Identity
Filter
Visitors
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Highest posts
- 02/06 18:00 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 02/06 01:01 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 29/05 16:59 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 29/05 16:25 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 29/05 14:23 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 29/05 13:09 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 24/05 20:10 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 24/05 19:10 +1 Re: Register of Electors
Latest posts
- 02/06 18:00 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 02/06 01:01 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 29/05 16:59 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 29/05 16:25 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 29/05 14:23 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 29/05 13:09 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 24/05 20:10 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 24/05 19:10 +1 Re: Register of Electors
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Re: Register of Electors
-
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 09:07:29AM -0000, MG wrote:
> > Is there not the possibility that a quick decision be taken very > > fast yet realization that it was not so good sets slowly in, and it > > gets verrrrry difficult to correct because support for corrections > > gather over a much longer time span? > > -No, the corrections will take as much time as the first wave. And once > there is a strong force for a correction, the pace will accelerate in > that direction. The issue is not settled before there is at least an > accumulated support for either side.
I don’t get it then. Is it a matter of acceleration of support or not? If a proposal is accepted in a short time frame, can corrections, whose support was to accumulate over a much longer time span, change the original issue?
By the way, do you expect that issues get “closed” after a while, or are they still and always “on”?
> -AD envisons that the sorting capabilities for, level of support, area > of interest, origin of proposals etc. will help a lot to the citizerns > to only engage in important stuff, close enough to be decided upon in > a near future. > The rest can wait (for ever, if badly written or totally wrong).
Sorry, but this is not enough to me.
What of the small issues a village has to manage?
What of the large and numerous issues a nation has to manage?
> > Personally I consider that one advantage of internet is that we do > > not intrinsically need to take time into account. Issues can be > > voted upon at any time. > > > > … Unless outside conditions set the agenda of course. > > -Well in a small group maybe, but for large majorities there can be > populistic moves and that’s why the AD-system was invented.
I think that no system can provide against the deficiencies of its participants. We can design tools, but we can not decide how they will be used.
> Time is very often the enemy of sanity. Very few bad decisions are > taken with good amount of time involved. > And when you look at the history, very few would suffer from being > voted upon for say 6 months or more.
Sorry, but I can point toward many many wars, the onset of insanity, that accumulated support of their population over many years.
echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
>> -No, the corrections will take as much time as the first wave. And once > there is a strong force for a correction, the pace will accelerate in > that direction. The issue is not settled before there is at least an > accumulated support for either side.
>I don’t get it then. Is it a matter of acceleration of support or not? If a proposal is accepted in a short time frame, can corrections, whose
support was to accumulate over a much longer time span, change the original issue?
-No proposal is accepted until the accumulated support has reached the number of 1.0.
Before that the majority can swing as many times it want.>By the way, do you expect that issues get “closed” after a while, or are they still and always “on”?
-They can live for ever or until they are accepted or rejected by reaching +1 or -1.
> -AD envisons that the sorting capabilities for, level of support, area > of interest, origin of proposals etc. will help a lot to the citizerns > to only engage in important stuff, close enough to be decided upon in > a near future. > The rest can wait (for ever, if badly written or totally wrong).
>Sorry, but this is not enough to me. What of the small issues a village has to manage? -This is to be handled by self determination. Right decisions on the right level.
The small village has to decide to raise opinion from neighbor villages or local region and, as today, try to raise opinion state-wide if needed. Has nothing to do with AD, DD or RD.>What of the large and numerous issues a nation has to manage?
-I envison that the real important onces are not so many. And those shall be easy to filter in all sorts of ways. As I said, most important would be after level of acccumulated support, how close to an acceptance or rejection is a proposal.
Only those close to end will have to be dealt with for the individual voter.
And only these will be the important ones with enoug support to being worty a vote.> > Personally I consider that one advantage of internet is that we do > > not intrinsically need to take time into account. Issues can be > > voted upon at any time.
> > … Unless outside conditions set the agenda of course.
> -Well in a small group maybe, but for large majorities there can be > populistic moves and that’s why the AD-system was invented.
>I think that no system can provide against the deficiencies of its participants. We can design tools, but we can not decide how they will be used.
-The power should be in the hands of the voters. The tools should be good enough.
There has to be a constitution.> Time is very often the enemy of sanity. Very few bad decisions are > taken with good amount of time involved. > And when you look at the history, very few would suffer from being > voted upon for say 6 months or more.
>Sorry, but I can point toward many many wars, the onset of insanity, that accumulated support of their population over many years.
-No, this accumulated insanity was concentrated to a few. If not, the insanity was used by a few by populistic manors. With more democracy, too many would have been involved to allow for these personal mistakes by these corrupted “leaders”. Show me one example that I’m wrong.
+1
-
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 05:10:22PM -0000, MG wrote:
> > Sorry, but I can point toward many many wars, the onset of insanity, > > that accumulated support of their population over many years. > > -No, this accumulated insanity was concentrated to a few. > If not, the insanity was used by a few by populistic manors. > With more democracy, too many would have been involved to allow for > these personal mistakes by these corrupted “leaders”. > Show me one example that I’m wrong.
First world war…
echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
>First world war…
Come on! Do you really regard the political situation around 1:st world war to be a democratic one?
An environement free to anyone to express and debate the shortcomings on the first attack (don’t remember wich one that was)? A working democracy with the possibilitry to stop such an attack? I don’t think so.
+1
-
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 11:09:28AM -0000, MG wrote:
> > >First world war… > > Come on! Do you really regard the political situation around 1:st world > war to be a democratic one?
Both population actually wanted war. They craved and asked for it!
> An environement free to anyone to express and debate the shortcomings > on the first attack (don’t remember wich one that was)?
Germans using the Schlieffen plan. The one that was reused during WWII, but much more efficiently (it’s incredible how faster than conscripts tanks can go).
All of Europe, had been preparing for war for decades. Populations wanted it as much as anybody. In France everybody was singing songs about Alsace and Lorrain, both departments parts of Germany since 1870. The soldiers on both sides actually went to war with flowers in their rifles (I don’t remember the English expression for “fleur au fusil”).
Those are the short comings of nationalism…
Yes, hopefully a proper TOP democratic process could open the eyes of all those involved, but there is no certitude about that, and there can never be…
echarp – http://echarp.org/blog
+1
-
-You describe yourself wrong… Nationalism is one form of bad populism.
Populism is not likely with TOP in place, because nationalism started by corrupt leaders using the masses for their own goals. Tell me one nationalistic movement without a criminal leader behind. It’s very big words to say that ALL citzens (or even the majorities of them) wanted war..
+1
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revanchism
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 02:25:03PM -0000, MG wrote:
> -You describe yourself wrong…
I do apologize if I don’t express myself properly.
> Nationalism is one form of bad populism.
They are linked yes. But I don’t believe that they require criminal leaders to exist.
> Populism is not likely with TOP in place, because nationalism started > by corrupt leaders using the masses for their own goals.
Sorry, this is one easy explanation I’d rather not over use. A nation can be wrong, a democracy can be wrong. I have no problem with that and will not resort to “corrupt leaders” to explain it away.
Hopefully yes, transparency will drastically improve the quality of our democratic decisions, but they nonetheless will be wrong at times!
> Tell me one nationalistic movement without a criminal leader behind. > It’s very big words to say that ALL citzens (or even the majorities of > them) wanted war..
I do believe that most of France wanted WWI, same with Germany and WWII.
By the way, here is a huge political reading: Discourse on Voluntary Servitude
Written by 18 year old “La Boetie” some 5 centuries ago.
echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
>Hopefully yes, transparency will drastically improve the quality of our democratic decisions, but they nonetheless will be wrong at times!
-Agreed
>I do believe that most of France wanted WWI, same with Germany and WWII.
-If this is a commonly accepted thruth (which I dount) it must be wrong. I don’t know about France but in Germany, WW2, there was a criminal leader involved at least..
+1
-
MG wrote:
> >Hopefully yes, transparency will drastically improve the quality of our > democratic decisions, but they nonetheless will be wrong at times! > > -Agreed
Somebody said that only in democracies decisions might be wrong.
ATB,
Gale
+1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
