invitation to join a webinar

https://www.loomio.org/d/5yx2DbU6/document-in-regards-to-swiss-direct-democracy#comment-572562

Your web page says your political ideology is "The elimination of elected representative government and the achievement of individual direct governance." http://www.directdemocraticrepublic.com/

Why not a combination like Switzerland? It doesn't have to be exactly like theirs, we could simply introduce individuals who are controlled by direct methods as elected representatives. I think this is much more possible than a complete change, and if it works then people might be open to more radical changes.

"Switzerland's voting system is unique among modern democratic nations in that Switzerland practices direct democracy in parallel with representative democracy." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Switzerland

because long term i believe we do not require representatives. as long as i require a representative i can never be sure i am truly being represented. the old boys networks and business dealings will always find a way to corrupt centralised powers

as an intermediary method i can see senator online or citizen initiated referendum as a means to get there, but i do not think we require those structures to govern ourselves.

every single structure we leave in place is another potential for corruption.

if we are changing our system, we should be looking at making sure our changes also protect our new systems

ultimately though, this development will be a direct democracy too, so if you think that the representative method is best, then get together some suggestions and put it to the vote.

i stand by my decisions to attempt a blue print of a completely new society. i think, and i feel thats what is required to support real direct democracy.

I'm busy and inattentive-- my apologies!-- but I must say that I haven't seen any direct feedback in this group regarding my suggestions that democracy does not equal a simple majority of voters, and neither should direct democracy equal a simple majority.

I don't desire to argue; I'm just curious if there are any specific responses which would (or would not) advocate "50% plus one" voting on proposals or referendums. I'd also be super interested in any external links which directly advocate simple majority/ 50% plus one voting.

Thanks for any feedback, and I apologize if I've missed any relevant comments before!

I would think that for some issues 50%+1 might be ok, but not all issues. Perhaps a mechanism to allow for different thresholds for different issues might be useful

Thanks @directadmin ; I appreciate the feedback. :) I think a variety of voting standards could be valid, depending upon the types of proposals considered to be valid, and who gets to create them, and how they are created and finalized.

I'm very interested in discussing such issues when I have time. I can't commit to the webinar, but I will make a calendar note to revisit that possibility as my schedule develops. Thanks for the group invite!

As i believe in local sovereign communities I think anyone could submit a proposal.

In my mind I think local issues would be easily solved this way. Larger issues could be decided based on each community having a single vote based on local proposition outcomes.

A variable threshold would require a way of identification of the issues and how variable thresholds could be applied.

Almost as big a discussion as thresholds itself.

We don't have to find all the answers, just identify the questions and let the group locate answers.

Living in Switzerland, I see there are clear biases in direct democracy as well, as @directadmin I think pointed out.

One is that the information regarding voting comes from the government and is clearly biased, so that people can vote directly on issues, but their knowledge and voting tendencies are skewed by the current structures of representation.

The other is that this voting is done with the rule of 50%-plus-1, which is not what I want to see in a democracy. To respond to @gregorycassel, I personally think that real democracy is consensus. From a design perspective, if there is no consensus, we haven't found a real solution yet.

This points to the importance of systems for dialogue, not systems for voting. We need to focus on ways to exchange ideas so that we can develop better proposals. Then the voting threshold becomes less important.

I am not sure if Direct Democracy is a better system than Representative Democracy but tend to think it is. The reason I am not sure is because DD relies on the majority making good decisions and I am not sure that the majority are capable. We will not know for sure until it is tested.

I tend to think that the majority will make good decisions but it depends on, what the character is of, the sum total of human nature. Human nature is not all good but one aspect of our nature is the ability to over ride some of our more destructive instincts with the tools of logic. I also think that we are much more good than bad.

To put DD to the test we need a pathway of change. Perhaps tools like loomio are the beginnings of the path. The ability for all people to work together in real time has never existed before so none of us have the skills to do it. It is like never having used social media before. It is a learning process.

I think that the eventual platform that gives people the ability to organise and decide on a global level will offer great design flexibility. It will allow the ability of groups to form and for those groups to decide the way their group works. It would be wrong to make all groups conform to a single design. Each group should have the ability to choose if they want DD, RD, simple majority, consensus ,super majority, and what voting system. I see the platform containing controls that allow many variations and the choosing of the variations being a collective one.

So I don't really have an opinion on 50%+1, or whether DD is the end goal. I feel that the collective should have an organic ability to choose the design of the system and the ability to try many variations. The system will be one that evolves from the input of the collective.

i agree with letting it evolve, but to get it out there we have to set some standards and protections. part of that "education" or learning process in my mind is intially designing a robust system, but allowing it to be changed or expanded on the proviso that these changes dont over run the individual

if a system is to be evolutionary there has to be a solid and precise set of laws that cannot be changed except under certain stringent conditions, (like the current Australian constitution and referenda).... constitution, bill of rights, whatever it is called. if that is in place, then communities could have representatives, as long as that was decided by means of direct democracy initially.
every individual must have the same rights and power in the system. we cant do all this work only to find teh same old boys clubs grab power again.

from my point of view, reducing the area a direct democracy can effect, will aid that evolutionary process, in that people elsewhere cant make changes that affect your local area.

the only time that would change is on issue that require what we refer to as a national attention now.
while i think globally, direct democracy would work locally.
its just a matter of scaling up the systems in play, and working out how to fairly attribute that small scale decision making to larger scale issues.

lets be honest, we arent talking about something that is going to be put in place next week. it may take 100 years before we are there.
but the only way we can shorten that process is not to get bogged down in endless discussions about models and methods, but to instead, pick a few, vote on elements and actually design a blueprint that we can take out to people.

thats what the webinar is for.

being the organizer of this event, im laying out what i have, to a larger groups of peers to see what is usable and what is not.
my ideas might not even be visible at the end of the process, but its a real start to making actual working groups and not just fluffing around on the internet and social media.

Curious as to how you would propose to deal with situation where an issue may have direct consequences to a particular group within a wider community. Especially if that group may be in a minority and the boundaries not well defined.

The majority, not affected by or perhaps even aware of the consequences, may drown out the voice/vote of the minority. Even more so if the minority are vulnerable in some way or have lesser access/control/command of the technology. Equality may be aspirational, but not always pragmatic?

Does replacing representation with technology potentially just shift the position /role of the gatekeepers?

Inquiring minds........