[EM] Free Associations (was: Trees and single-winner methods)
Juho
juho4880 at yahoo.co.uk
Fri Mar 23 14:08:08 PDT 2007
Ok, I think I'm pretty much on the same track with you - including
the fact that I don't have any detailed proposal available. Let's see
what the different concepts are good for and in under what conditions
they can be used.
Juho
On Mar 23, 2007, at 21:02 , Dave Ketchum wrote:
> I started the Trees by Proxy thread March 18, in response to
> thoughts YOU had expressed:
> Abd has a new concept he calls Free Associations.
> Responding to YOUR thoughts, I propose keeping traditional
> legislature structures and responsibilities, doing the elections
> via proxy.
>
> I do not pretend to have all the details sorted out - it has been
> less than a week since your post inspired me.
>
> DWK
>
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:33:24 +0200 Juho wrote:
>
>> On Mar 23, 2007, at 7:56 , Dave Ketchum wrote:
>>> I suggest you look at Trees by Proxy as a better base for your
>>> thoughts.
>>>
>>> It provides for electing legislatures, such as boards of
>>> trustees or elders, via continuous elections (proxies).
>>>
>>> Unlike Free Associations, these have traditional powers and
>>> responsibilities.
>> I agree that the "traditional powers and responsibilities" can not
>> be replaced overnight. And even if it was possible I wouldn't
>> recommend to do so (often such ideological experiments have
>> failed). The FAs could however be a useful tool at the edge of
>> the political system. I don't expect the difference to
>> traditional political ways of working to be very big, but
>> reminding of the need to keep the system flexible/ responsive/open/
>> discussing is a good thing to do.
>> Maybe it would be good to discuss separately about each of the
>> proposed ideas (FAs, proxies, continuous elections, permanent
>> representatives, use of tree structures etc.) to keep the
>> discussion clear.
>> Juho
>>> I said nothing of parties, but said nothing against parties. I
>>> suspect they would have less power than with traditional elections.
>>>
>>> The actual "electing" of someone wishing to be a legislator has
>>> little formality. The attracting of enough proxies to make one
>>> a legislator with muscle could get involved.
>>>
>>> DWK
>>>
>>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 21:50:47 +0200 Juho wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mar 21, 2007, at 21:02 , Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> "Free Association"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it still "free" if it is part of the "official machinery"?
>>>>>>
>>>>> If it is part of the official machinery, it is not free, most
>>>>> likely. Free Association is a technical term I coined to refer
>>>>> to an association with a certain set of characteristics. It's
>>>>> free in a number of respects. It is free in that it is not
>>>>> coerced. Membership in a free association is solely at the
>>>>> choice of the member. You can't be expelled from a Free
>>>>> Association. Again, necessity allows what may otherwise be
>>>>> forbidden. The Association is a Free Association in other
>>>>> ways: freedom of association includes the freedom *not* to
>>>>> associate. FA meetings can set their own rules; these are the
>>>>> rules of the meeting, not of the Association.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is free in that there are "no dues or fees."
>>>>>
>>>>> FAs are actually the default organization of peers; but peer
>>>>> organizations very often devolve rapidly into something else,
>>>>> particularly if they see some success. Power structures appear,
>>>>> etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another important aspect of the FA is that it is "free" from
>>>>> bias. The FA does not take positions of controversy. You can
>>>>> join an FA without thereby endorsing *anything.* Except
>>>>> possibly the simple idea of association itself, of free
>>>>> discussion and voluntary coordination. So you can join the
>>>>> Range Voting Free Association and be totally opposed to Range
>>>>> Voting. Indeed, we'd invite you to do so!
>>>>>
>>>> I'm trying to analyse the difference between parties and Free
>>>> Associations. The formal machinery calls established political
>>>> groupings of people "parties". They are clearly part of the
>>>> machinery. In most countries people are free to form new
>>>> parties. (Depending on the current political system they may
>>>> have different chances of becoming really influential parties.)
>>>> The Free associations that you described seem to differ from
>>>> parties roughly in that they have a very limited set of rules
>>>> and are therefore more "free" than the traditional parties. I
>>>> noted at least the following possible differences.
>>>> - one can't be expelled
>>>> - no permanent rules (only per meeting)
>>>> - no fees
>>>> - no power structure
>>>> - does not take positions of controversy
>>>> - members don't endorse anything (except the existence of the
>>>> association itself)
>>>> - members may be against the basic targets of the FA
>>>> A party with very relaxed rules could be a Free Association.
>>>> Maybe people are also free to choose whether to influence via
>>>> FAs of more formal parties and the system could support a
>>>> mixture of these two. (In this case FAs could be part of the
>>>> "official machinery" (but only lightly regulated if at all).)
>>>>
>>>>> But I'm pointing out that if enough people belonged to a
>>>>> political FA (which means an FA that is interested in
>>>>> politics, not one that is partisan, in itself), and if this
>>>>> FA was DP, the people could control the government, without
>>>>> breaking a sweat. It would not be the FA controlling the
>>>>> government; the FA merely provides the communications, it
>>>>> would be the people.
>>>>>
>>>> Hmm, maybe I'm trying to point out that the formality of the
>>>> groups (FA vs. party) is a flexible concept, and that some
>>>> people might feel that "controlling the government" is
>>>> possible also by having rather rigid parties that the voters
>>>> can choose from (and trust that hey will efficiently drive the
>>>> policy that is written in their program).
>>>>
>>>>> Indeed, the people already control the government, only they
>>>>> are asleep, so they act in accordance with their dreams,
>>>>> those of their own, or those induced by the dream masters.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm suggesting that the people awaken, not in the sense of
>>>>> Awaken and Throw Off Your Chains, but in the sense of simply
>>>>> allowing group intelligence to arise. I'm not attempting to
>>>>> prejudge what that intelligence will decide, and I would
>>>>> certainly advise caution!
>>>>>
>>>>> Instead of waking up and thrashing about, which in the stupor
>>>>> of recent sleep can do a lot of damage, just wake up and
>>>>> look around. Smell the coffee. And start to talk about it.
>>>>>
>>>> It seems that what we are looking for is a political system
>>>> that allows people to influence and not get e.g. the feeling
>>>> that whatever way they vote, the professional politicians
>>>> (and potentially also lobbyists) will promote their own goals,
>>>> never mind the voters, and will never give anything more back
>>>> to the voters/citizens than promises. I'd call that a
>>>> "working democracy". Free Associations (="very free and
>>>> informal parties") could be one tool in achieving that but I
>>>> think also formal parties, different political systems, voting
>>>> methods etc. can be used to achieve that. (Same with proxies
>>>> and "continuous elections".)
>>>> Juho
>
> --
> davek at clarityconnect.com people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
> Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
> Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
> If you want peace, work for justice.
>
>
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list