At 07:12 AM 3/2/2006, Jan Kok wrote: >What would the [BeyondPolitics] organization _do_? Would it just be >a discussion group, about how to convert this or that organization >to FA/DP? What is the benefit of having the BP organization, as >separate from EM? Would there ever be enough members and volume of >discussion that the proxy or delegable proxy mechanisms would be used?
BeyondPolitics.org is not yet confined to a specific agenda. My intention in founding it was to take the first step toward my vision of a transformed political world. Part of that first step is, yes, discussion about the various aspects of this vision (and of similar visions of others), and, hopefully, the development of some kind of consensus about how other FAs and DP organizations would be founded. BP is itself an FA/DP organization. (This makes it quite unlike other political reform organizations which do not exemplify what they promote.) Now, as long as I am the major writer for BP.org (other contributions have been very small to date), that the organization is FA/DP is largely moot. However, it *is* FA/DP to the extent that anyone who registers on the wiki has the same rights as I do; until there are a significant number of members, I would remain moderator, just to ensure that the initial vision is not lost by the quirks of who happens to join, but I would not use my position as moderator to favor my own views over others. I'd be delighted if someone would join and argue against FA/DP principles on the wiki. EM is not an organization, except in the same sense that any informal association will resemble an FA. Further, the focus of EM is election methods, and FA is not an election method. DP can be used in elections, but also has many other effects and applications. So there is overlap but not identity. I'd expect EM "members" (what is that?) to join BP, if they realize the significance of it, for one of the obvious applications of FA/DP principles is the development of coherent political action, but I would not expect the large majority of BP members to join EM, only those who had a particular interest in election methods (which become almost irrelevant in an FA/DP world, that is, if large FA/DP organizations form, they can "drive" just about any election method toward desired results. Simple plurality works just fine if you have a pre-election consensus (or even a large organized minority). As to how large BP becomes, it is almost irrelevant. If there are two or three people who join and actively participate, BP, which is already moving up in search engine ranking, will be a thousand times more successful. This is because the principle obstacle to FA/DP right now is an appearance that this combination is unique to me, and thus suspect as wacky. (If it is wacky in reality, please, someone make this clear by participating in working it out. I'd rather spend time with my children instead of tilting at windmills.) A peer organization of two or three people will already be, informally, FA/DP. This should be understood: FA/DP is merely a formalization of what already happens in very small, fully democratic organizations. It is only in the growth phase that organizations lose these characteristics. FA is common in twelve-step programs modelled after Alcoholics Anonymous, as well as being similar in some ways to the ideas of anarchists and libertarians; but, unfortunately, with the latter, the critical aspect that the organization itself does not take positions on controversial issues has not been understood. This aspect of FA is what makes it possible for an organization to grow beyond the limitations of its original bias. And DP makes it possible for the organization to remain fully democratic even if it grows without limit. Yes, an FA/DP organization could quite practically incorporate the entire population of the earth, while remaining fully democratic. And, in fact, it might be able to do this quite quickly. If two or three people become active, it might only take a few years, because there are no natural obstacles to the growth of it except sheer inertia, and the FA characteristics reduce that inertia to a minimum. Growth could be exponential is what I'm saying. Once an FA/DP organization demonstrates success in a field, I believe that it will quickly dominate that field, if "dominate" is the correct word. It will probably have an effective bias due to the peculiarities of how it formed, and probably a liberal bias. But it will either attract opponents of that bias, or, possibly more likely, those opponents will recognize the success and will form their own organization on similar lines. Which, of course, would mean that the battle would be almost over, since FA/DP organizations effectively merge through cross-membership, even if they remain formally independent. And if they are FA, they will permit cross-membership. ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
