-Caveat Lector-
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 21:41:03 -0800 (PST)
From: Franklin Wayne Poley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Prescott Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [BCPolitics] Re: Direct Electronic Democracy-Public Access Internet.
From: Franklin Wayne Poley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I'll repeat my opinion and present it to two Reform MP's as well as the
Provincial Reform Administrative Office to correct if they wish. Two main
planks on which the entire platform rests: (1) Direct democracy which I
define as "one eligible voter, one vote and as often as they want to vote";
that is 100% congruent with the private bill of Ted White, MP, C-229 and
it is congruent with Provincial Reform's oft-repeated promise of a
WORKABLE direct democracy. (2) Reform in the sense of reform re morality,
ethics, laws, bureaucratic policies and practices.
However, all we have to do is make reasonable projections of internet
growth and I think the ubiquitous internet is only 5 years away at most.
Thus the window of opportunity to LEAD in the use of internet as the New
Medium for the New Democracy is a few years at most. If they don't lead
in that time they will lose all credibility. Also watch for Liberals or
even far left like Green Party to jump in over the next few years.
You see BC already HAS the enabling legislation, the 1996 Recall and
Initiative Act. We can recall any MLA even the Premier. Given that
internet makes organizing a recall (or referendum) campaign 100x more
efficient it will be used beyond any doubt. Beyond that the present
option of the 1996 whereby the Victoria Parliament can ignore a citizens'
referendum will be swept away. Those who control the contract of
employment of MLA's by recall will call the tune when they decide to do
so, ie on really important matters.
Clear cut logging/old growth logging could be such a matter. Today the
green activists put a full page ad in the New York Times re a boycott of
the forestry giants of BC for such logging practices. If it goes to
referendum I predict the greens will win by a landslide. Now suppose a
riding votes 70% to end clear cut logging/old growth logging? What if the
MLA of that riding votes against them? I think it is likely the MLA will
be recalled. So recall facilitated by efficient organizing (internet)
will lead to referenda being BINDING on the Parliament as is the case on
all matters in Switzerland. That is BC's near future....the Citizens'
Electronic Parliament. NOTHING SHORT OF WW III CAN STOP IT.
That CEP is not "reform". It is a radical TRANSFORMATION of the basic
system. It even dwarfs the inception of the multi-party system we have today.
So it gets down to this for Reform or any other party: you can lead it or
follow it. There are no other choices except to invent something even
better. It will spill over from BC to the USA. In the words of Canada's
most eminent balladeer, Leonard Cohen, "Sail on Ship of State. Democracy
is coming to the USA". And BC is bringing it to you.
FWP.
On Tue, 8 Dec 1998, Prescott Group wrote:
> What is the platform in Canada??
>
> Pat
>
> At 03:57 PM 12/8/98 -0800, you wrote:
> >Hmmm. Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree. Sounds different from Reform
> >platforms here.
> >FWP.
> >
> >On Tue, 8 Dec 1998, Prescott Group wrote:
> >
> >> Frank,
> >>
> >> I really don't know the platform of the
> >> Canadian Reform Party. The main planks in the
> >> platform of RPUSA are fiscal responsibility and election
> >> reform. Of course we address many other issues but do
> >> not address social issues such as abortion or gun control.
> >> We believe these items should be handled by individuals
> >> not poltical parties. Our platform is posted at
> >> www.reformparty.org.
> >>
> >> Ross Perot was the Reform Party 1996 Presidential
> >> candidate and is the founder of the Reform Party.
> >> However, we have an elected leadership that runs the
> >> party on a day to day basis. We are only 2 years old
> >> and were recognized by the USA Federal Election
> >> Commission only this year! Of course, Mr. Perot's
> >> stand on issues forms the foundation of RPUSA.
> >> Also, the party receives no funding from Mr. Perot.
> >> Any questions regarding funding of an electronic
> >> system by Mr. Perot should be forwarded to him
> >> and not the Reform Party. Again, of course, we are
> >> interested in some form of electronic voting but
> >> are not addressing this now. We are focused on party
> >> building, raising money, and running candidates.
> >>
> >> Pat
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> At 12:48 PM 12/8/98 -0800, you wrote:
> >> >Perhaps I need more clarity on US Reform vs. BC/Canadian Reform. If so I
> >> >hope Pat Benjamin will choose to reply and I will cc representatives of
> >> >Canadian and BC Reform parties. These two parties are totally distinct
> >> >legal entities yet the platforms are very similar. I would characterize
> >> >them as having to main planks: (1) reform as in the sense of
> >> >moral-ethical reform to the reform of bureaucratic structures; (2) direct
> >> >democracy in some version. I thought US Reform and Perot were the same in
> >> >this respect. Given that they are, closer collaboration on projects as I
> >> >have proposed could raise the fortunes of all.
> >> >
> >> >On Mon, 7 Dec 1998, Quirk wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> From: Quirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >>
> >> >> Aye, the town hall is a fantastic idea.
> >> >>
> >> >> My main point is, if the decisions made with the use of the systems
> is to
> >> >> be given any weight, then they must be secure, and part of the plan must
> >> >> address these issues, one by one.
> >> >
> >> >I agree. I think this is one point on which all persuasions will agree.
> >> >Given that banks and billions in Ecommerce are being entrusted to this
> >> >new medium I would say the problems can be solved.
> >> >
> >> > Without the detail, a businessman like
> >> >> Ross Perot would be unlikely to fund something just because it sounds
> like
> >> >> a good idea.
> >> >
> >> >I would only expect him to fund it because it is spot on with respect to
> >> >the party he founded, its platform and his current reform crusade with
> >> >respect to the moral-ethical issues surrounding the Whitehouse. A network
> >> >of internet-connected public-access kiosks will expedite all of this and
> >> >I am saying that here in BC we have the best opportunity because the
> >> >enabling legislation (BC's 1996 Recall and Initiative Act) already exists
> >> >and it is very popular. Despite the burdensome non-electronic means of
> >> >organizing either a recall or referendum petition we have alread seen a
> >> >referendum which came close to getting the 10% from each of 75 ridings
> >> >(it got about 7% on average) and a recall campaign against a Cabinet
> >> >Minister, Paul Ramsey which received 8,323 signatures vs. the 8,908
> >> >required. A recall campaign against Paul Reitsma, MLA succeeded. The
> >> >system of kiosks would expedite all of this. It would make the 1996 Act
> >> >very workable.
> >> > So what I am proposing to Perot or any other computer expert in US
> >> >Reform is that they give the system which they design a trial here first.
> >> >Try either a federal riding (pop. 100,000) or a provincial riding (pop.
> >> >50,000). They would require about 40 kiosks or 20 kiosks respectively.
> >> >
> >> > It is not enough just to say 'it will be secure'. The
> >> >> protocols must be reviewed by the public, and notably by the academic
> >> >> community. If the decisions made carry weight over where to build
> roads, or
> >> >> which companies to hire, or whether a corporation can build their new
> >> >> factory, then these considerations must be thoroughly planned out,
> >> >> double-checked, reviewed, and tested.
> >> >
> >> >Again-no disagreement. And I am sure it can be done.
> >> >
> >> >> Is there a plan? Can we read it? I agree with you that if Perot said
> he's
> >> >> going to advance the cause of the e-space Town Hall, he should get
> >> >> something tangible going.
> >> >
> >> >I am asking US Reform to invent a plan (one among many which could be
> >> >invented) and lend the system (hardware and software) to a BC riding for
> >> >a year.
> >> >
> >> >> Some definitions may serve to clear up the discussions. You mentioned
> >> >> direct democracy earlier, and that set me into a spin. I don't equate
> the
> >> >> town hall with 'direct democracy'. Here's how I see the words:
> >> >>
> >> >> Electronic Town Hall -- a meeting place and discussion group, not direct
> >> >> democracy. Decisions may only carry the weight of opinion polls, that
> is,
> >> >> they affect legislators' decisions, or there may be decisions which can
> >> >> start a ballot initive or referendum.
> >> >>
> >> >> Internet Voting -- not direct democracy but an extension of current rule
> >> >> structure to the Internet, and an addition to current physical media of
> >> >> voting. Saves stamps, paper, humanpower, and tabulation time.
> >> >>
> >> >> Direct Democracy -- all qualified citizens can vote on all legislative
> >> >> decisions. This eliminates the need for representational legislatures
> like
> >> >> the assembly, senate, or congress of the polity.
> >> >
> >> >These distinctions are very important. Here in BC we already have the
> >> >immensely popular Recall and Initiative Act. I am sure that any system
> >> >which makes it more workable will be welcomed by 80% of CITIZENS. The
> >> >CITIZENS themselves will decide what direction they want it to take. But
> >> >we need elected public leaders like Ted White, MP or Jack Weisgerber, MLA
> >> >to lead the way.
> >> >
> >> >> I think the first two are fabulous ideas, even though some people
> will not
> >> >> be able to use them because they don't have access to computers.
> >> >>
> >> >> The third, even if everyone had computers to use the system, might be
> a bad
> >> >> idea for various reasons, especially that bit about the Hemlock. At any
> >> >> rate, computers are the only feasible mechanism of administrating a
> direct
> >> >> democracy at these larger scales, and ubiquitous computer access will
> be a
> >> >> necessary condition for a fair direct democracy.
> >> >
> >> >Yes I think this is needed for a fair democracy. But one footnote-access
> >> >means physical access and psychological access. There is still a lot of
> >> >technophobia re computers/internet. The role I want in this new system is
> >> >PUBLIC EDUCATION. In teaching internet basics I promise "easier to use
> >> >than a public phone" and I have never failed to deliver in teaching
> >> >people from their 20's to 70's. I want to put my instructions for use of
> >> >the kiosks on paper and they would go out to all constituents in the
> >> >proposed trial via the standard MP's or MLA's newsletter.
> >> >FWP.
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >*** British Columbia-the world's first direct electronic democracy under
> >development http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/BCPolitics;
> >http://users.uniserve.com/~culturex ***
> >
> >
>
*** British Columbia-the world's first direct electronic democracy under
development http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/BCPolitics;
http://users.uniserve.com/~culturex ***
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or
service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit
http://www.onelist.com/advert.html for more information.
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
