> > ---------- Forwarded Letter ------------ > Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 19:17:16 -0700 (PDT) > From: Ren Aguila > Subject: What Use? > To: New Democracy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > Dear Donald, 19 October 1998 > > I am a resident of the Philippines, a country whose middle class is > growing disenchanted with the political system of the country in > general. The piecemeal reforms of the constitution initiated back in > 1987 have been defeated by traditional politicians (whose local name > is "trapo" or rags in English) who feel that representatives from > alternative political groups would endanger their hegemony. > I came across your electoral system proposals, and I find them a > viable alternative to the system we have now in our country. However, > I would like to ask some questions: > > 1. Would this system work in countries which have been ethnically > divided such as Northern Ireland and Bosnia-Hercegovina? Should there > be any modifications that would help? This is primarily to help > alleviate the concerns of the southern Philippines, which is itself > ethnically divided to some extent. I believe that partition is a wise solution, especially where groups don't want to be with eachother, dislike eachother, or disagree on govt. In fact, I like partition better than PR anywhere. Of course PR could still be used _within_ the areas, but, even there, I much prefer direct democracy to any form of representation, including PR. Of course even with DD, there'd still be some limited need for elected officials, a limited executive team. > > 2. Some complaints which I believe would be brought up if any form of > preferential voting is imposed is that counting would be more > complicated, especially if we do a manual count. Thus, people in our > country believe that plurality, for all its flaws, is easier to count, > considering that most election officials are volunteers who cannot get > much sleep. How would you answer this? Very good point. Use Approval. Much easier count than any rank-balloting method. Better method than any but a very few of the very best rank-methods. No debate on how to count rankings. In Approval, each voter may vote for as many candidates as he wants to, for particular office, giving each 1 whole vote. Candidate with most votes wins, as in Plurality. reply concluded > > 3. With a computerized election system, how would voters enter the > numbers needed? And, for that matter, would voters be confused with > too many numbers? One advantage I believe the current electoral > systems have is that names are much more important for persons in > developing democracies than anything else. Unfortunately, for me at > least, this is the case. > > 4. Lastly, do you think direct democracy would work in developing > democracies? Does it require that the upper and middle classes lose > their indifference and apathy which I am afraid stands in the way of > any political reform? > > That's all I want to ask. > Anyway, good luck on your proposals. I am sure they can be fairly > applied in any scenario, but these questions must be answered first. > Thank you and have a good day. > > Ren Aguila > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Dear Ren Aguila, > > No electoral system is going to stop someone who is trying to kill > you, but people who have been divided need an electoral system that not > only includes everyone but also gives these people the power to control > their own government. Direct Democracy is able to do this more so than any > other political system. > > Yes, there is a modification that would not only help, but is > necessary. That modification is the use of Conclusive Majority (aka > Supermajority). I feel that a sixty percent Conclusive Majority would be > fine for any country which is not in turmoil. But as the level of turmoil > increases the level of Conclusive Majority should also increase. Places > like Northern Ireland and Bosnia - Hercegovina maybe should be at the > eighty percent level. > > Most current governments are based on the policy of "Us against Them". > A better policy is to include everyone into the decision making process - > or at least more people. The principles of Direct Democracy are good for > the people and necessary but they will not stop a "Simple Majority" faction > from becoming a ruling class and abusing the rest of the people. A > Conclusive Majority will force the "Simple Majority" faction to consider > the concerns of others. In the long run the sensible people of each faction > will prevail(I hope). > > The same Conclusive Majority requirement would apply to anything that > is voted on, such as: Citizens' Initiatives, laws passed by any lawmaking > body, and Citizens' Review of laws. > > It is interesting to note that one of the conditions of the Northern > Ireland peace agreement is that the area is to have proportional > representation(PR), but England and the USA, who are active working on the > agreement, do not have PR. These countries see the value of one principle > of Direct Democracy as good for peace. It is hoped that someday they will > see that all the principles are good for peace and good for themselves. > > The answer to your second question will require a letter of its own. > > Regards, > Donald Davison > > > \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ > /// N E W D E M O C R A C Y /// > \\\ Home of Citizen's Democracy http://www.mich.com/~donald \\\ > ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// > > > >
