[EM] Mae West was interested in voting methods?

[Howard Swerdfeger]

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> At 10:58 AM 3/30/2007, Howard Swerdfeger wrote:
>> It is not voters or citizens  who are to blame.
>> It is the people who are in power, that fear a loss of power that would
>> come with a new system. These are the people to blame. They are the ones
>> that conduct disinformation campaigns on comparisons of democracy. They
>> are the ones drag there feet in democratic reform committees. They are
>> the ones that try to maintain the status quo.

> Perhaps it might be time to recognize that the system creates bums? We 
> could imagine that all these people are just bad people, greedy for 
> power, who want to dominate others or to enrich themselves, and then we 
> become justified in all sorts of destructive actions to get rid of these 
> parasites.

I agree, the structure of government, makes the people in government not
want to change it. I was not trying to imply that changing the people in
  power would a difference. I agree less when you speak of "destructive
actions" if you include violent.
I generally believe that we can change the power structures of world
with non violent methods, it will just take a long time, and we will
have to start small.


> But, in fact, the problem is the system. And who is to blame for the 
> system?

This is a complex problem, generally I say the people most to blame
would be the people who were in power at the time the "system" was
created. But since our various world power structures more evolved then
were designed I would say that there are lots of people to blame, again
mostly the ones who were in power.


> We could look at who created it. Hundreds of years ago or more. Should 
> be blame them? Useful, it avoids all responsibility. Perhaps we could 
> burn them in effigy.

you keep saying blame avoids responsibility. I don't think this is true
by determining the cause of a problem (Blame), you better understand the
problem, and are better able to fix (take responsibility for) the
problem. You can still fix a problem that you are not to blame for.


> Or we could look at those who *allow* the system to continue. And I'm 
> afraid, Mr. Swerdfeger, that this is *us*.

The more you ask people to risk the fewer you will have to follow your
cause. I generally would advocate modest slow structural change to rapid
revolution.


> There are some of us, many, in fact, who are working on this or that 
> symptom of the problem. It's like pushing the rock up the hill. While 
> the symptoms must be addressed -- people are dying or living in 
> 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.

Here I dis agree, I see the world as slowly getting better, its getting 
better all the time. it is hard work, there are setbacks. but 
fundamentally there is less oppression today then 100-200 years ago.

> By the development of a broad understanding, among a few people, of what 
> the *real* problem is. I have my own opinions about that, but what I see 
> is that even the question is rarely asked. I want it to be asked, so I'm 
> asking it, and I only give my answers as one attempt. Without 
> understanding the problem, we will never solve it, unless somehow by 
> chance, random combination, a solution arises. Could happen, given a 
> billion years.

I would disagree, what is needed to change the world is an understanding 
by the people of the world. not "a few people"


> Okay, the problem is that the people aren't organized. Obviously, I'm 
> not the first person to think of this! However, usually what happens is 
> that those who realize this then proceed to organize the people, using 
> traditional organizational methods.

So, well I just have to say I don't agree.
I see many highly organized efficient people and groups every day.
they are often just organized against each other.

> 
> 
> 
> 

At this point you launched into a rant about "proxy democracy", "AA", 
and "Free Association". I am not prepared for a lengthy debate on any of 
these topics, but I will give some small response.

1.)
I became aware of proxy democracy over a year ago. I find it interesting 
from a intellectual standpoint. I think it could make a fine democratic 
system. However, I do not believe the the people of the world are 
anywhere near ready to implement/accept such a system. I think it would 
be most useful to medium to large size groups or organizations for now. 
In the mean time I feel no obligation to promote "proxy democracy" as I 
am most interested in democratic reform at the provincial/Country level, 
and I feel "proxy democracy" will not achievable or acceptable to the 
people for many many years, with many changes to our democracy between 
now and then. I prefer to focus on the next evolutionary step.

2.)
To the best of my knowledge "AA" is a fine organization, that does a lot 
of good work. I have some knowledge of the 12 steps, and the 
organizations funding model.
I also strongly support the funding model they use, as one of the only 
legitimate funding models, to maintain legitimacy with its members.

3.)
I have not heard of this "Free Association" you speak about, until I 
joined this list (1-2 months ago). What I gather by lurking on the list, 
Is very little about what "Free Association" is, or what it bring to 
"proxy democracy". even in the rant you just gave. I have a hard time 
understanding what it is or what it does.


I also wish you good luck in your endeavours to implement your FA/DP.

> There are obvious applications right here in River City. Anyone want to 
> propose one?
> 

I do not live in any city by that name or nickname.
but my city does have 2 rivers and a canal, and a man made lake.