On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 05:46:15PM -0700, MG wrote:
> > Just consider that the representatives are an intermediary step at > > the level of voters. > > > > They don’t have to have any sort of special status, but for the fact > > that they represent more than their own voice. > > They have a very special status! > They are the ones to put forward the proposals in a RD.
Where does it say that?
> So when they decide on strategy to get their hiden agendas fulfilled, > thay have to be wired actually if we’r talking TOP-principles.
Do you want to wire all voters? What if they discuss and influence each others? What of a voter’s party or syndicate?
> > In my opinion delegates are somehow representatives yes, yet they > > don’t control that many/much things. > > In AD they control as much as their mandate from the voters give them. > But they can be replaced or sacked in one day by an individual citizen.
No need for any delay, their power change just as voters set or remove their delegations :)
> > To me what is important is that citizen can directly participate. > > Yet is it practical to consider that everybody should participate > > directly on everything? Particularly if there is no limit on the > > quantity of things managed democratically? " > > AD has means to both minimize the numbers of issues to read (the > continous vote) and if still too many, to delegate one or all > issues/areas for now until further change or for a specific time > period.
There can be a HUGE number of active issues at any one time. Consider that all our current laws are each an issue onto which a citizen can vote!
And that amount can increase by factors of 10, 100, 10^10, no limit!!! All laws, rules, nominations, communications, news, local and international, could be issues. All active and available for vote and discussions.
The delegation you are speaking about, is of what kind?
echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
echarp wrote: […] > > In AD they control as much as their mandate from the voters give them. > > But they can be replaced or sacked in one day by an individual citizen.
>ec: No need for any delay, their power change just as voters set or remove their delegations :)
-M: Maybe that is what Karl meant. This is also how SD2-Smartocracy works.
> > > To me what is important is that citizen can directly participate. > > > Yet is it practical to consider that everybody should participate > > > directly on everything? Particularly if there is no limit on the > > > quantity of things managed democratically? "
> > AD has means to both minimize the numbers of issues to read (the > > continous vote) and if still too many, to delegate one or all > > issues/areas for now until further change or for a specific time > > period.
>ec: There can be a HUGE number of active issues at any one time. Consider that all our current laws are each an issue onto which a citizen can vote! And that amount can increase by factors of 10, 100, 10^10, no limit!!! All laws, rules, nominations, communications, news, local and international, could be issues. All active and available for vote and discussions. The delegation you are speaking about, is of what kind?
-M: (You are asking Karl this question, but I will pretend that you are inquiring into SD2-Smartocracy.)
I imagine that an issue gets voted on when the following conditions are met:
So my input field could be like this: ——————————————————————————————————————
Name ___________________________]
Manditory representitives: [(default), (default)]
Optional additional representitives: _______________________] ____________________________________________________]
Issue X Y Z
Vote:
Yes [ ] No [ ] Deliberate [ ]
Optional delegate(s) (will default to representitives if none are selected): ________________________________________]
Decision threshold 60%… (range 50%+1 – 70%, default 60%)
…of a required 20%5 of qualified voters (range (0% – 40%)5, default 20%+5)
—————————————————————————
+1