Ok, I think I'm pretty much on the same track with you - including the fact that I don't have any detailed proposal available. Let's see what the different concepts are good for and in under what conditions they can be used.
Juho On Mar 23, 2007, at 21:02 , Dave Ketchum wrote: > I started the Trees by Proxy thread March 18, in response to > thoughts YOU had expressed: > Abd has a new concept he calls Free Associations. > Responding to YOUR thoughts, I propose keeping traditional > legislature structures and responsibilities, doing the elections > via proxy. > > I do not pretend to have all the details sorted out - it has been > less than a week since your post inspired me. > > DWK > > On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:33:24 +0200 Juho wrote: > >> On Mar 23, 2007, at 7:56 , Dave Ketchum wrote: >>> I suggest you look at Trees by Proxy as a better base for your >>> thoughts. >>> >>> It provides for electing legislatures, such as boards of >>> trustees or elders, via continuous elections (proxies). >>> >>> Unlike Free Associations, these have traditional powers and >>> responsibilities. >> I agree that the "traditional powers and responsibilities" can not >> be replaced overnight. And even if it was possible I wouldn't >> recommend to do so (often such ideological experiments have >> failed). The FAs could however be a useful tool at the edge of >> the political system. I don't expect the difference to >> traditional political ways of working to be very big, but >> reminding of the need to keep the system flexible/ responsive/open/ >> discussing is a good thing to do. >> Maybe it would be good to discuss separately about each of the >> proposed ideas (FAs, proxies, continuous elections, permanent >> representatives, use of tree structures etc.) to keep the >> discussion clear. >> Juho >>> I said nothing of parties, but said nothing against parties. I >>> suspect they would have less power than with traditional elections. >>> >>> The actual "electing" of someone wishing to be a legislator has >>> little formality. The attracting of enough proxies to make one >>> a legislator with muscle could get involved. >>> >>> DWK >>> >>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 21:50:47 +0200 Juho wrote: >>> >>>> On Mar 21, 2007, at 21:02 , Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: >>>> >>>>>> "Free Association" >>>>>> >>>>>> Is it still "free" if it is part of the "official machinery"? >>>>>> >>>>> If it is part of the official machinery, it is not free, most >>>>> likely. Free Association is a technical term I coined to refer >>>>> to an association with a certain set of characteristics. It's >>>>> free in a number of respects. It is free in that it is not >>>>> coerced. Membership in a free association is solely at the >>>>> choice of the member. You can't be expelled from a Free >>>>> Association. Again, necessity allows what may otherwise be >>>>> forbidden. The Association is a Free Association in other >>>>> ways: freedom of association includes the freedom *not* to >>>>> associate. FA meetings can set their own rules; these are the >>>>> rules of the meeting, not of the Association. >>>>> >>>>> It is free in that there are "no dues or fees." >>>>> >>>>> FAs are actually the default organization of peers; but peer >>>>> organizations very often devolve rapidly into something else, >>>>> particularly if they see some success. Power structures appear, >>>>> etc. >>>>> >>>>> Another important aspect of the FA is that it is "free" from >>>>> bias. The FA does not take positions of controversy. You can >>>>> join an FA without thereby endorsing *anything.* Except >>>>> possibly the simple idea of association itself, of free >>>>> discussion and voluntary coordination. So you can join the >>>>> Range Voting Free Association and be totally opposed to Range >>>>> Voting. Indeed, we'd invite you to do so! >>>>> >>>> I'm trying to analyse the difference between parties and Free >>>> Associations. The formal machinery calls established political >>>> groupings of people "parties". They are clearly part of the >>>> machinery. In most countries people are free to form new >>>> parties. (Depending on the current political system they may >>>> have different chances of becoming really influential parties.) >>>> The Free associations that you described seem to differ from >>>> parties roughly in that they have a very limited set of rules >>>> and are therefore more "free" than the traditional parties. I >>>> noted at least the following possible differences. >>>> - one can't be expelled >>>> - no permanent rules (only per meeting) >>>> - no fees >>>> - no power structure >>>> - does not take positions of controversy >>>> - members don't endorse anything (except the existence of the >>>> association itself) >>>> - members may be against the basic targets of the FA >>>> A party with very relaxed rules could be a Free Association. >>>> Maybe people are also free to choose whether to influence via >>>> FAs of more formal parties and the system could support a >>>> mixture of these two. (In this case FAs could be part of the >>>> "official machinery" (but only lightly regulated if at all).) >>>> >>>>> But I'm pointing out that if enough people belonged to a >>>>> political FA (which means an FA that is interested in >>>>> politics, not one that is partisan, in itself), and if this >>>>> FA was DP, the people could control the government, without >>>>> breaking a sweat. It would not be the FA controlling the >>>>> government; the FA merely provides the communications, it >>>>> would be the people. >>>>> >>>> Hmm, maybe I'm trying to point out that the formality of the >>>> groups (FA vs. party) is a flexible concept, and that some >>>> people might feel that "controlling the government" is >>>> possible also by having rather rigid parties that the voters >>>> can choose from (and trust that hey will efficiently drive the >>>> policy that is written in their program). >>>> >>>>> Indeed, the people already control the government, only they >>>>> are asleep, so they act in accordance with their dreams, >>>>> those of their own, or those induced by the dream masters. >>>>> >>>>> I'm suggesting that the people awaken, not in the sense of >>>>> Awaken and Throw Off Your Chains, but in the sense of simply >>>>> allowing group intelligence to arise. I'm not attempting to >>>>> prejudge what that intelligence will decide, and I would >>>>> certainly advise caution! >>>>> >>>>> Instead of waking up and thrashing about, which in the stupor >>>>> of recent sleep can do a lot of damage, just wake up and >>>>> look around. Smell the coffee. And start to talk about it. >>>>> >>>> It seems that what we are looking for is a political system >>>> that allows people to influence and not get e.g. the feeling >>>> that whatever way they vote, the professional politicians >>>> (and potentially also lobbyists) will promote their own goals, >>>> never mind the voters, and will never give anything more back >>>> to the voters/citizens than promises. I'd call that a >>>> "working democracy". Free Associations (="very free and >>>> informal parties") could be one tool in achieving that but I >>>> think also formal parties, different political systems, voting >>>> methods etc. can be used to achieve that. (Same with proxies >>>> and "continuous elections".) >>>> Juho > > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek > Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026 > Do to no one what you would not want done to you. > If you want peace, work for justice. > > ___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info