[EM] Giving different voting weights to different people

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 06:36 AM 10/1/2006, raphfrk at netscape.net wrote:
> > *Communication* is the key to political reform. FA/DP is a device for
> > making *deliberation* possible on a large scale. The FA aspect of the
> > design strongly favors the seeking of consensus, but it does not require
> > it. No caucus is prevented from acting at any point. FAs are not 
> governments
> > and governments are not FAs, by definition. From the model FA Traditions,
> > those of Alcoholics Anonymous, "Our leaders are but trusted servants,
> > they do not govern."
>
>Right, however, as you say yourself, the trick to getting a system like
>this to work is exactly that they don't be given any power.  This means that
>there needs to be a way to assign power.  If consensus is reached, then
>it doesn't matter (much) what form that takes.  However, it is the default
>option for when consensus is not reached.

Just to be clear, the FA/DP proposals are entirely independent of 
election reform or other political system changes. Those changes will 
occur, I'm sure, but I've been assuming, essentially, that they are 
not necessary.

In other words, there is already a way that power is assigned. It is 
whatever already exists. What FA/DP brings that is new is direct 
organization of the people in a way that should foster consensus. If 
it does not, the "stick," so to speak, is that the existing power 
tools will be used. And they are expensive and often produce less 
than satisfactory results.

If the FA/DP organizations do their work, the people will, in an 
election-based system, approach the polls already having settled on 
an outcome, the polls merely ratify it and demonstrate that the process worked.

As I pointed out, the penalty for failing to approach consensus is 
that the resulting struggle is expensive and unreliable. Being 
content with a mere majority as a prediction for an election outcome 
could result in losing the election, with all the losses involved in 
that, the wasted campaign spending, the disappointment and, often, 
cynicism that can last a generation.

FA/DP is a device (actually a collection of devices) for organizing 
people on a mass scale while remaining thoroughly democratic and 
organizationally nonpartisan. Once people realize what an FA/DP 
organization is, they will also realize that there is no reason *not* 
to join. It should be quite unlike what people are accustomed to 
being necessary for organizational participation to be meaningful. 
Essentially, it should be *easy*.

If there is a better way, I'd sure like to hear about it!