Partyless Democracy

Dontico

RedPlanet wrote:

The Chamber of 500 Randomers, in my OP.
But yes there should be a sort of Pool of Ideas from the general public that the 500 Randomers choose from.
Since abortion is a surgical procedure i would think the subquestions would be tailored toward the medical/physiological/historical angle. However since it is also a contentious ethical issue (that spans religious doctrines) i see no immediate problem with having that reflected in the subquestions.
However if i were in the Chamber myself, i would personally argue strict secularity to try to keep the religious questions off the ballot, arguing that they are irrelevant and non-factual.
But there's no reason why the subquestions about abortion cannot contain economic, cultural, anthropological, medical questions.
In fact, they probably should all be included.

The idea of using "unwanted" children for military purposes could certainly be among the Pool of Ideas; it just seems a bit OTT and less likely to be selected for public referendum by the Chamber of Randomers.

i dont think it is nessecary to know about the exact biological details to have an opinion on the subject. subjects like that are too complex to put in any genre.

i think it would be a good idea for the gov to put orphanages to use by making them strict miltary schools, to produce soilders born to lead. what about an extra 4000 a year? think about it.

RedPlanet

Dontico wrote:

i dont think it is nessecary to know about the exact biological details to have an opinion on the subject.

You're absolutely right, you are perfectly capable and entitled of holding an opinion about abortion. It just means that you know less about abortion then somebody who can tell us about foetal developement trimester by trimester, or even week by week. Also, knowing the methods used to abort a foetus demonstrate knowledge about the subject, and that's what i am rewarding.
It's easy: if you have a strong opinion about abortion, then educate yourself of the subject before the referenda. This way you can insure your vote carries the maximum weight.

Dontico wrote:

i think it would be a good idea for the gov to put orphanages to use by making them strict miltary schools, to produce soilders born to lead. what about an extra 4000 a year? think about it.

In my opinion they should have free will, and free choice as to their field of study and career. Just because they're biological parents deserted them, or died, shouldn't render them some variety of state slave.

MorriganGael

I keep seeing this thread as Pantyless Democracy. My screen font nudges the letters together.

While a Pantyless Democracy would increase Ireland's birthrate, a Partyless Democracy is the ideal.

With the Internet I think we can soon have certified electronic voting and thus direct individual voting and a true Democracy without a specific political party. Issue voting would be a closer representation to a good democracy.

oscarBravo

MorriganGael wrote:

I With the Internet I think we can soon have certified electronic voting...

There have been several threads on the subject of electronic voting; in fact there's even an entire board devoted to it.

The short version: no-one has yet come up with an e-voting system that's secure enough to be trusted. If it can't be trusted in the (relatively) secure environment of a public polling station, it sure as hell can't be trusted on the Internet.

DadaKopf

Has this thread sort of lost the run of itself?

How viable, really, is a large democracy with no political parties (i.e. no formal political organisation) which is led by people only in temporary office, none of whom provide a constant standard of decision-making, and whose major decisions are decided upon in multiple and recurring referenda?

There are serious issues around the proposal, for example, unwieldy decision-making (difficult in the current world system where quick decisions are required); under-informed decision-making; a massive breakdown in political accountability (given no one could really track who's in power at any one time); and referendum fatigue.

I'm not advocating the status quo, but I can't really see this working too well in the current climate.

nesf

DadaKopf wrote:

How viable, really, is a large democracy with no political parties (i.e. no formal political organisation) which is led by people only in temporary office, none of whom provide a constant standard of decision-making, and whose major decisions are decided upon in multiple and recurring referenda?

Essentially isn't a party based system (for all it's many flaws) the most efficient way or avoiding the above and reducing the overhead associated with constant referenda?

DadaKopf

I'm suggesting that what was proposed at the beginning of this thread may undermine political accountability which goes to the heart of any form of democracy.

RedPlanet

DadaKopf wrote:

I'm suggesting that what was proposed at the beginning of this thread may undermine political accountability which goes to the heart of any form of democracy.

I am trying to empower "the people" as a collective, rather than political parties or political organisations (unions, capitalists and the like).
Can you be more specific about what you are referring with "political accountablity"?
Because the way i'm seeing things, these Tribunals we undertake are an ugly byproduct of our present system that empowers political parties and capitalists at all of our expense.
Of course you're not defending "the status quo" but i suppose i just don't see the concept of "political accountability" having the same importance, meaning or urgency that it does today.
Political Accountability in my system, starts with each of us
Me, myself and I.
For starters it's up to me to educate myself on the issues and ideas being circulated.
When i get called up to the Chamber of Randomers i want to make the most of it, and will expect my compatriots to feel similarly.

DadaKopf

Political accountability? Very simple: people being held to account for their actions by 'the people' through whatever institution of justice.

OK. My point at this point is extremely simple.

Say you have a 'Chamber of Randomers' whose seats rotate every 3 months, and, for the most part, 'the people' have internalised the values and principles you would like them to.

And this country is composed of 3 million people.

Say different randomers, from time to time, make 'bad decisions' or even 'corrupt decisions', but by the time anyone finds out, that person is long-gone, and there's a whole new set of problems which 'the people' must deal with.

Since the public is used to seeing new faces every 3 months, and there's a new Chamber of Randomers to keep an eye on, who can (a) keep track of who did what, or (b) care what someone did when? Further: what is to stop large networks of 'randomers' conspiring among each other to abuse this system?

To make an analogy with the jury system: a bunch of randomers are called up, they're basically invisible, accountable to no one (I assume you're saying) and then the public must endure their decisions for good or ill. Juries make bad decisions all the time, but they're accountable to no one. Hence an accountability gap, and therefore democratic deficit.

I know that I may be making some assumptions here about the relationship between public and private, and maybe you have a different idea about that, but I'm just looking again at what you're suggesting and trying to square it up with other stuff.

RedPlanet

In my OP i stated something to the effect that it is those inside the Chamber of Randomers that hold one another to account.
The method of selecting people randomly for the Chamber should mitigate against a block of organised people getting in.
Public referenda to mitigate against bad decisions.

democrates

RedPlanet wrote:

In my OP i stated something to the effect that it is those inside the Chamber of Randomers that hold one another to account.
The method of selecting people randomly for the Chamber should mitigate against a block of organised people getting in.
Public referenda to mitigate against bad decisions.

Testing out these organisation structures could be an interesting transition year project.

But the Chamber of Randomers sounds rediculous. Something like the Legislative Jury or Executive Jury might be more easily understood whatever the role.

Banning the right to associate freely, even the Chinese can't do it, all you do is drive like-minded people with common goals underground.

Press gag orders, no way, how would we ever know if there had been a coup?

Transparency must be a key element so those two proposals with their built in protection for cloak and dagger operators are gone for me.

DadaKopf

RedPlanet wrote:

In my OP i stated something to the effect that it is those inside the Chamber of Randomers that hold one another to account.
The method of selecting people randomly for the Chamber should mitigate against a block of organised people getting in.
Public referenda to mitigate against bad decisions.

You're missing the point. Parliaments as they stand today operate as a means to hold itself to account.

I'm speaking about the 'social contract' which tends to go with democracies in which members of the public, temporarily entrusted to make decisions on behalf of others, are scrutinised by the wider body politic - the citizenry/the people/the multitude/whatever.

Your comment just there suggests to me that what you're suggesting is a randomised oligarchy, which is simply not democracy.

Contemporary anarchist experiments in deliberative democracy, such as he Zapatistas, at least have a 'shadow' - Subcommondante Marcos - who channels collective decisions towards others. The crucial thing here is that the collective have a relationship with him, and therefore among each other. This is politics.

The opposite of politics (in many ways, but to discuss the others would need another thread) is a jury system - a method of deliberation designed to be clinical and disassociated from public discourse. The law is designed to be remote from people, while politics is not.

If we were entirely ruled by barristers, I'd be more worried than I already am.

RedPlanet

Well DadaKopf it was really just an off the cuff idea that i've run with.
I still mull over the weighted voting bit, and i'm still attracted to the concept of a partyless system.
But this thread should probably die.
Back on Page 1 you were expressing your own interest in a partyless system.
I'm sure we'd all be curious to find out what you've come up with.

The Chamber of 500 Randomers (that are anonymous) can die an inglorious death. :cool:

Dontico

for me the best ideal way to replace democracy, would be to run the fov in a military fashion. only the best person gets the job to say whats going to happen. and then he apoints someone to replace him.

but again, i said ideal. this idea has a very large corruption window. i spend alot of time trying to work out a system to that would work.

DadaKopf

You brought it up! I'm discussing it. I actually said that: I think politics is moving 'beyond parties', and I'm intruiged about what might replace them.

To begin discussing this, you have to discuss what's changing in politics.

I don't like parties as they stand now, but it's admittedly hard to think of an alternative.

I'm critiquing your proposal. So, if you don't care to discuss it, fine. But I acutally think it's a pretty important topic.

nesf

DadaKopf wrote:

You brought it up! I'm discussing it. I actually said that: I think politics is moving 'beyond parties', and I'm intruiged about what might replace them.

Something along the lines of less formal groups forming on individual topics? Or where the party line is more filler for the areas where a politician him or herself hasn't taken a specific position themselves? A bit like how we have at the moment with incinerators and such where TDs from the area take a different line to their party's position on them.

DadaKopf

Yeah, I'd say identity politics and issue-based are becoming more important. People are going beyond the traditional confines of parties, and are making more a-la carte decisions.

Parties are trying to adapt, but aren't very good at it. I'd say partly because of a skepticism and even concern about the dilution of politics as we know it. Politics based on old stuff like nationalism and ideology.

The thing is: people aren't less political. They're increasingly political in a different way, and in ways that transcend borders, too. Society is organised differently now, but that organisation doesn't adequately mirror how parties are organised - they reflect a view about how people should be organised.

The question is: can parties as they exist capture the new politics, can they adapt, or are parties as we know them doomed?

DadaKopf

Update: Questions and Answers last night, where the audience were all under-25 transformed this people-parties gap into a chasm.

None of the TDs understood their own problem. Neither of the TDs (Lenihan and Enwright) could answer what they thought the problem was and how to solve it. Lenihan just referred to election turnout statistics.

In particular, they don't understand young people or their politics. This is where the change is going to come from, so why ignore them? And party policy teams are made up of youngsters (25-45) who are too busy getting old before their time to listen to the likes of the big new changing thing. Society.