invitation to join a webinar

@gray could you elaborate your question with a hypothetical situation for me? im trying to understand what you have in mind when posing this question. but im just missing what you are asking.

if its an area i haven't considered, then i really want to.. and if it one that i have, then i will try my best to discuss how i think it might function

thanks
.

Hmmm, let me think?! We have worked a lot over the years with many groups of marginalised folk, in different countries. Marginalised because of age, gender preference, education, poverty, disability, ethnicity,... Seems society is always finding new ways to disenfranchise others.

The passage of some laws, regulations etc may affect the rights of a small group. Yet voting is open to the wider community, who often may have very mistaken perceptions of the minority, assuming they even care at all.

Sometimes, this can be balanced by powerful representation by strong influential passionate advocacy. For example, we've worked with some formidable female leaders in male dominated countries such as India.

Not disputing the value and aspirations of DD. Just perhaps acknowledging that Representation can, at times, be a powerful equaliser for the voices of the disenfranchised.

It is not just about access to the technology of democracy. But also the associated,often complex, skills set required to have a Voice.

Hope this helps

i think i see what you are getting at.

there should be no way to pass laws. the only law should eb constitution and common law/rights/responsibilities. in my mind allowing any group decision that can affect what is "LEGAL" is not really freedom.

one of the mechanisms i see as useful is something along the lines of your home is sovereign. so no law could be passed that would affect your home, only the bill of rights or common law or constitution would apply there.
its not fully formed as a method yet, but in considering it i found a method to stop large groups over running "my" rights as in individual to live free in my house. if i want to build a house out of straw, so be it, i might not be able to get insurance for it, but i can do it.

every proposition from direct democracy would not be law but more like, an act or by-law or edict or something. it should not be something you can be arrested or fined for, but instead be a solution or action plan for dealing with issues.

if the common law is solid, we dont need other laws.

having small communities as the main governance zone would reduce chances of disenfranchisement. you can and do have a direct input into what goes on.
larger issues that effect larger multi community areas would require first local input, then a community output to a bigger system.
nothing should start high and come to the local level.

there are always going to be those who try to push their ways onto others. representation is only powerful for the disenfranchised IF they are honourable.

one of the questions i asked when faced with an issue like this is, imagine we have no politicians, and describe how you think you can achieve this safeguard without them.

the only real way i can see to safeguard those who would be disenfranchised is with a solid constitution/bill of rights. and clear common law.

just to say this is where i stand, and i am open to move on all of my positions with a good discussion! i feel that building a direct democracy needs to be about the restoration of freedom from the myriad of fines, and acts that currently strangle us.

if the common law is solid, we shouldn't need it.

Thank you for your detailed response. Don't have much time right now to fully digest.

We can share agreements on issues such as greater local input (though this needs to be paired with governance skills training as much of village governance skills have been lost at the intergenerational level)

A possible limitation to purely bottom up governance is access & transparency of metadata. Some information collection/collation requires a much wider ambit than just the village level. Region of Influence is often far greater than just the local perspective.

Bill of Rights etc are potent documents. As is having a shared value system (which doesn't imply shared beliefs as in religion etc) Commitment to kindness, compassion, tolerance, empathy are good lubricants to a fair and equitable system.

Certainly want to be very clear that we do not profess to have any definitive answers to these complex issues. Thanks for the discourse. Later...

as long as we worry about our neighbours and what they do, we lose focus on ourselves and what we need. im not sure i like the term "collection/collation" or "metadata" but im not certain in what way you are using them here
im a huge believer in open source and open society. how that balances with what you reference here @gray im not sure.

there is going to need to be not only a HUGE change in education and training, but also massive changes to working hours and such to accommodate direct democracy.

rolling it out and expecting people to have time to contribute as it is now isn't going to work.

i dont have any answers, just ideas that might help (:

i have an idea of where i want to see society, and id like to see that gel with what others think too..

i hope you have time to come back to this later

I, too, evolve my view of how the system could look. It is great to share.

A legal framework is very important. I am not sure that the true meaning of democracy contains the mention of a legal system or constitution.

Our existing society has rule books but the common person has little ability to change it or use it. The rules of our society are created and utilised primarily by the rich/elite. I see this as the greatest benefit offered by direct democracy. The people must be able to adapt the rules. A good set of rules will contain protection for minorities.

Also, the online platform that becomes the backbone of DD should contain the ability for minorities to be heard. I think this can be done by having the system recognise when a group is more significantly affected by a decision and having the ability to give them more voice. There are a few possible methods of making this happen. One way would be to group the stakeholders into categories and have the groups tally their vote. Each group's result then enter another level of decision making much like a parliament of representatives. Another way would be to give the stakeholder group the ability to lobby the recognition of other groups, asking them to recognise their larger effect in regards to the decision. The members of the other groups would then have the power to grant the members of the minority an extra vote (so they get 2 votes).

Just ideas, but I hope this lets you see that the system can be designed to cater for minorities.

I love the idea of trying to identify at risk groups

@joum.. The only issue I see would be categorization. There would need to be a way for this to not be used negatively.. But it's a pretty good idea. Could you lay out more details in a new thread? I'd love to hear more about the concept and how it functions?

I really need to try and put it into a database test platform. I only have these rough ideas. I am doing my best to learn Ruby on Rails and enough about databases so I can try and make an example. I have a LONG way to go.

rather than build a database now,

could you just maybe jot down a few notes on what you think for me? im interested in the concept, just go over the gist of it.

have you considered just getting a freelancer to knock up a demo of what you want?