Direct Democracy - The development of a working model.

[Ween Dwijler]

1 minute ago, Golden Retriever said:

 

I don't have any recommendations of "really great thinkers of our time, from relevant disciplines in the sciences"

 

What are yours?

Me neither at the moment, busy with other tasks. But it is not relevant yet, either. We have nothing to present them yet.

[Golden Retriever]

52 minutes ago, Jus said:

Haven't the foundations along these lines been thought through already... 

 

https://www.universal-community-trust.org

 

It is something I know very little about and is problematic in that it is founded on a lack of response from the Queen etc. However, it seems to be based on the type of ideas being discussed. 

 

 

 

 

Thanks. I found this video which may explain it in more detail. Sharing for info.

 

 

[Sheepy]

6 minutes ago, Ween Dwijler said:

I hope this is not just a populist thing. We should strive to include everyone, even the tyrants we don't like.

Don't you worry they will be along at regular intervals not in person but their minions for sure. The Tyrants that is. 

[Ween Dwijler]

5 minutes ago, Golden Retriever said:

 

 

Thanks. I found this video which may explain it in more detail. Sharing for info.

 

 

Trusties, and I was gone.

[Doc]

I'm sorry @Ween Dwijler, I know you and I didn't get off on the right foot on the forum. You may even have me on ignore.

 

The overall aim of this thread seems to be positive, and you may have good intentions and an honourable cause but to get there there are a number of massive, glaringly obvious hurdles to get over for this kind of thing to be able take root. You are not addressing these real world problems.

 

Ink has raised some very valid points and you have shut him down and ignored the part that he could have played in this thread. If you are having a serious discussion about how to achieve and maintain a parallel society you need to consider all angles. And practise what you preech.

[Diesel]

Every Democracy is doomed to failure if we do not deal with root problems

as several members have mentioned I would name the top 5 as:

 

1)Money

2)Freedom Of Information

3)Energy

4)Religion

5)Law

 

 

[Grumpy Owl]

As has been pointed out already earlier in this topic, Switzerland already has a system of direct democracy in place, which I understand works quite well, with numerous referenda on various issues and policy decisions.

 

So I don't think anything needs to be invented from scratch, you'd just need to look more closely at the Swiss model.

 

A couple of years ago now, when I was a member of UKIP, I know that direct democracy was something that was being looked at seriously, and some bods within the party had developed some kind of system for this, which they were looking to implement internally for party members so that everyone had a say with regards to policy formation and implementation.

[Ween Dwijler]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

I'm sorry @Ween Dwijler, I know you and I didn't get off on the right foot on the forum. You may even have me on ignore.

 

The overall aim of this thread seems to be positive, and you may have good intentions and an honourable cause but to get there there are a number of massive, glaringly obvious hurdles to get over for this kind of thing to be able take root. You are not addressing these real world problems.

 

Ink has raised some very valid points and you have shut him down and ignored the part that he could have played in this thread. If you are having a serious discussion about how to achieve and maintain a parallel society you need to consider all angles. And practise what you preech.

Everyone deserves a second chance. You started of with calling this thread the most surreal thread ever. Good start for a reconciliation! But, lets ignore that for a moment.

 

To start with, I'm not preaching, just try to develop with help of others an alternative for what we're dealing with these days. And it is certainly not my intention to create a parallel society, neither that of the others here that are doing their best to make positive and constructive contributions.

 

And for your information, we all realize that there will be hurdles along the way, some big, some small. We'll take each one when it shows up and becomes a reality for us. At this stage we're just in the beginning. working to "design" a concept that might be viable. And we keep tweaking until we have it. Why are you so worried about "threat" that are not even there yet?

 

If your answer is a rational and calm one, we can continue, otherwise, its back on ignore again. But no 3rd chance.

[Jus]

13 minutes ago, Ween Dwijler said:

Trusties, and I was gone.

Yep, get your point, an ultimate DD solution would override the fact any anyone has autonomy over another. 

 

Everyone would need equal ability to have their voices and opinions heard which can then be democratically filtered? But then who would you trust to oversee this, or would the system have to be so bulletproof it would oversee itself? 

[Diesel]

25 minutes ago, Golden Retriever said:

  1 hour ago, Jus said:

Haven't the foundations along these lines been thought through already... 

 

https://www.universal-community-trust.org

 

It is something I know very little about and is problematic in that it is founded on a lack of response from the Queen etc. However, it seems to be based on the type of ideas being discussed. 

 

This post was dismissed but seems to be a good framework to work off

[Ween Dwijler]

4 minutes ago, Grumpy Owl said:

As has been pointed out already earlier in this topic, Switzerland already has a system of direct democracy in place, which I understand works quite well, with numerous referenda on various issues and policy decisions.

 

So I don't think anything needs to be invented from scratch, you'd just need to look more closely at the Swiss model.

 

A couple of years ago now, when I was a member of UKIP, I know that direct democracy was something that was being looked at seriously, and some bods within the party had developed some kind of system for this, which they were looking to implement internally for party members so that everyone had a say with regards to policy formation and implementation.

Thanks for your input. As a matter of fact, I'm busy with reading and understanding the Swiss Constitution that was voted for in 1999. It can provide us with a lot of material to go with. As I talked about with @DarianF we can use that, the US constitution and others to compose the best of all worlds. It might be best to start with a constitution as a basis for further work towards a direct democracy. What are your thoughts about that?

 

By the way, I'm not thinking to limit it to the UK. I think there is a large world out there that is dying to see positive and constructive change.

[Sheepy]

13 minutes ago, Diesel said:

Every Democracy is doomed to failure if we do not deal with root problems

as several members have mentioned I would name the top 5 as:

 

1)Money

2)Freedom Of Information

3)Energy

4)Religion

5)Law

 

 

Fair points Diesel. I would guess the corporation has control over the majority of those. 

[Ween Dwijler]

26 minutes ago, Diesel said:

Every Democracy is doomed to failure if we do not deal with root problems

as several members have mentioned I would name the top 5 as:

 

1)Money

2)Freedom Of Information

3)Energy

4)Religion

5)Law

 

 

So deal with it and let us know what you've come up with. Thank you.

[Jus]

13 minutes ago, Diesel said:

This post was dismissed but seems to be a good framework to work off

I really know very little about it all, I just liked its underling ethos:

 

'We are all born sovereign, with inalienable birthrights, and are free to live life the way we chose, provided we don't cause harm, injury, damage or loss to others.'

 

However there would be times when harm could be done, even if unintentionally. It is on such occasions a system of DD could come in handy.

 

 

[Diesel]

5 minutes ago, Ween Dwijler said:

So deal with it and let us know what you've come up with. Thank you.

Lets deal with the worst problem first MONEY. Money could be replaced by "collective contribution" to society where people contribute in material, spiritual, philosophical, legal, artistic, medical, entertainment etc and in return for there contribution receive freely the contribution of others. I believe everyone has skills that they can contribute and people could pursue in life something that they enjoy. A worldwide free market could be created which values contribution equally. For instance I can program and enjoy it as others may enjoy caring for the elderly. In this new society both contributions would be seen as equal, in todays system the programmer is paid far more than someone who cares for others, this is wrong.

[Ween Dwijler]

8 hours ago, Jus said:

Yep, get your point, an ultimate DD solution would override the fact any anyone has autonomy over another. 

 

Everyone would need equal ability to have their voices and opinions heard which can then be democratically filtered? But then who would you trust to oversee this, or would the system have to be so bulletproof it would oversee itself? 

Some good points you make there. Equality must be guaranteed. As in the Swiss DD model, the law rules. That should be bulletproof. A judicial system would have to oversee it and ensure the Constitution is guaranteed in all cases.

[Ween Dwijler]

7 hours ago, Diesel said:

Lets deal with the worst problem first MONEY. Money could be replaced by "collective contribution" to society where people contribute in material, spiritual, philosophical, legal, artistic, medical, entertainment etc and in return for there contribution receive freely the contribution of others. I believe everyone has skills that they can contribute and people could pursue in life something that they enjoy. A worldwide free market could be created which values contribution equally. For instance I can program and enjoy it as others may enjoy caring for the elderly. In this new society both contributions would be seen as equal, in todays system the programmer is paid far more than someone who cares for others, this is wrong.

What you're suggestion is a communist system. I don't think anyone would wanna go there.

[Ween Dwijler]

15 hours ago, Diesel said:

I like the system of a benevolent leader voted in to ensure the welfare of the people, held accountable to the people who using a digital system of voting policies and represents and implements policies that are a benefit society. Instead of professional politicians we could have representatives from experts in there field, such as teaching, healthcare, legal and spiritual that use their experience to guide the people. Money must be abolished as it is the root of corruption and evil in this world and replaced by a system of collective contribution, where people use their individual skills to contribute to society. All water, food, shelter and clean energy should be a basic human right.

Off topic.

[Ween Dwijler]

Recap 1^st day

 

1. Several members (@alba, @sheepy, @Grumpy Owl) pointed to Switzerland as a model for direct democracy. This is what I had in mind when setting up this thread. I know 2 Dutch business tycoons (both part of the Dutch elite close to the previous queen) who told me about their encounters with Swiss (local) democracy, which encounters they apparently didn’t like. We all understand why. It is a place where they couldn’t get things their way. Bummer for them.

 

I took some time to read into the Swiss system of direct democracy. It is not a true direct democracy, since they have a Federal Assembly, also known as Swiss parliament, with representatives that are elected every 4 years. So, it’s part direct democracy and part representative democracy. The latter leading to the existence of political parties.

 

Maybe, for some time in the past, representative democracy might have been a good organizational solution to give people a voice in the governing of their community, but with today’s technology it’s obsolete. In my opinion, representative democracy can only lead to a governmental disaster. The increasingly stronger power grab from the polyarchy (factual now Juntas) and their ruling by decree and mandates proves that point more than enough.

 

So, direct democracy in its purest form seems to me the optimal way to go. That part of the Swiss democracy that is direct, can be used as a template for our own model. As the ones that pointed to the Swiss system already stated, no need to invent the wheel again. We go Nippon style; copy and improve.

 

2. Another question that came up multiple times; “How would that direct democracy work in reality?”

 

Again the Swiss example can be used here. In a free society, people most likely choose to live in a community with others sharing mutual interests. @kilowon named it tribes, tribal communities. And in a way those communities are tribes. Working, living, and enjoying their lives at a local level.

 

Thanks to the positive contributions of @DarianF and @kilowon we also have a clearer picture of how it all can work. From community level all the way up to global level. Next, a suggestion for a decision model to be used in direct democracy.

 

Bringing a proposal up for voting

If a person, a community, a city or territory, a state, a nation, or a continent wants to bring a proposal up for voting, these steps should be followed;

1. Compose a proposal in clear and understandable language, as short as possible yet comprehensive enough to be complete, indicating all conceivable impacts on social, economical and natural environment positive and negative (pros and cons).

2. Send the proposal to the nearest location of the Constitutional Court to have it examined on compliance with the Constitution. If compliant, the proposal will receive constitutional approval and is returned to the proposer for further processing. If not compliant in a minor way, the proposer is given the chance to adjust the proposal for a second examination. If not compliant in a major way, or not having passed the second examination, constitutional approval is denied and the proposal is filed for later reference.

3. After having received the constitutionally approved proposal from the court, the proposer has to collect a designated amount of signatures to support the proposal. It depends on the level, communal, city/territory, state, nation or continent, how many supporting signatures are needed (this can also depend on the amount of people impacted by the proposal. Large city or nation needs more signatures than small city or nation). There is no time limit attached to the collection of signatures.

4. With all needed supporting signatures collected, the proposal can be put up for voting on the level it is meant for.

5. Personally, I want to go for a consensus style voting. However, 100% consensus is near impossible to achieve. To avoid rule of a small majority (51% for example) voting should reach near consensus status. This can be a scale from 70% up to 95%, depending on the weight of the proposal and its impact on social, economical and natural environments. Where 95% yay would be needed to start a nuclear war with Martians, and 70% for a supermarket in a city community.

 

This is just a general outline and by no means a final proposal. Lots of tweaking and re-formulating will give us a workable decision model in the end. The model should work as a uniform method on all levels of decision making.

 

3. A constitution should be made as a foundation for the direct democracy. Again the Swiss seem to have a quite nice one to work with, and I’m tweaking some of the wordings and articles now to come up with a first draft. We can all look at it, scrutinize it, make suggestions to add or to re-formulate etc. Goal is to craft one that can be used worldwide.

 

Maybe we should even consider to make a declaration of independence at some point, when we are ready to go with our model of direct democracy. It wouldn’t be a traditional declaration of independence, since that would mean we would form an independent territory to secede from the state. Which could consider that to be a rebellion with the violent reaction as result. The idea needs some more time to develop, I guess.

 

Thanks to all for your positive and constructive input. Lets keep going with it.

[Ween Dwijler]

Note to the ones I have on ignore function.

You’re there for a reason. That reason is a negative, destructive attitude aiming to distort positive, constructive conversations and discussions between other members. I’ve seen many of your kind in my corporate times. Wordings as “doomed”, “seems”, “may have good intentions” or “a number of massive, glaringly obvious hurdles” can only have the intention to attempt to kill the process that’s going on. We called them “meeting tigers”, incapable of making any positive contribution. And I fired each one of them. Useless as they were.

 

It’s clear you somehow perceive this topic and its positive development as a threat. We can only guess why that is. What we don’t have to guess is how you try to contaminate the thread and distort the good work done here. Some people feel so miserable, that they would literally do anything to drag others down to their level of misery.

 

So, if you have no positive, constructive contribution to make, stay away.

[Jus]

Wow, I wasn't expecting such a through process within the forum, very efficient. 

 

Your suggestions do bring back key elements I was thinking along the lines of when considering such a system some time ago. I do, however, struggle with the part where a proposal needs to be agreed by the nearest Constitution Court. This is an area where censorship and corruption could influence the whole setup. 

 

Surely, if there is enough backing for an idea, it should be escalated without prejudice. You may get the odd 'Boatie Mc Boatface' scenario, but people would soon learn to respect the power and importance of submitting worthwhile proposals. Anything too pointless or damaging is unlikely to receive the votes needed to progress. 

[Sheepy]

2 hours ago, Ween Dwijler said:

So, direct democracy in its purest form seems to me the optimal way to go. That part of the Swiss democracy that is direct, can be used as a template for our own model. As the ones that pointed to the Swiss system already stated, no need to invent the wheel again. We go Nippon style; copy and improve.

Why not, it has the makings of a working model and for all the it will never work, it does which is undeniable. Also the Swiss are always near the top of the list of happiest people. Maybe this is a factor.

Edited November 2, 2021 by Sheepy

[Diesel]

5 hours ago, Ween Dwijler said:

What you're suggestion is a communist system. I don't think anyone would wanna go there.

Well unless your new system tackles the elephant in the room - MONEY then its doomed to failure. Pursuit of Money is the main problem in any democracy, it creates corruption, greed and inequality. There is little point in creating a new society that is based on capitalism as it will become as corrupt as the one we live in. How do you suggest we tackle this problem?

[Ween Dwijler]

56 minutes ago, Jus said:

Wow, I wasn't expecting such a through process within the forum, very efficient. 

 

Your suggestions do bring back key elements I was thinking along the lines of when considering such a system some time ago. I do, however, struggle with the part where a proposal needs to be agreed by the nearest Constitution Court. This is an area where censorship and corruption could influence the whole setup. 

 

Surely, if there is enough backing for an idea, it should be escalated without prejudice. You may get the odd 'Boatie Mc Boatface' scenario, but people would soon learn to respect the power and importance of submitting worthwhile proposals. Anything too pointless or damaging is unlikely to receive the votes needed to progress. 

The Constitutional Court is there to make sure the proposals will not violate the constitution. Censorship or corruption are no issue, because the courts are a service to the public, not a governmental body. Anyone who would try to censor, would be caught immediately. However, never say never, so it will be a good idea to see if mechanism can be in place to prevent it.

 

Pointless or damaging proposals will most likely not even make it to the voting stage.

[Ween Dwijler]

10 minutes ago, Diesel said:

Well unless your new system tackles the elephant in the room - MONEY then its doomed to failure. Pursuit of Money is the main problem in any democracy, it creates corruption, greed and inequality. There is little point in creating a new society that is based on capitalism as it will become as corrupt as the one we live in. How do you suggest we tackle this problem?

Come back when that issue becomes relevant. It isn't now.