At 11:15 PM 3/30/2007, Jan Kok wrote: >On 3/30/07, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>At 10:58 AM 3/30/2007, Howard Swerdfeger wrote: >>What are we to think of "blame" that avoids responsibility? If >>citizens wanted to do something about this, they could. There is no >>power on earth that could stop them. >> >>Except apathy, ignorance, inertia. > >And being busy with other things like making a living or taking care >of kids, and also having whatever free time is available for activism >split among various causes.
Right. However, *that is not what is stopping them.* One of my slogans is "Lift a Finger, Save the World," and, no, I don't mean your middle finger. I mean whatever you use to click your mouse, and, of course, I also am referring to the tiny amount of effort and time it takes to join an FA/DP organization. Sure, later on, there might be more time involved, *but only as you choose.* And you can have a major effect simply by helping build credibility through naming a proxy. You can pick *any* FA/DP organization. The Range Voting Free Association is reasonable, or Metaparty, or BeyondPolitics.org itself (register on the wiki), or roll your own, we will assist if you want and in any case would list you as FA/DP simply if you claim to be so. Rolling your own, of course, takes more time. The tools needed to make choosing a proxy, etc., will be developed as they are needed. Right now, registering with an FA/DP organization is a major first step. It simply indicates interest in the topic, it does not signify agreement with *anything*, beyond the legitimacy of discussing the topic. If you don't join one or at least indicate interest in starting one -- for any topic -- then I'd really appreciate comment on why not. Sure, as in the Nasrudin story, we may be pouring yoghurt in the lake, trying to make it all turn into yoghurt, but we are not asking you to supply the yoghurt, nor to watch us pour it unless you want to, but, just think! What if it works?!?! (A closer analogy, of course, would be that we are seeding the lake with some organism that, if it can live and grow there, will shift the lake's ecology, in a way that we think highly beneficial, or not, at least without harmful effect except on those who wasted their time.) So if you aren't registering, why? Of course, nobody is obligated to answer this question, but I'll be happy if even one person does. I can imagine answers, to be sure, but I haven't actually heard *any*, beyond this: They won't let you get away with it. People are too apathetic. Corruption will find a way. These all boil down to two words: cynicism and despair. >>oppression and harm because of them -- if that's all we do, we are >>doomed to forever struggling against problems that could easily be avoided. > >(Not sure about "easily", but anyway...) Yes, easily. To be sure, some problems are difficult, but not all. Consider a person who is always bumping into things. He tries to solve the problem in various ways. He tries to arrange his environment so that nothing is in his way, he tries to cover everything hard with cushions, he buys bandages and other medical supplies to deal with the bruises and broken bones, he complains that nobody is helping him, he blames anyone who moves things, and so forth. Or, he opens or uncovers his eyes so that he can see. If he can see, he can easily avoid the obstacles. Life would, indeed, become a tad easier, don't you think? Okay, so his eyes have been damaged and he *can'* see. Okay, so he gets help. He finds someone, an intelligent being, who *can* see. A guide dog or another person who'll warn him. The proxy. >... the name of this list creates a sort of >virtual box within which we usually confine our thinking. > >What's outside that box? Well, we don't have a crisp definition of the box. What is the most general definition of "election method"? I'd suggest that it is a process or procedure by means of which a person or collection of persons finds and chooses between alternatives. There are, of course, more specific definitions, but they exist within that larger context and we blind ourselves if we will only look at deterministic methods of analyzing ballots to fix choices. For example, standard deliberative process is Condorcet-compliant, in a more sophisticated way than a single-stage poll can ever be; so sophisticated -- if the group is sophisticated -- that it is *also* a Range method, and, for efficiency, might even incorporate Range Voting as part of the process. >How can we we make decisions that are satisfactory to a large majority >of the people if we don't have people representing all sides of an >issue talking/negotiating with each other?! > >The situation we have now, for the most part, is organizations that >support one side of an issue. The organizations try to rally people to >their side, conduct letter writing campaigns, advertise, lobby... But >the organizations don't generally talk to each other, especially those >on different sides of an issue. What happens is that people fix on a solution or class of solutions, and then work to get society to use those solutions. What to me is truly ironic is that there are organizations with the word "Democracy" in their title who will use whatever trick they can find to exclude people who don't agree with their specific solution from being represented in the process of deciding on reforms. If you trust democracy and you want to enhance democracy, you will not want to exclude anyone from the process. Not even statists or royalists or supporters of the status quo or "them" of any kind. You will trust that a full and complete democratic process will reveal conflicts between special interests and the general interest, and resolve them in a wise and maximally satisfactory manner. There is nothing wrong with having a special interest. *All* of us have special interests. The fears about democracy are mostly based on a fear of what can happen if the people are given or take power without having mechanisms in place for ensuring that complete process. The "people" take over -- which really means that demogogues or leaders of revolutions take over -- and, first step, of course, is to eliminate *them." Those non-people. The landlords. The rich. The established. The "corrupt intellectuals." The reactionaries and running dogs. Etc., etc. And, of course, all those "enemies of the people" are not thrilled at the idea of being exterminated, and so they undertake their own programs -- or pogroms -- in the other direction. No, we need complete democratic process as a protection *before* the system changes. With that process, we can prevent harmful changes and begin to move toward better ones, and we will keep what is beneficial and prevent continuing harm. Why would we do anything else? Only if we are asleep. >Assuming people would choose people they >trust and generally agree with as their proxies, it should be easy for >good and unique ideas to flow to the top. Another irony is that if we had FA/DP, it would be easy to get it. (Or, in fact, to get something better, if possible.) >All it takes to form an FA/DP is to establish a meeting place (could >be in cyberspace, e.g. newsgroup or teleconference) and form the proxy >relationships. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RangeVoting/database can >be used as a template for creating FA/DPs using Yahoo groups. It should be understood that this tool is pretty primitive. I expect we will have better in fairly short order. There are people working on software for delegable proxy. As long as the proxy tables and the communication structure are open, and so anyone can validate software-reported results, it's safe. Some people are working on encrypted systems, and I personally consider this dangerous, substantially more vulnerable to corruption. We are proposing FA/DP for nongovernmental applications initially specifically because we do not need to solve, at first, the security issues, which could be formidable. This strategy has the possible benefit, as well, that if it is successful, *it may not be necessary to change the existing formal and legal structures.* Plurality voting, for example, works quite well in with Yes/No or two-option questions, and, alternatively, in elections where the public already knows what it wants and the election by secret ballot is merely a confirmation of this. >It would also be good to have more than four people participating in >an FA/DP. Is FA/DP a good, practical, useful idea, or are Abd and I >full of hot air (maybe with a high CH4 content)? Let's give FA/DP a >try and find out! From my point of view, of course, our growth has been outstanding. It's just that it started with one, or with a few people scattered around the globe who were not in communication with each other (and the latter situation is still largely true, though there has been more contact). When you start with one, it can be a while before you have the critical organizational mass that growth accelerates. People like success, and it generally takes more than one or two people to create the image of success, and that image is necessary to break through the cynicism and despair that I mention above. So, at this point, *every person counts.* A lot. ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
