Men   [a plan for World democracy]

Initially women were valued and fiercely protected as they supply essential food for the child. Men were physically powerful but expendable. The more powerful became “king” with his supporters to protect him. The king seeking more power overtook other groups and community’s which were than attached to his ‘kingdom’. This war-ring continues to this day.

We still cling to this ancient hierarchy. This method allows an “elite” few to be “top dogs”. The rest of us are underlings, slaves. Why do we still follow this way?
To reduce the war-ring, communities united together forming states and nations. The kings of these communities’s made compromises so they got along. However, the first paid was still the king, and the decisions were made by the elite king and his men. 

Those seeking a decision which favored their interests soon learned to barter with the decision makers, bringing favors and gifts. The “Elite” were created, and their ego’s soon blossomed. The Elite believed they alone can make decisions for the world. Of course they demand remuneration for their “expertise.”

Democracy = The people rule. But the people do not rule in “representative democracy” where the king and his men model rule. The people can have a democratic government only if they meet together in Assembly and together decide the infrastructure and work necessary for their community. We may make the plans and decisions, than appoint, hire, elect a group of people to carry out our decisions. [Government] All people monitor our community affairs correcting as needed. In this way, the people maintain ultimate control of their community. [Democracy]

This was our original “Tribal Ways” (we were all in tribes). A General Council was held which included everyone. Problems were discussed, solutions developed and the one most favored was implemented.

With Cyber Space technology, we can accomplish this. We must form Assembly’s of our community [local, state, nation] but also for the World. We than must develop a Constitution which declares our Principles. We define minority rights, human rights, liberty, respect of natural resources, methods of democratic decision making and more. This Constitution will define limits to our decisional power so that our world is not harmed by our decisions. This simple safeguard overcomes the “fear of democracy”. 
We can begin right now. Discuss this concept of Assembly of the World with everyone. Ask them to join groups and develop this concept. As we grow in understanding and development we will reach a point of validation.]]></description>
      <category>Proposals and Initiatives</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,959,959#msg-959</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:05:43 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Proposals and Initiatives] Re: Initiative on WDDM Charter</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,947,958#msg-958</link>
      <author>ParrhesiaJoe</author>
      <description><![CDATA[It is tempting to become defensive when someone attacks your position, but these issues are important. I believe that we have the same goals in mind, and you must be willing to have your ideas attacked... sometimes passionately. I care little whether you are a sinner or a saint, but I do care about the ideas you champion, because your goals are the same as mine. To imply that I am calling you a liar is in itself willfully deceptive. I am throwing an equally severe accusation your way, but it is not in a form that would impugn your character in any way.

I accuse you of misinterpreting what I have said, and then allowing your natural defensiveness to lead you to attack me… personally.
You said, &quot;I do not intend to continue discussion with abusive people. You have shown your true strips(sic). You do not want to deliberate, you want to dictate.&quot;

You said, &quot;For instance; if 75% is required, the top 25% control the decision.&quot;
I replied, &quot;This is exactly the opposite of the truth.&quot;

I am not calling you a liar or a demagogue, or stating in any way that I believe you to be willfully misinterpreting what I have said.  However, what you have stated as the flaw in rule by overwhelming consensus, that the 25% can control the decision, is incorrectly analyzed. There is no way a group of 25% could overrule the will of society, in your example, 75% of society.

If you still believe your analysis to be correct, the please give an example of how it the 25% could subvert the will of the 75%. For example, if 75% of us agree to pass a law prohibiting rocket launchers, describe the mechanism that allows the 25% to then leverage a form of control over the supermajority of voting participants.

Let's keep this in the realm of ideas. I know, for instance, that you are involved in a pro-liberty website, and you are passionate and involved. This, by itself, leads me to believe that you are a thoughtful, rational person that is willing to sacrifice a portion of their life fighting for a just cause.

In the realm of ideas, however, I believe we do not serve our goals if we are not passionately devoted to the discovery and analysis of our positions, both rational and dogmatic.

A 51% majority rule is oppressive and unrealistic for a free society. 

An 80% rule would give you police and military. Even a 90% rule would result in the formation of these institutions, because they are critical to the maintenance of a free society. To assume that you would not get consensus on these issues is not supported by the evidence I have come across.

Schools, hospitals, and fire brigades have historically been handled outside any political structure - by free people in cooperation. They do not require compulsion for their operation, although any good or service CAN be provided through a political or compulsory process. Further, private versions of these institutions have historically been more effective than their politically imposed counterparts. In Samuelson's economics textbook, he points toward lighthouses as the ideal public good, as these public serving monuments could never be provided outside of the government system. However, even lighthouses were privately funded and operated before the government took control of them for hundreds of years in Samuelson's own homeland. We see largely what we want to see.

Would you propose that ipods, automobiles and potatoes flow from the beneficence of a majority driven system? These things are provided by free people in free exchange with one another. I agree we need education, for example, but that is a FAR CRY from requiring a free citizen to spend 12 years of their youth learning what the government deems appropriate from a government employee. This is especially true now, when a Princeton quality education could be provided for pennies by leveraging the available technology, regardless of the students age, social class or race. 

A majority ruled society is a dictated society. I do not wish to enact ANY rule or dictate ANY action. Rather, I have picked from the multitude of proposed systems of rulemaking the one that fits most synergistically with the goals of freedom and prosperity.

What I propose is self evident. Any use of force in society which does not carry the overwhelming support of that society will alienate the portion of society which dissents. A 50% rule has the potential to alienate 50% of society in every rule enacted.

There is nothing magical about 50%. Would a 25% rule be better or worse? 
 ---If one in four of us agree, ice cream shall henceforth be outlawed!
Better, but still queerly unrealistic
 ---If half of us agree, ice cream shall be outlawed!

A truly just society must say...
 ---You are free to eat ice cream unless your peers overwhelmingly object to its consumption, for any reason.

We are reactionary. We are biased. We are easily duped by demagogues who leverage our reactionary bias to pass bad legislation in times of crisis that oppress those whose simple numerical inferiority leave them helpless to such a system. This is the simple mathematics of warfare. If there are more of us than there are of you, then we get to make the rules. It is not rational. It is not fair.

Evil Number One: Society dictated by numerical superiority.
Evil Number Two: Concentration of power.

These two evils are interconnected and must be combated together.

Insofar as WWDM gets us closer to combating both of these issues, I applaud with all the vigor I can muster. I appreciate and respect any movement that aims at combating these enduring legacies of society, dating back as far as history itself.

If we are attempting to create an enduring free society, those in power will exploit ANY weakness in the imposed system. We must bolster the foundation of free society, popular sovereignty.... not indirectly through representation, but head-on, through direct secret ballot voting. If we do not want to suffer the fate of the Athenians, we must also remove the power of the simple majority to socially engineer society in a way that conforms to their view of the 'perfect social structure'.

Again, I applaud your work, and I&amp;BR is a step in the right direction. Once you know the direction to go in, conscience compels you to charge in that direction completely, without hesitation.

Parrhesia]]></description>
      <category>Proposals and Initiatives</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,947,958#msg-958</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2009 20:43:12 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Proposals and Initiatives] Re: Initiative on WDDM Charter</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,947,957#msg-957</link>
      <author>BrEggum</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Dear Mirek, Actually all the accusations and statements you make Sun, May 31, 2009 at 3:34 PM  are false. My statements are not personal they are from the documents you “edited” and posted. Also note; an application for WDDM non-profit organization is filed in Greece using this document. 
Your “link” takes us to your personal site, providing your personal views. WDDM cannot tell any government how to vote which is your sites thrust. You have continually brought up many unrelated subjects which confuse members of WDDM. 
WDDM’s only purpose is: We dedicate ourselves to work toward the introduction of Direct Democracy (DD) into the representative systems, through Citizens Initiatives and Referendums.
http://tinyurl.com/y8c3j9]]></description>
      <category>Proposals and Initiatives</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,947,957#msg-957</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 31 May 2009 18:11:14 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Proposals and Initiatives] Re: Initiative on WDDM Charter</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,947,956#msg-956</link>
      <author>MiKolar</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Actually it is not true that &quot;WDDM only advocates I&amp;BR&quot;. WDDM does not officially advocate much if anything yet, because we have not yest managed to arrive at any collective position. 

For example, I also advocate government by consensus as the only true democracy, and my position is very similar to that of Parrhesia Joe (see http://democracy.mkolar.org/consensus.html, http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/archive/proposals0/wddm_index_march28.html - my initial proposal how to renew WDDM where I was also suggesting consensus levels around 80%).
But I am willing to accept I&amp;BR as an important intermediate step better than the current &quot;representative democracy&quot;.

Bruce, please do not confuse your personal positions with those of all WDDM which are still very undefined.

So I am repeating again, I believe that the most important thing is to finally set up a procedure on how to arrive at our collective position if we want to have any collective position at all (as oppose to be only a loose discussion club as we have been till now).

Mirek]]></description>
      <category>Proposals and Initiatives</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,947,956#msg-956</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 31 May 2009 16:34:42 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Proposals and Initiatives] Re: Initiative on WDDM Charter</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,947,955#msg-955</link>
      <author>WebMaster</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Bruce Eggum sent on May 14, 2009 a reply to the previous post only by email to wbm@world-wide-democracy.net
So I am copying it here:

ParrhesiaJoe said: &quot;This is exactly the opposite of the truth.&quot;
WOW what a nasty way to start the day. You accuse me of dishonesty. I do not intend to continue discussion with abusive people. You have shown your true strips. You do not want to deliberate, you want to dictate.

Many of us have had experience. A community needs a school, or increase tax for police, fire, hospitals. How does that work? Has 100% or 90% agreed? Get real please. Factions are any group of people. Party faction's are simply a name of a group. Look at all the &quot;factions&quot;; churches, university's, acedemics, bankers, loan and credit cards, plumbers, auto manufactures, tradespeople, farmers, physicians, teachers,the list goes on and on each with their own &quot;special need&quot;.  Which can be afforded? Which one has priority? 100% or 90% agree????

Other remarks you make, clearly show why an Initiative and Binding Referendum system in the hands of the people is absolutely necessary. That is the only thing WDDM is advocating. The other reason WDDM only advocates I&amp;BR is because all the infrastructure about politics and politicians is within the power of the community/territory of citizens within that area. WDDM has no right to tell those community/territory's anything. That is their affair. If you have a system and it has been adopted in your jurisdiction fine. If you have a system you want to sell the world, create a website and sell it to the world. Than if the world buys it, it is their choice. But NO you do not have the right to impose your &quot;system&quot; on anyone and certainly not WDDM.

Regards, Bruce]]></description>
      <category>Proposals and Initiatives</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,947,955#msg-955</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 31 May 2009 16:13:04 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Proposals and Initiatives] Re: Initiative on WDDM Charter</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,947,954#msg-954</link>
      <author>ParrhesiaJoe</author>
      <description><![CDATA[----Any time greater than 50% +1 is used, the small majority of the top control all the decisions.

This is exactly the opposite of the truth. If we were given liberty except by consensus of the public (75%, 80%, 90%), then laws would only be in effect if that percentage of the population saw value in them. A simple majority leads to the two party system, and a two party system can pass just about any law WHEN THEY ARE IN POWER. When the power balance switches, the old laws don't go away. We simply get a new set of laws, and retribution is the flavor of the day.

If you wish to make something illegal... which in effect is the authorization to use force to combat it... it is COMPLETELY UNREALISTIC to assume that a slim majority can enforce their will on the minority without causing a partition in society. 

We have the right to bear arms and the freedom of speech, but at any time... according to our constitution... if 66% of congress agrees (plus ratification), those rights can be removed. Giving this authority to highly interested elected officials only compounds the reactionary element in society.

51% must not be used as a justification for tyranny... and it is. Look around... in the real world. Should the car you drive or the food you eat be determined by the majority? There are very few instances where a slim majority should be allowed to impose their will on the minority. This is the intellectual domain of the conqueror and the subjugated.

Government MUST exist by the CONSENSUS of the people. Of the people, by the people, and for the people... not 51% of them. All of them.

Any system that relies on majority rule is barbarous... there are more of us than there is of you, so we can enforce our will upon you.

You could argue that this is the law of nature, but society is supposed to rise above this dogma of force. Name a clearly beneficial law that would not draw a consensus (80%+) from the public. Murder? Rape? Theft? Treason? Arson? Fraud? Laws against these are clearly beneficial to society, and the percentage of society that would enact these laws is very close to 100%. Government by consensus is the only justifiable use of government, because government is force. We must be conservative when we authorize the use of that force.

Drop below 80% and you get to all the laws that, on analysis, have major detriments. This is BECAUSE there is no consensus. And for the privilege of forcing the minority to play by our rules, we get police corruption, disrespect for law, black markets, gang violence, and all manner of 'unintended consequences'

For society to operate, that society must be able to enact some rules. The farther from consensus that you get, the more people will fight the system. At 90%, you could potentially have 9 people imposing their will on the 1, but with a majority rule, you put yourself in the position of having almost half the society being against a &quot;justified&quot; use of force.

When there is a slim majority in favor of a new piece of legislation, we must ask... why don't the other 40% agree? History has shown that those 40% have been right in an astonishing amount of cases.



Representatives
Put a good man in a position of power, and there is a good chance you will corrupt him. Indeed, many people are pristine of character simply because they have never been tempted by the allure of power. Lord Actin said it best. Power corrupts.

It is naive to assume that we can elect good people when we have been trying to do just that for the past 300 years. There was, supposedly an incorruptible man born about 2000 years ago, but he'd be unelectable now anyways.

People in a triplet will operate in their own self interest. If Barack Obama was in my triplet, and I wanted to win, I would vote him out. The more triplets you go through, the higher the likelihood that the participants are operating in self interest according to game theory. Barack Obama would never get that far.

Plus, the triplet system is still vulnerable to political parties, who will flood the system with those whose political motivations align with the organization.

The answer to electing good representatives is to elect a greater number of them. The greater the number of representatives, the less effective it becomes to corrupt or bribe any individual. The proper number of representatives for the USA is three hundred million. No Less.

We are, as history will attest to, both the beauty and the beast. When we are given power, we do not use it wisely. Those who wish to acquire a position of power tend to be those who will make use of that power. A great nation must resist the temptation to interfere with the liberties of men, but representative systems tend to serve the elite, because they centralize power.

No power centralization. Direct Democracy. One man... one vote. I cannot see the heart of a man, or his motivations. I am at a loss when it comes to deciding between a war-monger and a socialist. I know where I stand on the issues, but I am a poor judge of men. I have been betrayed by my best friend, completely by surprise, in the most horrible way. If I cannot trust my appraisal of a friend I have known for years, how am I supposed to, in good conscience, elect a man I do not know to a position of power over my fellow man.

If you believe you are a great judge of character, good for you. I can make an intelligent argument for or against gun control, but Obama? Obama is a man, as fallible as any man, and as open to corruption and self-interested self-deceit. I would rather vote on an issue than a man, because men of power have always disappointed me when I care to actually examine their actions.

I would trust Ron Paul, for example... but only so far. I must ask myself... what if he were offered ten million dollars in speaking arrangements for a small concession. Hell... I wouldn't even trust myself in that case.

If we speak of direct democracy, it must be direct. If we wish it to depart from the tyranny of the past, it must be by consensus.]]></description>
      <category>Proposals and Initiatives</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,947,954#msg-954</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2009 23:32:38 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Proposals and Initiatives] NEW FORUM FOR WDDM</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,953,953#msg-953</link>
      <author>BrEggum</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Miroslav started a Ning site for us. It will replace this forum. This forum requires more work and to reduce tasks we can utilize the new one.
http://wddmsn.ning.com/forum

See you there, Bruce]]></description>
      <category>Proposals and Initiatives</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,953,953#msg-953</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2009 22:57:40 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Proposals and Initiatives] Re: Initiative on WDDM Charter</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,947,952#msg-952</link>
      <author>BrEggum</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Any time greater than 50% +1 is used, the small majority of the top control all the decisions.
For instance; if 75% is required, the top 25% control the decision. These few who may be &quot;bankers&quot; or some faction than join to either make or break the decision. Thus democracy is not served.
A better check is double majority's [50% +1] of both the popular vote and the community/territory vote.
Of course with I&amp;BR any law or decision can be eliminated quite soon if it is determined to not serve the people.]]></description>
      <category>Proposals and Initiatives</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,947,952#msg-952</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2009 22:34:30 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Proposals and Initiatives] Re: Initiative on WDDM Charter</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,947,951#msg-951</link>
      <author>koikaze</author>
      <description><![CDATA[re: &quot;Let's say you are in round one. There is a HIGHLY qualified candidate in your triplet, and you want to win. So does the third guy. The two weaker candidates will vote for each other and the most qualified will, in effect, choose the person who moves on to the next phase. Sorry, more qualified candidate. You ARE the weakest link... buh-bye!&quot;

This argument presumes an observer can stand outside the system and decide who is a 'HIGHLY qualified candidate'.  Who is to make such a judgment?

The members of the triplets are humans.  They have the strengths and frailties of humans.  That they are fallible is a given.  The 5,637,378 voting-eligible people in New Jersey (in 2004) would form 1,879,126 triplets.  Some of those almost two million groups will make what are, in your opinion or mine, poor choices.  However, people make choices based on their own opinion, not on yours or mine.  The vast majority of them will make what are, for them, the proper decision.

The choice they make is a subjective judgment.  We recognize that our judgment of people is not foolproof; sometimes we will choose the less-qualified person.  That is why we atomize the electorate into a large number of very small groups; it increases the number of times candidates are examined.  The effect is progressive; the further a candidate advances, the more that person has been examined and judged to have good qualities.

One may argue that the majority of those who advance will be people of poor qualities, but to do so is to assert that the people, in general, lack the ability to discern good qualities from poor qualities.  If that were true, the people would be incapable of governing themselves, in which case discussing electoral methods is moot.

I think it is also important to recognize that in our present atmosphere of media-centric misdirection, obfuscation and deceit, we have no opportunity to exercise or apply judgment.  Judgment, like all faculties, strengthens with use.  When we institute an electoral method that allows us to use our judgment, we will learn to select suitable representatives.

Fred Gohlke]]></description>
      <category>Proposals and Initiatives</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,947,951#msg-951</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2009 08:41:36 -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?23,906,950#msg-950</link>
      <author>ParrhesiaJoe</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Again, I must ask...

Is it really direct if you are electing representatives?

Is giving the 51% the authority to pass any law justice?

If 100% of the people wish to pass a law and some restriction forbids it, is that government for the people?

You speak of peace and harmony, and yet our history is one of struggle and ego. No system of government can ensure the maximum amount of freedom to a people it doesn't fully understand.

Those who seek power will use any means available to obtain it. It is the centralization of power that is the problem. It is the ability of the majority to instill their will on the helpless that characterizes an unlimited democracy.

Consider democracy in a country with two opposed religious factions. Whichever group holds the majority will foster tyranny against the minority.

We know this.

We see this in society today.

Every generation has groups which have been labeled by government as the 'true problem', but is this anything more than an attempt to divert attention from the true tyrannies we face? Majoritarian, authoritarian rule is traditional democracy.

We should be moving away from the 51% rule and toward consensus government, voted on directly by the citizens, and binding only in those areas where consensus has been reached. We may define consensus to be 80% or 95%, but 50% is WAY WAY WAY too low.

The reason we need a bill of rights is to protect us from majority rule. It is liberty, not democracy, that makes this country great. To the extent that we can use democracy to promote liberty and prosperity, it is useful... but let us not forget that democracy is simply a mechanism for creating rules. These rules carry compulsory force, up to violence against the perpetrator.

We must only accept rules at consensus, because making it possible for the 51% to rule has been disastrous for our country.

Modern economics places the blame for the great depression on government intervention.

Modern history does not vindicate our involvement in WWI.

Rational thought itself precludes a system such as social security, which has been morally (and mathematically) unsound since its inception.

Yet, all of these things met the simple majority litmus.

Iraq and Vietnam would not have happenned in a consensus model. National banks would not have happenned in a consensus model. Slavery itself would have been abandoned by a consensus model.

Slavery was always presented as a power struggle between the states and the federal government. If that struggle did not exist... if all power rested in the power of the individual citizens of the south from the start, slavery would have been abolished without a bloody war.

Do not think this simplistic. Government by overwhelming consent is the only stable model. Direct democracy (one man, one vote, every issue) is the only way to remove the power loci that we fight over constantly. Representative democracy must be abandoned. I believe that with every fibre of my being.

I applaud the effort, and I admire the boldness it takes to stand up against the status quo, to believe that real change is possible. This crisis we now see is the key to fixing everything. We only make tough decisions when we are backed into a corner, and we're getting pretty close.

Parrhesia Joe]]></description>
      <category>Proposals and Initiatives</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,906,950#msg-950</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 09 May 2009 00:56:41 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Proposals and Initiatives] Re: Initiative on WDDM Charter</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,947,949#msg-949</link>
      <author>ParrhesiaJoe</author>
      <description><![CDATA[You say modern democracies provide protection of minority rights. A system that allows the 51% to pass binding and punishable rules on the 49% is democracy.

To the extent that the 49% has been able to stem that tide has nothing to do with democracy. A dedication to liberty spelled out in the US constitution protects the minority from democracy.

Government exists by the willing consent of the governed. Consent implies consensus. Anything even close to 50% as a rule making system is CRITICALLY FLAWED. It allows government to act on the consent of... well... most of the people... until people realize that laws are typically hard to repeal, even when they are bad.

You use the term direct democracy to imply a different flavor of representative democracy. Is this wise? It through me for a loop when I realized you were just supporting a change to the election system, but no change to the system of representation that has caused the centralization of power and the waste, demogoguery, and corruption it invites.

Also, the triplet system? Have you ever seen the missing link?

Let's say you are in round one. There is a HIGHLY qualified candidate in your triplet, and you want to win. So does the third guy. The two weaker candidates will vote for each other and the most qualified will, in effect, choose the person who moves on to the next phase. Sorry, more qualified candidate. You ARE the weakest link... buh-bye!

I believe your charter should support actual direct democracy on a consensus model. People vote directly, and may delegate their vote if they wish (to a political party, perhaps). A moderate Republican could delegate his vote to the Republican party except on abortion, where he votes pro-choice, against his party, but with his personal values.

A consensus model would mean that 80-90% would have to consent to any new rule.

This would mean that few rules get created, but they would be high quality with high consent. A less rigid litmus of consent would give you more laws... but... have you read our laws?

Parrhesia Joe]]></description>
      <category>Proposals and Initiatives</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,947,949#msg-949</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 09 May 2009 00:28:49 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Proposals and Initiatives] Re: The Fundamental Requirement for True Democracy</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,937,948#msg-948</link>
      <author>ParrhesiaJoe</author>
      <description><![CDATA[What do we mean by democracy?

Is that the ability for 51% of the people to make laws that restrict the 49%?

In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison wrote, &quot;Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.&quot; That's another way of saying one of the primary dangers of majority rule is that it confers an aura of legitimacy and respectability on acts that would otherwise be deemed tyrannical. Liberty and democracy are not synonymous and could actually be opposites.
Walter E. Williams - March 26, 2007

Do you mean freedom or liberty when you say democracy?]]></description>
      <category>Proposals and Initiatives</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,937,948#msg-948</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2009 23:49:32 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Proposals and Initiatives] Initiative on WDDM Charter</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,947,947#msg-947</link>
      <author>BrEggum</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Initiative on Democracy and WDDM Charter and AIM

I believe our discussions have led us away from our original intent.

Democracy, Greek, ‘rule by the people’ or majority rules. Of course modern democracy has rightfully provided for minority rights etc.

The Axiom “the people have the right to petition their government” provides the tool needed to establish methods for the people to rule their Territory, their Community. 

The citizens of any community, nation, territory of people can meet [assemble] and write a petition [initiative] to establish themselves as their ruling authority. 

WDDM can support this process by providing information and endorsing their efforts.

WAT then?

Obviously the people must establish a process for them to deliberate and decide as well as assert their decisions. 

The Initiative and Binding Referendum process is a proven method and would be a good beginning. Once I&amp;BR is established, the people could develop and change this governing process in whatever way they choose.

Therefore I propose that WDDM reinstate the original founding document as the WDDM Charter. http://tinyurl.com/y8c3j9

PREAMBLE 
We, members of the Continuing International Congress on Direct Democracy (CICDD) decided during our second Congress in Delphi, Greece, the birthplace of democracy, to establish a formal Worldwide Direct Democracy Movement. We dedicate ourselves to work toward the introduction of Direct Democracy (DD) into the representative systems, through Citizens Initiatives and Referendums, and, ultimately, transform them peacefully to true democracies of the people. We pledge ourselves to remain faithful to genuine democratic principles as expressed in our Mission Statement. We aim to inspire others to join us and help to develop principles and methods leading to direct democracy (DD) of the people. We have been and will remain dedicated members of CICDD and share our ideals and proposals with all participants in the Network, individuals, and families. 

Please comment with any objection [edited 14 May 2009 delete following: I am looking for seconds and than a referendum on this Initiative [sociocoracy.]]
Sincerely, Bruce Eggum]]></description>
      <category>Proposals and Initiatives</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,947,947#msg-947</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 02 May 2009 17:57:32 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Proposals and Initiatives] Switzerland Federalism I&amp;BR</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,946,946#msg-946</link>
      <author>BrEggum</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Switzerland's Constitution and Federalism
Switzerland has a long republican tradition, its modern democratic constitution dates back to 1848 only, however and was put into effect after a short civil war in 1847 leaving a conservative minority in a position of losers for decades. The constitution was totally revised in 1874 and amended organically from time to time since. The 1999 total revision did not change anything of importance in substance, it's sole purpose was to establish a modern and more readable structure and language (there have been more substancial changes in small revisions of single items in the last five years than between the &quot;old&quot; and the &quot;totally revised&quot; constitution). 
The federal constitution defines Switzerland as a federal state composed of 26 cantons (until 1976: 25 cantons) with far reaching autonomy. For historical reasons, six of the 26 cantons count as half-cantons (created by splitting three originally united cantons in two autonomous halves each), so the total number of 23 cantons given in some other sources is also correct in a way. Apart from voting arithmetics in referendums and in the small chamber of parliament, the half-cantons have exactly the same status as full cantons, however. Switzerland's government, parliament and courts are organized on three levels:
http://www.all-about-switzerland.info/swiss-government-politics.html

Direct Democracy: Referendum and Initiative
•	Frequent referendums on new or changed laws, budgets etc,
- some of them mandatory 
- others &quot;facultative&quot; (only if 50,000 citizens demand for it)
•	Ordinary citizens may propose changes to the constitution (&quot;initiative&quot;), if they can find a number of supporters (100,000 out of about 3,500,000 voters). Parliament will discuss it, probably propose an alternative and afterwards all citizens may decide in a referendum whether to accept the initiative, the alternate proposal or stay without change
While the federal system can be found in many other countries like the U.S.A., Germany, Austria etc., and separation of powers (government, parliament, courts) are common to all democracies (or at least should be), referendums are rare in most other countries. They do have a stabilizing influence on parliament and government. 

Swiss History http://tinyurl.com/dz5hsm
Swiss Political System http://www.all-about-switzerland.info/swiss-government-politics.html


Swiss Initiative and Binding Referendum allows the citizens to make law, rewrite the Constitution which is in a continual state of rewrite, recall officials and implement any Initiative the people decide upon. 100,000 citizen signatures bring the initiative to a Referendum. If finalized in a Referendum of the people, the Initiative is immediately implemented.

Literature and links on Switzerland's Political System:
•	www.admin.ch (official website of Switzerland's federal government and administration 
•	Political Rights in Switzerland (www.admin.ch)
•	www.parlament.ch (official website of Switzerland's federal parliament)
•	www.swisspolitics.org]]></description>
      <category>Proposals and Initiatives</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,946,946#msg-946</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2009 23:34:20 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Announcements] Achieving Direct Democracy</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?6,944,944#msg-944</link>
      <author>koikaze</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Good Morning, All

I haven't been active for some time.  One factor is that I've lost contact with Roy Daine, who was one of the clearest thinking advocates of Direct Democracy I've met.  The circumstances under which our exchanges ceased lead me to fear the worst.

I'm writing now to be sure you are aware of Michael Allan's effort to make Direct Democracy real, rather than a topic of discussion.  He has created a software package called Votorola.  It is designed to combine collaborative drafting with communicative assent to build a consensus on the composition of societal norms (i.e., laws, plans and policies).

If you have a genuine interest in including everyone in the governmental process, this is an effort worthy of your careful examination.  Michael makes it available for implementation by any-sized community.  As an introduction, I urge you to review the material at:

  http://zelea.com/project/votorola/d/theory.xht

and then continue throughout the site to examine and evaluate the full process.  It is important to note that (in my opinion) Michael is less concerned with 'carrying the torch for democracy' than he is with the much more valuable task of making democracy a reality.

Fred]]></description>
      <category>Announcements</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?6,944,944#msg-944</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 12 Apr 2009 10:16:28 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Proposals and Initiatives] Democracia Directa para Portugal</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,943,943#msg-943</link>
      <author>doliveira</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Seja bem vindo quem vier por bem.]]></description>
      <category>Proposals and Initiatives</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,943,943#msg-943</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:17:53 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Proposals and Initiatives] Re: necessity for  &quot;Democracy's Trustees&quot;</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,936,942#msg-942</link>
      <author>MiKolar</author>
      <description><![CDATA[I second this reminder, i.e. that &quot;Democracy means equality&quot;.
The challenge is how to maintain this equality (equal participation on decision making) and create an efficient decision-making mechanism (government).

Mirek]]></description>
      <category>Proposals and Initiatives</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,936,942#msg-942</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 22 Mar 2009 23:33:22 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[DD News] &quot;Democratic Euro-Vision&quot; conference</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?12,940,941#msg-941</link>
      <author>WebMaster</author>
      <description><![CDATA[ -- moved topic -- ]]></description>
      <category>DD News</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?12,940,941#msg-941</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 22 Mar 2009 23:23:55 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Announcements] &quot;Democratic Euro-Vision&quot; conference</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?6,940,940#msg-940</link>
      <author>WebMaster</author>
      <description><![CDATA[George Kokkas asked me to post this announcement:
(More details can be found here: http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/eurovision/)

March 14, 2009

“DEMOCRATIC   EURO-VISION” 

Press Release

Subject: Conference in Prague held by the “Democratic Euro-Vision” and  Direct Democratic Initiatives of Europe.

In most European countries, there are organisations and/or movements trying to democratize their political systems by introducing elements of Direct Democracy. To increase their efficiency, it is desirable to establish a coalition forming a common European movement, aiming at regular contacts by means of a blog, discussing common goals and strategy and supporting one another´ s efforts.

The “Democratic Euro-Vision” serves this purpose and invites all European national movements, initiatives and organizations, who accept certain common direct democracy principles, to join and give moral support to one another with efforts to democratize their respective countries. These principles and ideas will also be strongly expressed through our participation in the coming European Parliament elections of June 7, 2009.

In order to broaden and strengthen its aims, Democratic Euro-Vision is organizing a Conference, which will be held in Prague, on the 21st and 22nd of March 2009.

All European movements and organizations that serve direct Democracy values and principles are invited to attend. The main purpose of the Conference shall be the founding of the European Direct Democracy Confederation, under the name: “Democratic Euro-Vision”, organized by the national Movements taking part.

Other Movements from countries outside Europe or individuals not representing a Movement are invited to attend as observers.

INFO:  www.theeuropeandemocrat.blogspot.com

geoko@otenet.gr ; tobuz@libero.it ; jiri.polak@swipnet.se
 

Best regards 

George L. Kokkas
N.G.O Forum for Citizens’ Democracy
Ippokratous str. 42 – GR-10680 Athens
Greece
Tel.: +30 2103632000 - Fax: +30 2103610882
geoko@otenet.gr]]></description>
      <category>Announcements</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?6,940,940#msg-940</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 22 Mar 2009 00:18:47 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[DD News] Re: A vague idea on how to implement DD</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?12,604,939#msg-939</link>
      <author>MiKolar</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Hi Tobuz,

I like your approach (no real structure, no chiefs, or presidents, ...; no predefined program, only what the people want).
Are you already able to comment about your experience, successes? Have you managed to achieve something since you started DF?
Second, you suggest that such an approach should be applied also here in WDDM. Do you have any practical suggestions how to go about it, how to start it?

Mirek]]></description>
      <category>DD News</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?12,604,939#msg-939</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 21 Mar 2009 23:15:16 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Announcements] WDDM anouncement in Aarau/Switzerland for the Week of Democracy</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?6,938,938#msg-938</link>
      <author>GeoKo</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Dear WDDM members  and friends,
as you probably know I am going to participate in the &quot;Week of Democracy&quot; events in Aarau/Switzerland between  1st and 4th of October 2008 and I haven't mentioned  any  other member of WDDM participating there. Please write me  what  you  would  like to announce for  our Monement (WDDM) to the international  audiences I will address.]]></description>
      <category>Announcements</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?6,938,938#msg-938</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 28 Sep 2008 05:02:08 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Proposals and Initiatives] The Fundamental Requirement for True Democracy</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,937,937#msg-937</link>
      <author>PVR</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Democracy, if it is true, should fulfill the needs of the people as well as be beneficial for mankind as a whole. The second condition is important because people by nature seek peace and harmony, which will be lasting only when the entire world is happy. Yet both these conditions remain a distant dream in today's world, in spite of Democracy existing in some form or other in most countries of the world. There must be a systemic flaw that makes Democracy so woefully inadequate to fulfil its task. 

During elections at the local/state/national level, when we want to cast our vote for a candidate, we take into consideration two aspects. First, whether the party to which the candidate belongs to stands for policies and programs that are in tune with our needs. Secondly, whether the candidate is a person with integrity and would fulfill the task for which he/she may be elected. 

The first aspect of noting the political party to which the candidate belongs is the predominant criterion that decides our vote in the present day; if the candidate is an independent, the past record of the candidate may influence the decision. The second aspect - the integrity of the candidate is much more important. This is however usually sidelined in the prevailing party-based political system. The integrity of the candidate can be surmised by the people only by what is known in public about the candidate. There is still no method to evaluate the integrity of a candidate in an in-depth manner through a reliable procedure during the process of election. 

Political parties lay more emphasis on their ideology and agenda and the compliance of the candidate towards it; the integrity of the individual is secondary. The result has been that, throughout the world, we have Democracy in letter but not in spirit. The party candidate may appear ideal for all external appearances but his true inner nature gets revealed only after the election. People do not have any control over who is selected to be a party candidate to stand in the election. In the uncommon instance of a candidate being an independent, his reputation influences the voters; his inner nature remains hidden. 

By the very process of election a candidate tends to become self-centered. Once elected, he is expected to think in terms of his party and his family or group which brought him up. Such a mindset inevitably leaves little room for impartial thought and action. In today's world filled with divisive and vested interests, nothing less than a selfless attitude that benefits everyone or at the least harms none, is required if there is to be peace and harmony in the society and the world. In other words 'spiritual correctness' is the need of our times. 

So the fundamental requirement for True Democracy is that the process of election should test the integrity of the candidate in addition to other qualities. This will ensure that the candidate would fulfil the expectations of the voters in a wholesome manner by discharging his duties in a spiritually correct manner. 

To some extent integrity of the candidate can be ensured by adopting true inner party democracy. When it comes to critical situations like deciding between 'party interest' or 'national interest', anybody within the party who stands by 'national interest' runs the risk of being dubbed as anti-party and may be sidelined. True inner party democracy is possible only if political parties themselves adopt the 'Triplet system' of selection that ensures selflessness as a essential quality for getting selected, as explained at: http://worldtruedemocracyplatform.blogspot.com/ 

The existing political parties will not adopt such a selfless system so easily anywhere in the world. To stimulate the political parties into adopting the 'Triplet system', a World True Democracy Platform (WTDP) needs to be established, which would compete with the usual political parties in every election. The candidates posted by the WTDP should be selected through the 'Triplet system' from among those who register themselves at the WTDP. If the people are convinced that the candidates elected from this platform are qualitatively different from others by being selfless as well as competent, then that would make a big difference in every subsequent election. 

Success of the WTDP would mean that a viable alternative to political parties is at last available to the people for selecting their candidates for election in an organized manner. Political parties would be forced to ensure that integrity gets the focus of attention since they may otherwise be ignored by the people, being no longer considered to be indispensable for Democracy to function.]]></description>
      <category>Proposals and Initiatives</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,937,937#msg-937</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 14 Sep 2008 07:54:26 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>[Proposals and Initiatives] necessity for  &quot;Democracy's Trustees&quot;</title>
      <link>http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,936,936#msg-936</link>
      <author>yehuda</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Direct Democracy – necessity for  &quot;Democracy's Trustees&quot;

Democracy means equality. No person is above others. Each person has the same rights and obligations to live as a free person, contributing and being contributed by society and in a well being life.
To enable each person to participate in decision making process one has to be capable to understand complex subjects that stand on the stake and with full accessibility to objective information.
This is possible with Internet technology in combination with &quot;Democracy's Trustees&quot; . Their role will be to represent a specific Idea only which they identify with , to support their opinion by reason and facts and to negate the others opinions.This process also should be regulated to prevent fraud and deception.Newspapers telling us that they represent &quot;the right to know&quot;. In reality their information is never objective nor inclusive that a person can rely on them for formulating his opinion as a free thinking person.]]></description>
      <category>Proposals and Initiatives</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?23,936,936#msg-936</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 06 Sep 2008 17:21:16 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
