Sounds good to me... However, I
think we can only give an approximate framework,
with a few stopchecks, the system will
stear itself to the most efficient way.
Eva
> A LUNDEMOCRACY.
>
> I like Thomas's idea. A significant improvement over currently
> operative models of democracy.
>
> But I would make these modifications.
>
> (1) that citizen education for parliamentary participation be
> compulsory, IF participation is to be compulsory, OR:
> (2) that participation in parliament not be mandatory, but the right to
> participate be conditional on attainment of certain communicative and
> other competencies, ie, on a 'driving' licence.
> (3) that a person's participation be limited to two or three main
> decision-making domains. Few, if any, people have the capacity to
> absorb the theory and info. in all areas in order to make reasonable
> decisions. Better that people choose those areas in which they have a
> genuine interest. The rule: don't participate in a decision if you
> don't have have time to properly deliberate on the information and have
> not well considered the underlying theoretical assumptions.
> (4) that full right to effect decisions in the chosen domain be bestowed
> only after a 'learning' period - say a year or two, during which time
> one serves as an observer/commentator.
> (5) that one has the right to choose to continue to serve as a
> parliamentarian in an honorary capacity for an extended period say up to
> 30 years (subject to confidence maintaining procedures).
> (6) that such a democracy be glocal (ie, local and global), using the
> Internet as the 'Virtual Parliament'. Such a democracy would render
> national politics redundant.
>
> THE POSSIBILITY TO DESIGN AND TRIAL SUCH A PARLIAMENT NOW EXISTS. THE
> EXPERIMENT DOES NOT NEED THE SANCTION OF THE CURRENT INTERNATIONAL
> ORDER. BETTER THAT IT BE TRIALED, DEVELOPED BY AND IMPLEMENTED AMONG
> THOSE INTERESTED RATHER THAN IT BE UNDEMOCRATICALLY FOISTED ON AN UNWARY
> PUBLIC.
>
>
> Thomas Lunde wrote:
>
> >
> > I have long puzzled over this question of democracy and I would like to
> > propose the Democratic Lottery. For it to work, there is only one
> > assumption that needs to be made and that every citizen is capable of making
> > decisions. Whether you are a hooker, housewife, drunk, tradesman,
> > businessman, genius or over trained academic, we all are capable of having
> > opinions and making decisions.
> >
> > I suggest that every citizen over 18 have their name put into a National
> > Electoral Lottery. I suggest "draws" every two years at which time 1/3 of
> > the Parliment is selected. Each member chosen will serve one six year term.
> > The first two years are the equivalent of a backbencher in which the
> > individual learns how parliment works and can vote on all legislation. The
> > second two years, the member serves on various committees that are required
> > by parliment. The third and final term is one from which the parliment as
> > whole choses a leader for two years and also appoints new heads to all the
> > standing committees.
> >
> > This does away with the professional politician, political parties, and the
> > dictatorship of party leadership of the ruling party and it's specific
> > cabinet. It ensures a learning curve for each prospective parlimentarian
> > and allows in the final term the emergence of the best leader as judged by
> > all of parliment. Every parlimentarian knows that he will be removed from
> > office at the end of the sixth year. We could extend this to the Senate in
> > which parlimentarians who have served for the full six years could
> > participate in a Lottery to select Senate members who would hold office for
> > a period of 12 years. This would give us a wise council of experienced
> > elders to guide parliment and because the Senate could only take a small
> > increase of new members every two years, only the most respected members of
> > parliment would be voted by parlimentarians into a Senate position.
> >
> > This would eliminate political parties - it would eliminate the need for
> > re-election, it would eliminate campaign financing and all the chicannery
> > that goes with money. It would provide a broad representation of gender,
> > ethnic groupings, regional groupings, age spread and abilities - and though
> > some may question abilities, the prepronderance of lawyers in government has
> > not proven to be superior.
> >
> > If the idea of a representative democracy is for citizens to represent
> > citizens, then a choice by lottery is surely the fairest and has the least
> > possibility of corruption, greed or the seeking of power to satisfy a
> > particular agenda.
> >
> > Respectfully,
> >
> > Thomas Lunde
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Colin Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: January 27, 1999 4:42 PM
> > Subject: Re: real-life example
> >
> > >At 11:50 AM 1/26/99 -1000, Jay Hanson wrote:
> > >>----- Original Message -----
> > >>From: Edward Weick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >>
> > >>>and social complexity grew. While hunting and gathering societies needed
> > >>>only transitory hierarchies, more complex societies needed permanent
> > ones.
> > >>>However, there is no reason on earth why these couldn't be democratic,
> > >>>allowing a particular leadership limited powers and only a limited
> > tenure.
> > >>
> > >>Democracy makes no sense. If society is seeking a leader with the best
> > >>skills, the selection should be based on merit -- testing and
> > xperience --
> > >>not popularity. Government by popularity contest is a stupid idea.
> > >>
> > >>Jay
> > >
> > >Democracy does not mean putting the most "popular" candidate in the job. A
> > >broad range of people (e.g. the workers in a factory) might choose a
> > >DIFFERENT leader from what the Elite would choose, but they will not be
> > >more likely to make a "stupid" choice.
> > >
> > >But beyond the "choice of a leader" is the question of the "accountability
> > >of the leader".
> > >
> > >In our N. American democratic (so-called) systems the leader is not
> > >accountable to ANYONE (i.e. is a virtual Dictator), except that once every
> > >4 or 5 years the people (those who think it worthwhile to vote), can kick
> > >the bum out and choose another gentleperson who will be equally
> > >UNACCOUNTABLE, and who will thus, corrupted by power, become a BUM also!
> > >
> > >Hence the concept of Direct Democracy:
> > >" a SYSTEM of citizen-initiated binding referendums whereby voters can
> > >directly amend, introduce and remove policies and laws"
> > >
> > >Colin Stark
> > >Vice-President
> > >Canadians for Direct Democracy
> > >Vancouver, B.C.
> > >http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/
> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Listserv)
> > >
>
>
