direct.or.indirect.html

From - Fri Jan 10 17:21:08 2003
From: "Allen" <allencelsie@sympatico.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.history.british
Subject: direct vs representative democracy
Lines: 6
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Message-ID: <UhDG9.922$2S1.242971@news20.bellglobal.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 01:44:59 -0500
NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.209.119.99
X-Complaints-To: abuse@sympatico.ca
X-Trace: news20.bellglobal.com 1038811380 216.209.119.99 (Mon, 02 Dec 2002 01:43:00 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 01:43:00 EST
Organization: Bell Sympatico
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!fu-berlin.de!nf3.bellglobal.com!snoopy.risq.qc.ca!torn!webster!nf1.bellglobal.com!nf2.bellglobal.com!news20.bellglobal.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net alt.history.british:54395

Does anyone know a good book on this topic. Also does anyone know of
specific examples of direct democracy?

Allen

From - Fri Jan 10 17:21:08 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newspeer1-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: "a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com>
Newsgroups: alt.history.british
References: <UhDG9.922$2S1.242971@news20.bellglobal.com>
Subject: Re: direct vs representative democracy
Lines: 11
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Message-ID: <jaFG9.102$E51.36954@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 08:52:27 -0000
NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.252.176.152
X-Complaints-To: abuse@ntlworld.com
X-Trace: newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net 1038819087 62.252.176.152 (Mon, 02 Dec 2002 08:51:27 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 08:51:27 GMT
Organization: ntlworld News Service
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net alt.history.british:54400

Allen <allencelsie@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:UhDG9.922$2S1.242971@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Does anyone know a good book on this topic. Also does anyone know of
> specific examples of direct democracy?
>
Do you mean a la the current Swiss referendum system?

Surreyman

From - Fri Jan 10 17:21:09 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!intgwlon.nntp.telstra.net!news.telstra.net!news-server.bigpond.net.au!not-for-mail
From: "Neville Lindsay" <nevlin@bigpond.net.au>
Newsgroups: alt.history.british
References: <UhDG9.922$2S1.242971@news20.bellglobal.com>
Subject: Re: direct vs representative democracy
Lines: 13
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Message-ID: <zPHG9.11432$q43.30759@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 11:51:59 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.45.168.81
X-Complaints-To: news@bigpond.net.au
X-Trace: news-server.bigpond.net.au 1038829919 203.45.168.81 (Mon, 02 Dec 2002 22:51:59 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 22:51:59 EST
Organization: BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.net.au)
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net alt.history.british:54403

"Allen" <allencelsie@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:UhDG9.922$2S1.242971@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Does anyone know a good book on this topic. Also does anyone know of
> specific examples of direct democracy?
>
> Allen

Aristotle *Constitution of Athens*.

From - Fri Jan 10 17:21:09 2003
From: "Allen" <allencelsie@sympatico.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.history.british
References: <UhDG9.922$2S1.242971@news20.bellglobal.com>
Subject: Re: direct vs representative democracy
Lines: 18
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Message-ID: <SiMG9.1046$2S1.299136@news20.bellglobal.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 12:00:24 -0500
NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.209.119.131
X-Complaints-To: abuse@sympatico.ca
X-Trace: news20.bellglobal.com 1038848306 216.209.119.131 (Mon, 02 Dec 2002 11:58:26 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 11:58:26 EST
Organization: Bell Sympatico
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!torn!webster!nf1.bellglobal.com!nf2.bellglobal.com!news20.bellglobal.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net alt.history.british:54412

I mean where the people have the right to vote on issues. I was hoping to
find a book that went into all the variations of direct or participatory
democracy that have existed. I thought the six nations were an example of
this type of democracy.

Allen

From - Fri Jan 10 17:21:09 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newsfeed.news2me.com!border1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 22:01:02 -0600
Message-ID: <3DEC2C7D.628C376@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 23:01:02 -0500
From: Rod Keys <rkeys@comcast.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.history.british
Subject: Re: direct vs representative democracy
References: <UhDG9.922$2S1.242971@news20.bellglobal.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 34
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.60.160.142
X-Trace: sv3-P7S8Dsr3z7m+aa74rHZL08yjA5C+dV4qGISfmBn70vShMFUjoBCNGkSovV57U44c9o7H1qcoy1CdK5H!+QkebFmVsl8lOSw0n3ee80SC3i8wu4hSA7nxMpe8ZdswamoiqVF/Iw==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.com
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.1
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net alt.history.british:54434

Hi Allen,

Democracy is part of the answer to government "for the people". But
it's not the whole answer. In Democracy a majority can gang up and take
advantage of a minority too easily. Sometimes this takes the form of
unjustly taking people's property "for the general good" or enslaving a
minority because of their skin color or no end of other sins, all of
which have indded been done in the name of Democracy.

Rather we need to look at the question from another angle. How do we do
the people's will yet prevent "mob rule"? How do we protect people's
property and rights? The answer lies in a number of tactics. A free
press as a "watch dog" is one. Representative rather than direct
democracy is another. Checks and balances is another. Constitutional
limits on Government's power yet another. An educated populous is
another requirement. And so on and so on.

I do not know of a book on the subject of direct democracy as such. But
you might start back a few paces at the basics .. John Locke's 2nd
Treatise on Government for example. Then think about ways that Democracy
can be made to work without the bigger group always taking from the
smaller group.

Regards,

Rod

Allen wrote:

> Does anyone know a good book on this topic. Also does anyone know of
> specific examples of direct democracy?
>
> Allen

From - Fri Jan 10 17:21:09 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!news.stealth.net!news.stealth.net!news-out.nuthinbutnews.com!propagator2-sterling!news-in-sterling.newsfeed.com!news-in.nuthinbutnews.com!intgwlon.nntp.telstra.net!news.telstra.net!news-server.bigpond.net.au!not-for-mail
From: "Neville Lindsay" <nevlin@bigpond.net.au>
Newsgroups: alt.history.british
References: <UhDG9.922$2S1.242971@news20.bellglobal.com> <3DEC2C7D.628C376@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: direct vs representative democracy
Lines: 56
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Message-ID: <_z_G9.14887$q43.41181@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 09:12:26 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.45.168.81
X-Complaints-To: news@bigpond.net.au
X-Trace: news-server.bigpond.net.au 1038906746 203.45.168.81 (Tue, 03 Dec 2002 20:12:26 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 20:12:26 EST
Organization: BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.net.au)
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net alt.history.british:54439

"Rod Keys" <rkeys@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3DEC2C7D.628C376@comcast.net...
> Hi Allen,
>
> Democracy is part of the answer to government "for the people". But
> it's not the whole answer. In Democracy a majority can gang up and take
> advantage of a minority too easily. Sometimes this takes the form of
> unjustly taking people's property "for the general good" or enslaving a
> minority because of their skin color or no end of other sins, all of
> which have indded been done in the name of Democracy.
>
> Rather we need to look at the question from another angle. How do we do
> the people's will yet prevent "mob rule"? How do we protect people's
> property and rights? The answer lies in a number of tactics. A free
> press as a "watch dog" is one. Representative rather than direct
> democracy is another. Checks and balances is another. Constitutional
> limits on Government's power yet another. An educated populous is
> another requirement. And so on and so on.
>
> I do not know of a book on the subject of direct democracy as such. But
> you might start back a few paces at the basics .. John Locke's 2nd
> Treatise on Government for example. Then think about ways that Democracy
> can be made to work without the bigger group always taking from the
> smaller group.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rod

For two and a half thousand years, oligarchs who think that they know what
is best for everyone have raised the spectre of 'mob rule' (ochlocracy). In
defining who is not part of the mob, most people put themselves above the
salt. Many of such elitist proclaimers are candidates for the mob, witness
their performance in street demonstrations which turn violent.

The masses are quite able to judge what they want and don't want. And what
they don't want is a ruling class or politicians who are unresponsive to
their demands in a two-party tweedle-dee tweedle-dum situation.

Aristotle's *Politics* gives a view from the past (though a somewhat biased
one - the victors get to do the writing - well that which which survives
anyway):
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.4.four.html

> Allen wrote:
>
> > Does anyone know a good book on this topic. Also does anyone know of
> > specific examples of direct democracy?
> >
> > Allen
>

From - Fri Jan 10 17:21:10 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!newsfeed.news2me.com!border1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 07:21:42 -0600
Message-ID: <3DECAFE6.5ACF0CAD@comcast.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 08:21:42 -0500
From: Rod Keys <rkeys@comcast.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.history.british
Subject: Re: direct vs representative democracy
References: <UhDG9.922$2S1.242971@news20.bellglobal.com> <3DEC2C7D.628C376@comcast.net> <_z_G9.14887$q43.41181@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 41
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.60.160.142
X-Trace: sv3-pdu5+kW20QUZGLtagl4SuY0qSOWY0d4Kl6qlMmCtPkTCNtR9szjvj2Ti6x7E7xVIgv+fOSxtSYykv1R!b2Lw1yRWVAR+npshv4ZSj+y3RC4+nt1cPRSmhTA1pHus5yvyOHwvYvU=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.com
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.1
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net alt.history.british:54443

>
>
> For two and a half thousand years, oligarchs who think that they know what
> is best for everyone have raised the spectre of 'mob rule' (ochlocracy). In
> defining who is not part of the mob, most people put themselves above the
> salt. Many of such elitist proclaimers are candidates for the mob, witness
> their performance in street demonstrations which turn violent.
>

Not everything oligarchs say is wrong. The root of "tyrant" is, of course,
from the people. Hitler, a tyrant without a doubt, for example, came to power
democratically and came from "the people". Slavery in the southern US was, two
hundred years ago, perfectly democratic. Democracy is a key element of freedom
but it is not the only element. And this is important, limiting democracy does
not in any way imply that you give powers to elitists instead.

>
> The masses are quite able to judge what they want and don't want.

Yes, but too often what they want is somebody else's property or freedom.

> And what
> they don't want is a ruling class or politicians who are unresponsive to
> their demands in a two-party tweedle-dee tweedle-dum situation.

Who says that's the alternate? We want limits on government. Not substituting
one form of tyranny for another.

>
>
> Aristotle's *Politics* gives a view from the past (though a somewhat biased
> one - the victors get to do the writing - well that which which survives
> anyway):

We've come a long way and learned allot since Aristotle. It's good to study
classic Greeks because so many have before us and it helps us to understand the
ideas of the past. But plenty of history has come and gone and it's well to
learn from that too.

Rod

From - Fri Jan 10 17:21:10 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newspeer1-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: "Thur" <a@spamless.z>
Newsgroups: alt.history.british
References: <UhDG9.922$2S1.242971@news20.bellglobal.com> <3DEC2C7D.628C376@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: direct vs representative democracy
Lines: 50
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Message-ID: <Ji2H9.4863$Lk4.828154@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 13:27:02 -0000
NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.4.213.173
X-Complaints-To: abuse@ntlworld.com
X-Trace: newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net 1038922025 80.4.213.173 (Tue, 03 Dec 2002 13:27:05 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 13:27:05 GMT
Organization: ntl Cablemodem News Service
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net alt.history.british:54444

x-no-archive: yes
The point still at issue for a constutional democracy of your
description is how much freedom, how much and what depth
of representation, how much limit on Govermental power,
etc.
Where there are only two parties (that could possibly form a
government) to vote for then representation is questionable.
I note that in the UK one has to be an acomplished liar just
to get considered as a prospective candidate for either
party, and the splits that have constantly plagued both parties
over the last 50 years are an example that they are not really
whole parties, but a secretly arranged grouping of a range of
smaller parties. This works right against true representation,
and no voter can know just what range of policies they are
really voting for, and just what their representative really stands for.
The Freedom of the Press is one of the checks against
bad government, but not if the press does not print facts, but
packaged opinions dressed up as facts.
An educated populous is one all nations should be aiming for,
and one of the important subjects that should be in the curriculum
is debate. The ability to aquire, sift, and weigh facts, with a view to
forming an opinion is not a requirement so far.
Thur

"Rod Keys" <rkeys@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3DEC2C7D.628C376@comcast.net...
> Hi Allen,
>snipped<
> Rather we need to look at the question from another angle. How do we do
> the people's will yet prevent "mob rule"? How do we protect people's
> property and rights? The answer lies in a number of tactics. A free
> press as a "watch dog" is one. Representative rather than direct
> democracy is another. Checks and balances is another. Constitutional
> limits on Government's power yet another. An educated populous is
> another requirement. And so on and so on.
>
> snipped<
> Regards,
>
> Rod
>
> Allen wrote:
>
> > Does anyone know a good book on this topic. Also does anyone know of
> > specific examples of direct democracy?
> >
> > Allen
>

From - Fri Jan 10 17:21:11 2003
From: "Allen" <allencelsie@sympatico.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.history.british
References: <UhDG9.922$2S1.242971@news20.bellglobal.com> <3DEC2C7D.628C376@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: direct vs representative democracy
Lines: 49
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Message-ID: <qpcH9.2400$2S1.608919@news20.bellglobal.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 19:58:49 -0500
NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.209.149.14
X-Complaints-To: abuse@sympatico.ca
X-Trace: news20.bellglobal.com 1038963414 216.209.149.14 (Tue, 03 Dec 2002 19:56:54 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 19:56:54 EST
Organization: Bell Sympatico
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!snoopy.risq.qc.ca!torn!webster!nf1.bellglobal.com!nf2.bellglobal.com!news20.bellglobal.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net alt.history.british:54471

You seem to be hung up on "mob rule" and "minority rights" but I see no
reason why in a direct democracy basic human rights and protections would
not be built into the system as it currently is in many democracies. You
assume representative democracy will give more protection but I think I
would trust an educated public than a few power hungry politicians. I for
one am tired of hearing one story from them at election time and another
after they are elected.

Allen

From - Fri Jan 10 17:21:12 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!priapus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!newsfeed.news2me.com!border1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 19:42:59 -0600
Message-ID: <3DED5DA0.E5C1C82E@comcast.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 20:42:56 -0500
From: Rod Keys <rkeys@comcast.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.history.british
Subject: Re: direct vs representative democracy
References: <UhDG9.922$2S1.242971@news20.bellglobal.com> <3DEC2C7D.628C376@comcast.net> <qpcH9.2400$2S1.608919@news20.bellglobal.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 48
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.60.160.142
X-Trace: sv3-JGFXsRU42QHvdqmpnPw/Y68JdRqBz3eaM9j4PMWkB+rhts4HpuFRP5hDLr4d8gJd/pUu1EGMjUKT378!nBHbImv1LEd9PmLInvOhsLQokR9hsBSWcRyvbYqN62xKCxEFHGyNM2A=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.com
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.1
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net alt.history.british:54473

Allen wrote:

> You seem to be hung up on "mob rule" and "minority rights" but I see no
> reason why in a direct democracy basic human rights and protections would
> not be built into the system as it currently is in many democracies.

In theory you are right. If you had powers that were "off limits" .. those
that encroached on people's rights for example. Other areas could be decided
by popular vote. But life in the real world teaches that's a slippery hillside
we'll slide down every time. As an example, here in the US many years ago
certain powers were given to each local populous to decide questions of water
drainage across private land. Can Mr. X fill his over-wet farm land if doing
so tends to flood Mr. Y's? ... that sort of thing ... but that has grown step
by step and court decision by court decision into "zoning laws" where the city
can decide everything from the color of your house to whether you can add a
room. Some drainage law!

The problem is when you grant a power it is reliably used to gain more power
till the originally intended limit is totally forgotten.

> You
> assume representative democracy will give more protection but I think I
> would trust an educated public than a few power hungry politicians.

And so would we all. But don't put all your faith in the general population
either. They are as human as the politician and will isolate some minority and
squash 'em as fast as the politicians will. The idea is not that we trust
professional politician so much, it's that we can to things like deviding them
up into branches and puting checks and balances in place to play them against
one another.

In the example of a direct democracy, who would limit the power of the courts
for example? Or would you propose popular trial by television? Who would
lead the military and who would prevent a military coups?

It's just not as simple as we'd like.

> I for
> one am tired of hearing one story from them at election time and another
> after they are elected.

So are we all .. I suggest limiting the power of these officials would at least
cut down on it a bit. There's be less to lie about.

Rod

From - Fri Jan 10 17:21:12 2003
From: "Allen" <allencelsie@sympatico.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.history.british
References: <UhDG9.922$2S1.242971@news20.bellglobal.com> <3DEC2C7D.628C376@comcast.net> <qpcH9.2400$2S1.608919@news20.bellglobal.com> <3DED5DA0.E5C1C82E@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: direct vs representative democracy
Lines: 80
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Message-ID: <DveH9.2783$2S1.650954@news20.bellglobal.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 22:21:58 -0500
NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.209.149.91
X-Complaints-To: abuse@sympatico.ca
X-Trace: news20.bellglobal.com 1038972003 216.209.149.91 (Tue, 03 Dec 2002 22:20:03 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 22:20:03 EST
Organization: Bell Sympatico
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!colt.net!news-lond.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!snoopy.risq.qc.ca!torn!webster!nf1.bellglobal.com!nf2.bellglobal.com!news20.bellglobal.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net alt.history.british:54479

It is simple the parliament would be the people. The leaders would be
elected, not to vote but to lead.. they would be our best in their fields,
they would be the experts, they would make recomendations. Parliament would
change to be informative and our elected leaders would work there but when a
vote is called for the people would speak. In this complex world we need
leaders in many areas from plumbing to brain surgery. The current organs of
government would exist. Only voting on issues would change.

Allen

"Rod Keys" <rkeys@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3DED5DA0.E5C1C82E@comcast.net...
>
>
> Allen wrote:
>
> > You seem to be hung up on "mob rule" and "minority rights" but I see no
> > reason why in a direct democracy basic human rights and protections
would
> > not be built into the system as it currently is in many democracies.
>
> In theory you are right. If you had powers that were "off limits" ..
those
> that encroached on people's rights for example. Other areas could be
decided
> by popular vote. But life in the real world teaches that's a slippery
hillside
> we'll slide down every time. As an example, here in the US many years ago
> certain powers were given to each local populous to decide questions of
water
> drainage across private land. Can Mr. X fill his over-wet farm land if
doing
> so tends to flood Mr. Y's? ... that sort of thing ... but that has grown
step
> by step and court decision by court decision into "zoning laws" where the
city
> can decide everything from the color of your house to whether you can add
a
> room. Some drainage law!
>
> The problem is when you grant a power it is reliably used to gain more
power
> till the originally intended limit is totally forgotten.
>
> > You
> > assume representative democracy will give more protection but I think I
> > would trust an educated public than a few power hungry politicians.
>
> And so would we all. But don't put all your faith in the general
population
> either. They are as human as the politician and will isolate some
minority and
> squash 'em as fast as the politicians will. The idea is not that we trust
> professional politician so much, it's that we can to things like deviding
them
> up into branches and puting checks and balances in place to play them
against
> one another.
>
> In the example of a direct democracy, who would limit the power of the
courts
> for example? Or would you propose popular trial by television? Who
would
> lead the military and who would prevent a military coups?
>
> It's just not as simple as we'd like.
>
> > I for
> > one am tired of hearing one story from them at election time and another
> > after they are elected.
>
> So are we all .. I suggest limiting the power of these officials would at
least
> cut down on it a bit. There's be less to lie about.
>
> Rod
>

From - Fri Jan 10 17:21:12 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!intgwpad.nntp.telstra.net!news.telstra.net!news-server.bigpond.net.au!not-for-mail
From: "Neville Lindsay" <nevlin@bigpond.net.au>
Newsgroups: alt.history.british
References: <UhDG9.922$2S1.242971@news20.bellglobal.com> <3DEC2C7D.628C376@comcast.net> <qpcH9.2400$2S1.608919@news20.bellglobal.com> <3DED5DA0.E5C1C82E@comcast.net> <DveH9.2783$2S1.650954@news20.bellglobal.com>
Subject: Re: direct vs representative democracy
Lines: 26
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Message-ID: <i_eH9.17541$q43.50807@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 03:52:46 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.45.168.81
X-Complaints-To: news@bigpond.net.au
X-Trace: news-server.bigpond.net.au 1038973966 203.45.168.81 (Wed, 04 Dec 2002 14:52:46 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 14:52:46 EST
Organization: BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.net.au)
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net alt.history.british:54482

"Allen" <allencelsie@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:DveH9.2783$2S1.650954@news20.bellglobal.com...
> It is simple the parliament would be the people. The leaders would be
> elected, not to vote but to lead.. they would be our best in their fields,
> they would be the experts, they would make recomendations. Parliament
would
> change to be informative and our elected leaders would work there but when
a
> vote is called for the people would speak. In this complex world we need
> leaders in many areas from plumbing to brain surgery. The current organs
of
> government would exist. Only voting on issues would change.
>
> Allen

The argument against direct democracy used to be its physical limitation -
to a city state. Now we have the technology to allow people to vote weekly,
as parliament does. Some places (some US states, Switzerland) have a partial
bit of this with citizen initiated referendums. And do the pollies fear and
hate the very thought of this! Yes, we can have direct democracy, and yes,
out political parasites will do just about anything to prevent it.

From - Fri Jan 10 17:21:13 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!not-for-mail
From: Wallace-Macpherson <mm@iniref.org>
Newsgroups: alt.history.british
Subject: Re: direct vs representative democracy
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 14:13:27 +0100
Organization: Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R http://www.iniref.org
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <3DFC7FE3.4CC7EC34@iniref.org>
References: <UhDG9.922$2S1.242971@news20.bellglobal.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.eusc.inter.net 1039957966 15452 217.230.202.12 (15 Dec 2002 13:12:46 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eusc.inter.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net alt.history.british:54884

Allen wrote:

> Does anyone know a good book on this topic. Also does anyone know of
> specific examples of direct democracy?
>
> Allen

The sort of exchange which followed Allen's leader is occurring quite
frequently across the world, originating especially in Australasia and
Europe, on this and closely related topics.

That's good. But I want to quibble with the title of the thread:
Subject: direct vs representative democracy

I find the assumption that "direct" and "representative" forms of
democracy are bound to be in conflict is (a) likely to be
self-fulfilling prophecy and (b) not entirely correct either
historically or prospectively.

For purposes of illustration I'll sketch a simplified picture of
"direct" and "representative" forms of democracy.

The predominant form of of democratic governance is based on elected
MPs, a parliament and two or more strong parties. "Direct" democracy is
often conceived as a procedure in which citizens' initiative proposals,
after being approved by an agreed number of citizens, go before the
people for referendum, e.g. as "ballot issues" which are put up for vote
simultaneously with elections. These citizen proposals or draft laws, if
passed, overrule parliament and indeed under specified conditions may
form or change constitution. Parliament, which formally and sometimes
genuinely represents popular will and which carries accumulated
experience of litigation and government, is "short-circuited" out of the
law-making process. Conflict is pre-programmed, especially where
elements of direct democracy are introduced into well established
parliamentary systems.

A way to reduce conflict is to integrate the two systems, "direct" with
"indirect" (representative) democracy. How may that be done? One way is
as follows. Citizens' proposal are put up for public scrutiny and
endorsing signatures are collected. After the agreed proportion of
citizens of the polity (city, region, country etc.) have signed, the
proposal does *not* go directly for referendum but goes to parliament.
The issue is at the latest by this stage clearly "on the public agenda"
and will be discussed in private and in the mass media. Parliament is
obliged to consider the proposal and is expected to either reject it, to
put forward an alternative proposal, or to pass it as law. The proposers
are asked if they will accept the alternative. If they refuse or if
parliament rejects the proposal then it may be put to the whole
electorate for final decision in a referendum.

This "three step" procedure allow plenty of time for information and
debate. With internet, an overview of current initiatives and referendum
proposals can more easily be obained.

Regards

Wallace-Macpherson

From - Fri Jan 10 17:21:13 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!news.stealth.net!news.stealth.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!chi1.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!snoopy.risq.qc.ca!torn!nf1.bellglobal.com!nf2.bellglobal.com!news20.bellglobal.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Allen" <allencelsie@sympatico.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.history.british
References: <UhDG9.922$2S1.242971@news20.bellglobal.com> <3DFC7FE3.4CC7EC34@iniref.org>
Subject: Re: direct vs representative democracy
Lines: 77
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Message-ID: <gtaL9.999$cN3.200362@news20.bellglobal.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 21:03:11 -0500
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.226.237.12
X-Complaints-To: abuse@sympatico.ca
X-Trace: news20.bellglobal.com 1040004044 209.226.237.12 (Sun, 15 Dec 2002 21:00:44 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 21:00:44 EST
Organization: Bell Sympatico
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net alt.history.british:54896

The best way to avoid conflict would be to replace parliament with direct
democracy, ie each law is voted on directly. Parliament in turn would be
replaced by "leaders" (not politicians) who would have no power only offer
advice. This body could be people from all fields and walks of life who
would have to have minimum qualifications in terms of their expertise. The
body could have minimum requirements in terms of fields of expertise and
thus would represent the leaders across a broad spectrum of our society.
With no power or incentive to make money by their advice, they could thus be
free to be objective and advise in the best interest of the country.

Allen

"Wallace-Macpherson" <mm@iniref.org> wrote in message
news:3DFC7FE3.4CC7EC34@iniref.org...
> Allen wrote:
>
> > Does anyone know a good book on this topic. Also does anyone know of
> > specific examples of direct democracy?
> >
> > Allen
>
> The sort of exchange which followed Allen's leader is occurring quite
> frequently across the world, originating especially in Australasia and
> Europe, on this and closely related topics.
>
> That's good. But I want to quibble with the title of the thread:
> Subject: direct vs representative democracy
>
> I find the assumption that "direct" and "representative" forms of
> democracy are bound to be in conflict is (a) likely to be
> self-fulfilling prophecy and (b) not entirely correct either
> historically or prospectively.
>
> For purposes of illustration I'll sketch a simplified picture of
> "direct" and "representative" forms of democracy.
>
> The predominant form of of democratic governance is based on elected
> MPs, a parliament and two or more strong parties. "Direct" democracy is
> often conceived as a procedure in which citizens' initiative proposals,
> after being approved by an agreed number of citizens, go before the
> people for referendum, e.g. as "ballot issues" which are put up for vote
> simultaneously with elections. These citizen proposals or draft laws, if
> passed, overrule parliament and indeed under specified conditions may
> form or change constitution. Parliament, which formally and sometimes
> genuinely represents popular will and which carries accumulated
> experience of litigation and government, is "short-circuited" out of the
> law-making process. Conflict is pre-programmed, especially where
> elements of direct democracy are introduced into well established
> parliamentary systems.
>
> A way to reduce conflict is to integrate the two systems, "direct" with
> "indirect" (representative) democracy. How may that be done? One way is
> as follows. Citizens' proposal are put up for public scrutiny and
> endorsing signatures are collected. After the agreed proportion of
> citizens of the polity (city, region, country etc.) have signed, the
> proposal does *not* go directly for referendum but goes to parliament.
> The issue is at the latest by this stage clearly "on the public agenda"
> and will be discussed in private and in the mass media. Parliament is
> obliged to consider the proposal and is expected to either reject it, to
> put forward an alternative proposal, or to pass it as law. The proposers
> are asked if they will accept the alternative. If they refuse or if
> parliament rejects the proposal then it may be put to the whole
> electorate for final decision in a referendum.
>
> This "three step" procedure allow plenty of time for information and
> debate. With internet, an overview of current initiatives and referendum
> proposals can more easily be obained.
>
> Regards
>
> Wallace-Macpherson
>
> >
>

From - Fri Jan 10 17:21:14 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!not-for-mail
From: Wallace-Macpherson <mm@iniref.org>
Newsgroups: alt.history.british
Subject: Re: direct vs representative democracy
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 10:41:04 +0100
Organization: Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R http://www.iniref.org
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <3DFD9FA9.E122093E@iniref.org>
References: <UhDG9.922$2S1.242971@news20.bellglobal.com> <3DFC7FE3.4CC7EC34@iniref.org> <gtaL9.999$cN3.200362@news20.bellglobal.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.eusc.inter.net 1040031637 5794 217.230.198.214 (16 Dec 2002 09:40:37 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eusc.inter.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net alt.history.british:54903

Allen wrote:

> The best way to avoid conflict would be to replace parliament with direct
> democracy, ie each law is voted on directly. Parliament in turn would be
> replaced by "leaders" (not politicians) who would have no power only offer
> advice. This body could be people from all fields and walks of life who
> would have to have minimum qualifications in terms of their expertise. The
> body could have minimum requirements in terms of fields of expertise and
> thus would represent the leaders across a broad spectrum of our society.
> With no power or incentive to make money by their advice, they could thus be
> free to be objective and advise in the best interest of the country.
>
> Allen

I know that this is a history newsgroup. Appropriately, to "replace parliament
with direct democracy", as you suggest, in western-style democracies would
methinks take some centuries.

Less radical reforms, introducing well-tried procedures, have some chance of
earlier success. Proposals (up for discussion) to introduce participative
democracy in Britain and N-Ireland may be found at http://www.iniref.org

Elements of the sort of democracy proposed at INIREF are already in use. E.g.
there is a people's initiative-right to strike out law in Italy, the Dutch
parliament recently approved their people's right to veto parliamentary bills
and the ruling government in Germany has promised to re-introduce a bill for
citizens' initiative and referendum at country level, in proposals similar to
those at INIREF.

Regards

Wallace-Macpherson

-------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want change, work for it and support the activists!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
http://www.iniref.org
http://www.sztaki.hu/servlets/voting/call
e-mail: info@iniref.org

From - Fri Jan 10 17:21:14 2003
From: "Allen" <allencelsie@sympatico.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.history.british
References: <UhDG9.922$2S1.242971@news20.bellglobal.com> <3DFC7FE3.4CC7EC34@iniref.org> <gtaL9.999$cN3.200362@news20.bellglobal.com> <3DFD9FA9.E122093E@iniref.org>
Subject: Re: direct vs representative democracy
Lines: 62
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Message-ID: <ZhwL9.1544$cN3.450229@news20.bellglobal.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 21:52:58 -0500
NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.208.65.17
X-Complaints-To: abuse@sympatico.ca
X-Trace: news20.bellglobal.com 1040093433 216.208.65.17 (Mon, 16 Dec 2002 21:50:33 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 21:50:33 EST
Organization: Bell Sympatico
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!feedme.news.mediaways.net!itgate.net!news.linkpendium.com!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!logbridge.uoregon.edu!snoopy.risq.qc.ca!torn!webster!nf1.bellglobal.com!nf2.bellglobal.com!news20.bellglobal.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net alt.history.british:54926

I was thinking more like 10 to 50 years.
The link you gave me is not there.

Allen

"Wallace-Macpherson" <mm@iniref.org> wrote in message
news:3DFD9FA9.E122093E@iniref.org...
> Allen wrote:
>
> > The best way to avoid conflict would be to replace parliament with
direct
> > democracy, ie each law is voted on directly. Parliament in turn would
be
> > replaced by "leaders" (not politicians) who would have no power only
offer
> > advice. This body could be people from all fields and walks of life who
> > would have to have minimum qualifications in terms of their expertise.
The
> > body could have minimum requirements in terms of fields of expertise and
> > thus would represent the leaders across a broad spectrum of our society.
> > With no power or incentive to make money by their advice, they could
thus be
> > free to be objective and advise in the best interest of the country.
> >
> > Allen
>
> I know that this is a history newsgroup. Appropriately, to "replace
parliament
> with direct democracy", as you suggest, in western-style democracies would
> methinks take some centuries.
>
> Less radical reforms, introducing well-tried procedures, have some chance
of
> earlier success. Proposals (up for discussion) to introduce participative
> democracy in Britain and N-Ireland may be found at http://www.iniref.org
>
> Elements of the sort of democracy proposed at INIREF are already in use.
E.g.
> there is a people's initiative-right to strike out law in Italy, the Dutch
> parliament recently approved their people's right to veto parliamentary
bills
> and the ruling government in Germany has promised to re-introduce a bill
for
> citizens' initiative and referendum at country level, in proposals similar
to
> those at INIREF.
>
> Regards
>
> Wallace-Macpherson
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> If you want change, work for it and support the activists!
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
> http://www.iniref.org
> http://www.sztaki.hu/servlets/voting/call
> e-mail: info@iniref.org
>

From - Fri Jan 10 17:21:14 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!not-for-mail
From: Wallace-Macpherson <mm@iniref.org>
Newsgroups: alt.history.british
Subject: Re: direct vs representative democracy
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 10:16:03 +0100
Organization: Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R http://www.iniref.org
Lines: 77
Message-ID: <3E003CCE.3059D820@iniref.org>
References: <UhDG9.922$2S1.242971@news20.bellglobal.com> <3DFC7FE3.4CC7EC34@iniref.org> <gtaL9.999$cN3.200362@news20.bellglobal.com> <3DFD9FA9.E122093E@iniref.org> <ZhwL9.1544$cN3.450229@news20.bellglobal.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.eusc.inter.net 1040202945 21500 217.230.201.74 (18 Dec 2002 09:15:45 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eusc.inter.net
To: Allen <allencelsie@sympatico.ca>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net alt.history.british:55010

Hi,

My internet company probably shut down the server for repairs. It now works
again.

The link to info. and literature about direct democracy is
http://www.iniref.org/learn.html
I&R's home page is http://www.iniref.org/

Wallace-Macpherson

----------------------------

Allen wrote:

> I was thinking more like 10 to 50 years.
> The link you gave me is not there.
>
> Allen
>
> "Wallace-Macpherson" <mm@iniref.org> wrote in message
> news:3DFD9FA9.E122093E@iniref.org...
> > Allen wrote:
> >
> > > The best way to avoid conflict would be to replace parliament with
> direct
> > > democracy, ie each law is voted on directly. Parliament in turn would
> be
> > > replaced by "leaders" (not politicians) who would have no power only
> offer
> > > advice. This body could be people from all fields and walks of life who
> > > would have to have minimum qualifications in terms of their expertise.
> The
> > > body could have minimum requirements in terms of fields of expertise and
> > > thus would represent the leaders across a broad spectrum of our society.
> > > With no power or incentive to make money by their advice, they could
> thus be
> > > free to be objective and advise in the best interest of the country.
> > >
> > > Allen
> >
> > I know that this is a history newsgroup. Appropriately, to "replace
> parliament
> > with direct democracy", as you suggest, in western-style democracies would
> > methinks take some centuries.
> >
> > Less radical reforms, introducing well-tried procedures, have some chance
> of
> > earlier success. Proposals (up for discussion) to introduce participative
> > democracy in Britain and N-Ireland may be found at http://www.iniref.org
> >
> > Elements of the sort of democracy proposed at INIREF are already in use.
> E.g.
> > there is a people's initiative-right to strike out law in Italy, the Dutch
> > parliament recently approved their people's right to veto parliamentary
> bills
> > and the ruling government in Germany has promised to re-introduce a bill
> for
> > citizens' initiative and referendum at country level, in proposals similar
> to
> > those at INIREF.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Wallace-Macpherson
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > If you want change, work for it and support the activists!
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
> > http://www.iniref.org
> > http://www.sztaki.hu/servlets/voting/call
> > e-mail: info@iniref.org
> >

From - Fri Jan 10 17:21:14 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!news.stealth.net!news.stealth.net!news.astraweb.com!news-small.astraweb.com!news-out.spamkiller.net!propagator2-maxim!news-in.spamkiller.net!intgwlon.nntp.telstra.net!news.telstra.net!news-server.bigpond.net.au!not-for-mail
From: "Neville Lindsay" <nevlin@bigpond.net.au>
Newsgroups: alt.history.british
References: <UhDG9.922$2S1.242971@news20.bellglobal.com> <3DFC7FE3.4CC7EC34@iniref.org>
Subject: Re: direct vs representative democracy
Lines: 51
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Message-ID: <ICkL9.8935$y17.29276@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 13:33:28 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.45.164.201
X-Complaints-To: news@bigpond.net.au
X-Trace: news-server.bigpond.net.au 1040045608 203.45.164.201 (Tue, 17 Dec 2002 00:33:28 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 00:33:28 EST
Organization: BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.net.au)
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net alt.history.british:54913

This seems to presuppose that a parliament exists in a direct democracy. No,
the people are the parliament. No parliamentary representatives. Therefore
no parliament to over-rule. That is the idea of direct democracy. Though
practicality requires some sort of council to prepare/predigest proposals.
But this council doesn't decide anything so it can't be over-ruled.

Which of course is why politicians oppose direct democracy or even CIR like
the plague - their goes their power and patronage.

From - Fri Jan 10 17:21:15 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!feed.news.nacamar.de!uio.no!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr21.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!bd4f8a43!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <3DFE6B76.41D41A7E@lusby.org>
From: Peter J Lusby <pjl@lusby.org>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.history.british
Subject: Re: direct vs representative democracy
References: <UhDG9.922$2S1.242971@news20.bellglobal.com> <3DFC7FE3.4CC7EC34@iniref.org> <ICkL9.8935$y17.29276@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 91
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.196.69.172
X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net
X-Trace: newssvr21.news.prodigy.com 1040083898 ST000 63.196.69.172 (Mon, 16 Dec 2002 19:11:38 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 19:11:38 EST
Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com
X-UserInfo1: O@YYC\OGPJTORWH]^JKBOW@@YJ_ZTB\MV@BL\QMIWIWTEPIB_NVUAH_[BL[\IRKIANGGJBFNJF_DOLSCENSY^U@FRFUEXR@KFXYDBPWBCDQJA@X_DCBHXR[C@\EOKCJLED_SZ@RMWYXYWE_P@\\GOIW^@SYFFSWHFIXMADO@^[ADPRPETLBJ]RDGENSKQQZN
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 00:11:38 GMT
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net alt.history.british:54918

Neville Lindsay wrote:

> "Wallace-Macpherson" <mm@iniref.org> wrote in message
> news:3DFC7FE3.4CC7EC34@iniref.org...
> > Allen wrote:
> >
> > > Does anyone know a good book on this topic. Also does anyone know of
> > > specific examples of direct democracy?
> > >
> > > Allen
> >
> > The sort of exchange which followed Allen's leader is occurring quite
> > frequently across the world, originating especially in Australasia and
> > Europe, on this and closely related topics.
> >
> > That's good. But I want to quibble with the title of the thread:
> > Subject: direct vs representative democracy
> >
> > I find the assumption that "direct" and "representative" forms of
> > democracy are bound to be in conflict is (a) likely to be
> > self-fulfilling prophecy and (b) not entirely correct either
> > historically or prospectively.
> >
> > For purposes of illustration I'll sketch a simplified picture of
> > "direct" and "representative" forms of democracy.
> >
> > The predominant form of of democratic governance is based on elected
> > MPs, a parliament and two or more strong parties. "Direct" democracy is
> > often conceived as a procedure in which citizens' initiative proposals,
> > after being approved by an agreed number of citizens, go before the
> > people for referendum, e.g. as "ballot issues" which are put up for vote
> > simultaneously with elections. These citizen proposals or draft laws, if
> > passed, overrule parliament and indeed under specified conditions may
> > form or change constitution. Parliament, which formally and sometimes
> > genuinely represents popular will and which carries accumulated
> > experience of litigation and government, is "short-circuited" out of the
> > law-making process. Conflict is pre-programmed, especially where
> > elements of direct democracy are introduced into well established
> > parliamentary systems.
>
> This seems to presuppose that a parliament exists in a direct democracy. No,
> the people are the parliament. No parliamentary representatives. Therefore
> no parliament to over-rule. That is the idea of direct democracy. Though
> practicality requires some sort of council to prepare/predigest proposals.
> But this council doesn't decide anything so it can't be over-ruled.
>
> Which of course is why politicians oppose direct democracy or even CIR like
> the plague - their goes their power and patronage.
>
> NL

I'm not a politician. I'm a humble techie-nerd. And I will oppose direct
democracy with every breath in my body if you try to impose it on me. Why?
Because that truly would be "mob rule." Right now, the only thing that keeps
the will of the majority from trampling the rights of the individual is the rule
of parliamentary law. Remember that slavery was the will of the majority in the
south of ante-bellum america. Remember that witch burning was the will of the
majority for centuries. Remember that, like it or not, hidden just below the
veneer of political correctness and "civilized" posturing, racial segregation
and discrimination is *still* the will of the majority almost anywhere you go on
the planet today.

The ballot initiative process in California was recently subverted to allow a
tiny percentage of the population to dictate to the rest of us what meat we are
allowed to eat, for heavens sake! With only a 28% turnout, an initiative to ban
the sale of horse meat passed by 51%. That's less than 15% of the registered
voters, or about 6% of the population, dictating to the rest of us what goes
into our larders. The only way I would support the introduction of direct
representation, or its extension in any way here where I live, would be if there
were a presumption in favour of the status quo, and a requirement that any
change to the status quo be approved by a majority of the registered voters - if
you can't get 50% of the electorate to the polls to support your idea, it goes
down in flames. But even that is a two-edged sword, because that kind of a
requirement makes it just as hard to right an injustice as it does to create
one.

Better leave well enough alone, and leave the governing of our world to those
with the time, energy and inclination to study up on how to do it properly.

TTFN
+

--
"A dust whom England bore, shaped, made aware" - Rupert Brooke - "The Soldier"

Peter J Lusby
San Diego, California, USA
www.lusby.org

From - Fri Jan 10 17:21:16 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!c03.atl99!news.webusenet.com!feed.cgocable.net!news.sprintnetops.net!intgwlon.nntp.telstra.net!news.telstra.net!news-server.bigpond.net.au!not-for-mail
From: "Neville Lindsay" <nevlin@bigpond.net.au>
Newsgroups: alt.history.british
References: <UhDG9.922$2S1.242971@news20.bellglobal.com> <3DFC7FE3.4CC7EC34@iniref.org> <ICkL9.8935$y17.29276@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <3DFE6B76.41D41A7E@lusby.org>
Subject: Re: direct vs representative democracy
Lines: 153
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Message-ID: <OsuL9.10053$y17.33334@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 00:45:34 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.45.164.201
X-Complaints-To: news@bigpond.net.au
X-Trace: news-server.bigpond.net.au 1040085934 203.45.164.201 (Tue, 17 Dec 2002 11:45:34 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 11:45:34 EST
Organization: BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.net.au)
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net alt.history.british:54919

An emotive word which simply places you in believers of 'right to rule'.
Tell us about the right to rule lot in the communist countries who
exterminated 100 million of their citizens because they knew what was best
for them and the state.

> Right now, the only thing that keeps
> the will of the majority from trampling the rights of the individual is
the rule
> of parliamentary law. Remember that slavery was the will of the majority
in the
> south of ante-bellum america. Remember that witch burning was the will of
the
> majority for centuries. Remember that, like it or not, hidden just below
the
> veneer of political correctness and "civilized" posturing, racial
segregation
> and discrimination is *still* the will of the majority almost anywhere you
go on
> the planet today.

On the contrary, these evils you proclaim are the will of the
self-interested minorities who claim the right to rule. You argue against
yourself, and illustrate my point rather well.

> The ballot initiative process in California was recently subverted to
allow a
> tiny percentage of the population to dictate to the rest of us what meat
we are
> allowed to eat, for heavens sake! With only a 28% turnout, an initiative
to ban
> the sale of horse meat passed by 51%. That's less than 15% of the
registered
> voters, or about 6% of the population, dictating to the rest of us what
goes
> into our larders.

Ah, o the masses did not participate. It was the right to rule clique which
forced this. No, not mob rule - the mob didn't vote, just the obsessives and
the self-interested. Given a compulsory vote, the 'rest of us' would
presumably have destroyed the resolution. Or would they - they either didn't
care or lukewarmly supported it. But the majority does rule in any
democracy - accepting majority decision is part of the contract of belonging
to a democracy. If you don't want to, try moving to the Congo or Mauretania,
where slavery and witch burning still obtain.

>The only way I would support the introduction of direct
> representation, or its extension in any way here where I live, would be if
there
> were a presumption in favour of the status quo, and a requirement that any
> change to the status quo be approved by a majority of the registered
voters - if
> you can't get 50% of the electorate to the polls to support your idea, it
goes
> down in flames. But even that is a two-edged sword, because that kind of a
> requirement makes it just as hard to right an injustice as it does to
create
> one.

Well, we can always leave it to the minority of born-to-rulers who will no
doubt do the right thing - that is further their self-interest and
prejudices and payoffs. Yes, wreck science in schools, get into graft,
patronise their own favourites and favourite projects. Great stuff. However
I agree that 50 percent of registered voters is a good practical alternative
to compulsory voting.

> Better leave well enough alone, and leave the governing of our world to
those
> with the time, energy and inclination to study up on how to do it
properly.
>
> TTFN

Do you think they have done/are doing well? Barely 20 countries - 10
percent - of countries pass a lax test on even present representative
democracy. The rest call themselves 'Democratic Republic of Congo' and so
on, but the ruling clique has everything but the interest of the people at
heart. They would not get away with it if the people had a say in it, nor
would the politicians and ruling class get away with what is happening in
the '20'.

From - Fri Jan 10 17:21:16 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!213.253.16.105.MISMATCH!mephistopheles.news.clara.net!news.clara.net!news.astraweb.com!news-small.astraweb.com!prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr17.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!bd4f8a43!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <3DFE7A35.A5AAC8C5@lusby.org>
From: Peter J Lusby <pjl@lusby.org>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.history.british
Subject: Re: direct vs representative democracy
References: <UhDG9.922$2S1.242971@news20.bellglobal.com> <3DFC7FE3.4CC7EC34@iniref.org> <ICkL9.8935$y17.29276@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <3DFE6B76.41D41A7E@lusby.org> <OsuL9.10053$y17.33334@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 36
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.196.69.172
X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net
X-Trace: newssvr17.news.prodigy.com 1040087674 ST000 63.196.69.172 (Mon, 16 Dec 2002 20:14:34 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 20:14:34 EST
Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com
X-UserInfo1: FKPGW^SGQRRYRRPXMBCD^VX@WB]^PCPDLXUNNHLHEQR@ETUCCNSKQFCY@TXDX_WHSVB]ZEJLSNY\^J[CUVSA_QLFC^RQHUPH[P[NRWCCMLSNPOD_ESALHUK@TDFUZHBLJ\XGKL^NXA\EVHSP[D_C^B_^JCX^W]CHBAX]POG@SSAZQ\LE[DCNMUPG_VSC@VJM
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 01:14:34 GMT
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net alt.history.british:54920

Just a handful of comments.

Your ideas are as unworkable as the now thoroughly discredited theories of
communism, and for the same reasons. You completely fail to take into account
human nature. People are inherently selfish and self centred. A political
system which holds the decision makers accountable for their decisions is always
infinitely preferable to one which allows the decision makers to evade that
accountability. In any kind of direct system, you spread the responsibility so
thinly that nobody is accountable.

If you really think that racism is a feature only of "self interested
minorities", you are far to naïve and lacking in education or experience to put
forward any credible ideas on human organization. Similarly, where slavery is
concerned. Not just for a few hundred years on the North American continent,
but for uncountable millennia of human history the world around, the existence
of slavery has been taken for granted by all as being part of the natural scheme
of things, even by the slaves themselves even as they struggle not to be one of
them.

In my experience, any group, political party, country, association or whatever
which finds a need to include the word "democratic" in its name generally is
nothing of the kind. "Methinks the lady doth protest too much" as Shakespeare
said.

TTFN
+

--
"A dust whom England bore, shaped, made aware" - Rupert Brooke - "The Soldier"

Peter J Lusby
San Diego, California, USA
www.lusby.org

From - Fri Jan 10 17:21:17 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!colt.net!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!cartmell.demon.co.uk!john
From: John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.history.british
Subject: Re: direct vs representative democracy
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 01:30:51 +0000 (GMT)
Organization: Cartmell Family
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <4ba602bf5cjohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk>
References: <UhDG9.922$2S1.242971@news20.bellglobal.com> <3DFC7FE3.4CC7EC34@iniref.org> <ICkL9.8935$y17.29276@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <3DFE6B76.41D41A7E@lusby.org> <OsuL9.10053$y17.33334@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <3DFE7A35.A5AAC8C5@lusby.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cartmell.demon.co.uk
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1040089314 23684 158.152.204.98 (17 Dec 2002 01:41:54 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 01:41:54 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Pluto/2.04c (RISC-OS/4.32)
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net alt.history.british:54922

In article <3DFE7A35.A5AAC8C5@lusby.org>, Peter J Lusby <pjl@lusby.org>
wrote:
> Your ideas are as unworkable as the now thoroughly discredited theories
> of communism, and for the same reasons. You completely fail to take
> into account human nature. People are inherently selfish and self
> centred.

This varies according to the society in which children are nurtured.
Presumably your society doesn't work particularly well, assuming that
society is founded for mutual support.

--
John Cartmell john@cartmell.demon.co.uk FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Acorn Publisher magazine & http://www.acornpublisher.com
Fleur Designs (boardgames)
From - Fri Jan 10 17:21:18 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!feed.news.nacamar.de!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr19.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!bd4f8a43!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <3DFF8D4C.FF335EE4@lusby.org>
From: Peter J Lusby <pjl@lusby.org>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.history.british
Subject: Re: direct vs representative democracy
References: <UhDG9.922$2S1.242971@news20.bellglobal.com> <3DFC7FE3.4CC7EC34@iniref.org> <ICkL9.8935$y17.29276@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <3DFE6B76.41D41A7E@lusby.org> <OsuL9.10053$y17.33334@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <3DFE7A35.A5AAC8C5@lusby.org> <4ba602bf5cjohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 46
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.196.69.172
X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net
X-Trace: newssvr19.news.prodigy.com 1040158099 ST000 63.196.69.172 (Tue, 17 Dec 2002 15:48:19 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 15:48:19 EST
Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com
X-UserInfo1: O@YYC\OGPJTORWH]^JKBOW@@YJ_ZTB\MV@BZMVMHQAVTUZ]CLNTCPFK[WDXDHV[K^FCGJCJLPF_D_NCC@FUG^Q\DINVAXSLIFXYJSSCCALP@PB@\OS@BITWAH\CQZKJMMD^SJA^NXA\GVLSRBD^M_NW_F[YLVTWIGAXAQBOATKBBQRXECDFDMQ\DZFUE@\JM
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 20:48:19 GMT
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net alt.history.british:54957

John Cartmell wrote:

> In article <3DFE7A35.A5AAC8C5@lusby.org>, Peter J Lusby <pjl@lusby.org>
> wrote:
> > Your ideas are as unworkable as the now thoroughly discredited theories
> > of communism, and for the same reasons. You completely fail to take
> > into account human nature. People are inherently selfish and self
> > centred.
>
> This varies according to the society in which children are nurtured.
> Presumably your society doesn't work particularly well, assuming that
> society is founded for mutual support.

I said "inherently". This means "inherently". You'll find it in the dictionary,
spelled I N H E R E N T L Y. Try looking it up. What is inherited has nothing to
do with nurture. Watch the young of any species, including humanity, and you will
see that they are by nature selfish and self centred. It is a vital survival
instinct which cannot be eliminated by nurture. The most you can hope to do is to
repress it sufficiently that it doesn't degenerate into rank egotism or explode
into violence on every stressful occasion. That's what civilization tries to do,
but it is only a thin veneer, and when the creature has its back to the wall, that
veneer is quick to crumble.

Society is founded on self interest. It is in your best interest to cooperate with
other people on certain things, so that you may derive personal benefit therefrom.
Sometimes that benefit is an intangible like the feel-good factor when you receive
appreciation from another living creature; sometimes the benefit is no more than an
avoidance of fear, discomfort or pain, but everything you do *has* to have a
pay-off, or you won't do it. Now please don't start lecturing me on how altruistic
you are capable of being, and how I'm just a selfish cynic, because we all know
that what I'm saying is the literal truth, and any putative altruism on the part of
anyone on this planet is nothing more than enlightened self-interest.

TTFN
+

--
"A dust whom England bore, shaped, made aware" - Rupert Brooke - "The Soldier"

Peter J Lusby
San Diego, California, USA
www.lusby.org

From - Fri Jan 10 17:21:18 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!peer1.news.newnet.co.uk!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!cartmell.demon.co.uk!john
From: John Cartmell <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.history.british
Subject: Re: direct vs representative democracy
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 22:20:51 +0000 (GMT)
Organization: Cartmell Family
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <4ba6753043john@cartmell.demon.co.uk>
References: <UhDG9.922$2S1.242971@news20.bellglobal.com> <3DFC7FE3.4CC7EC34@iniref.org> <ICkL9.8935$y17.29276@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <3DFE6B76.41D41A7E@lusby.org> <OsuL9.10053$y17.33334@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <3DFE7A35.A5AAC8C5@lusby.org> <4ba602bf5cjohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk> <3DFF8D4C.FF335EE4@lusby.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cartmell.demon.co.uk
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1040168037 29544 158.152.204.98 (17 Dec 2002 23:33:57 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 23:33:57 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Pluto/2.04c (RISC-OS/4.32)
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net alt.history.british:54981

In article <3DFF8D4C.FF335EE4@lusby.org>, Peter J Lusby <pjl@lusby.org>
wrote:
> John Cartmell wrote:

> > In article <3DFE7A35.A5AAC8C5@lusby.org>, Peter J Lusby
> > <pjl@lusby.org> wrote:
> > > Your ideas are as unworkable as the now thoroughly discredited
> > > theories of communism, and for the same reasons. You completely
> > > fail to take into account human nature. People are inherently
> > > selfish and self centred.
> >
> > This varies according to the society in which children are nurtured.
> > Presumably your society doesn't work particularly well, assuming that
> > society is founded for mutual support.

> I said "inherently". This means "inherently". You'll find it in the
> dictionary, spelled I N H E R E N T L Y. Try looking it up. What is
> inherited has nothing to do with nurture. Watch the young of any
> species, including humanity, and you will see that they are by nature
> selfish and self centred. It is a vital survival instinct which cannot
> be eliminated by nurture. The most you can hope to do is to repress it
> sufficiently that it doesn't degenerate into rank egotism or explode
> into violence on every stressful occasion. That's what civilization
> tries to do, but it is only a thin veneer, and when the creature has its
> back to the wall, that veneer is quick to crumble.

[Snip]

I know the meaning and your understanding probably relates to something you
learned in school. Your learning is out of date. Putting it in context it
went out of date along with Nazi ideology and 'Social Darwinism' although
it took a long time for this to sink in.
Nurture, of course, is inherited (by the nurturers - but that's a gross
simplification) and anyone who tries to divorce nature from nurture is
taking you on a ride; the two interact all along the line. What cannot be
excused is the reference to 'basic instincts' that are responsible for our
personal and society's ills. You - individually and as a society - are
responsible for your actions and society (ie all of us together) can choose
to educate our children to work to co-operate and work for that society. It
can be done as a small group or as society in general. If you or yoir
society have chosen to take a different route don't use a totally fictional
'survival instinct' to excuse bad behaviour.

--
John Cartmell john@cartmell.demon.co.uk FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Acorn Publisher magazine & http://www.acornpublisher.com
Fleur Designs (boardgames)
From - Fri Jan 10 17:21:19 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newspeer1-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: "Thur" <a@spamless.z>
Newsgroups: alt.history.british
References: <UhDG9.922$2S1.242971@news20.bellglobal.com> <3DFC7FE3.4CC7EC34@iniref.org> <ICkL9.8935$y17.29276@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <3DFE6B76.41D41A7E@lusby.org> <OsuL9.10053$y17.33334@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <3DFE7A35.A5AAC8C5@lusby.org> <4ba602bf5cjohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk> <3DFF8D4C.FF335EE4@lusby.org>
Subject: Re: direct vs representative democracy
Lines: 87
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Message-ID: <r8YL9.159$zE1.66593@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 10:31:47 -0000
NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.4.213.173
X-Complaints-To: abuse@ntlworld.com
X-Trace: newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net 1040207511 80.4.213.173 (Wed, 18 Dec 2002 10:31:51 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 10:31:51 GMT
Organization: ntl Cablemodem News Service
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net alt.history.british:55012

x-no-archive: yes
Can't go along with what you say. Although self interest is
a strong and easily observable trait, there are other traits
which may also be inherent. The desire to belong to a group,
self sacrifice observable in parents, social traits, and many
activities that cannot be founded on self interest.
For example, what are we to make of those people who scarifice
their lives for others?
These other traits are the reason we do have a society, and
do not have the law of the jungle.
And why should we dismiss qualities that have been gained
by nurture? Why should we worship our lowest and worst
traits?
Communism, like Fascism, is "thoroughly discredited" now, not
so much because of the theories, but because of the autocratic
rule, by which it could only have existed. The realisation that the
government was not for all but a few.
Thur

"Peter J Lusby" <pjl@lusby.org> wrote in message
news:3DFF8D4C.FF335EE4@lusby.org...
>
>
> John Cartmell wrote:
>
> > In article <3DFE7A35.A5AAC8C5@lusby.org>, Peter J Lusby <pjl@lusby.org>
> > wrote:
> > > Your ideas are as unworkable as the now thoroughly discredited
theories
> > > of communism, and for the same reasons. You completely fail to take
> > > into account human nature. People are inherently selfish and self
> > > centred.
> >
> > This varies according to the society in which children are nurtured.
> > Presumably your society doesn't work particularly well, assuming that
> > society is founded for mutual support.
>
> I said "inherently". This means "inherently". You'll find it in the
dictionary,
> spelled I N H E R E N T L Y. Try looking it up. What is inherited has
nothing to
> do with nurture. Watch the young of any species, including humanity, and
you will
> see that they are by nature selfish and self centred. It is a vital
survival
> instinct which cannot be eliminated by nurture. The most you can hope to
do is to
> repress it sufficiently that it doesn't degenerate into rank egotism or
explode
> into violence on every stressful occasion. That's what civilization tries
to do,
> but it is only a thin veneer, and when the creature has its back to the
wall, that
> veneer is quick to crumble.
>
> Society is founded on self interest. It is in your best interest to
cooperate with
> other people on certain things, so that you may derive personal benefit
therefrom.
> Sometimes that benefit is an intangible like the feel-good factor when you
receive
> appreciation from another living creature; sometimes the benefit is no
more than an
> avoidance of fear, discomfort or pain, but everything you do *has* to have
a
> pay-off, or you won't do it. Now please don't start lecturing me on how
altruistic
> you are capable of being, and how I'm just a selfish cynic, because we all
know
> that what I'm saying is the literal truth, and any putative altruism on
the part of
> anyone on this planet is nothing more than enlightened self-interest.
>
> TTFN
> +
>
> --
> "A dust whom England bore, shaped, made aware" - Rupert Brooke - "The
Soldier"
>
> Peter J Lusby
> San Diego, California, USA
> www.lusby.org
>
>

From - Fri Jan 10 17:21:19 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!news.stealth.net!news.stealth.net!newshosting.com!news-xfer1.atl.newshosting.com!feeder.nmix.net!reader.nmix.net!not-for-mail
From: "Kareem" <kstradspamspam@cyberport.com>
Newsgroups: alt.history.british
Subject: Re: direct vs representative democracy
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 17:02:14 -0700
Organization: NMIX
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <attnj9$2asq$1@reader.nmix.net>
References: <UhDG9.922$2S1.242971@news20.bellglobal.com> <3DFC7FE3.4CC7EC34@iniref.org> <ICkL9.8935$y17.29276@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <3DFE6B76.41D41A7E@lusby.org> <OsuL9.10053$y17.33334@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <3DFE7A35.A5AAC8C5@lusby.org> <4ba602bf5cjohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk> <3DFF8D4C.FF335EE4@lusby.org> <r8YL9.159$zE1.66593@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.206.93.28
X-Trace: reader.nmix.net 1040343465 76698 206.206.93.28 (20 Dec 2002 00:17:45 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@nmix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Dec 2002 00:17:45 GMT
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net alt.history.british:55076

"Thur" <a@spamless.z> wrote in message
news:r8YL9.159$zE1.66593@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
> Can't go along with what you say. Although self interest is
> a strong and easily observable trait, there are other traits
> which may also be inherent. The desire to belong to a group,
> self sacrifice observable in parents, social traits, and many
> activities that cannot be founded on self interest.
> For example, what are we to make of those people who scarifice
> their lives for others?
> These other traits are the reason we do have a society, and
> do not have the law of the jungle.
> And why should we dismiss qualities that have been gained
> by nurture? Why should we worship our lowest and worst
> traits?
> Communism, like Fascism, is "thoroughly discredited" now, not
> so much because of the theories, but because of the autocratic
> rule, by which it could only have existed. The realisation that the
> government was not for all but a few.
> Thur
>
Very good. This is a very interesting thread. I agree with Peter up until
your disagreement with him which I also agree with.

Evidence for Peter: An infant is born selfish and continues to be that way
until taught differently....if ever. (There are also some genetic
predispositions presenting serious roadblocks to that particular learning.)
One who "plays by the rules" of civilization but has not learned service to
others as a method of achieving happiness, will crack under pressure and
turn on his fellows.

Evidence for Thor: You've already said it all! Self-sacrifice! Also,
anonymous giving is another evidence.

--
Kareem
Pax Vobiscum

From - Fri Jan 10 17:21:19 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!feedme.news.mediaways.net!news.belwue.de!feed.news.nacamar.de!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!news.sprintnetops.net!intgwlon.nntp.telstra.net!news.telstra.net!news-server.bigpond.net.au!not-for-mail
From: "Neville Lindsay" <nevlin@bigpond.net.au>
Newsgroups: alt.history.british
References: <UhDG9.922$2S1.242971@news20.bellglobal.com> <3DFC7FE3.4CC7EC34@iniref.org> <ICkL9.8935$y17.29276@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <3DFE6B76.41D41A7E@lusby.org> <OsuL9.10053$y17.33334@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <3DFE7A35.A5AAC8C5@lusby.org>
Subject: Re: direct vs representative democracy
Lines: 34
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Message-ID: <USyL9.11178$y17.35908@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 05:46:28 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.45.164.201
X-Complaints-To: news@bigpond.net.au
X-Trace: news-server.bigpond.net.au 1040103988 203.45.164.201 (Tue, 17 Dec 2002 16:46:28 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 16:46:28 EST
Organization: BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.net.au)
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net alt.history.british:54930

"Peter J Lusby" <pjl@lusby.org> wrote in message
news:3DFE7A35.A5AAC8C5@lusby.org...
> Just a handful of comments.
>
> Your ideas are as unworkable as the now thoroughly discredited theories of
> communism, and for the same reasons. You completely fail to take into
account
> human nature. People are inherently selfish and self centred. A
political
> system which holds the decision makers accountable for their decisions is
always
> infinitely preferable to one which allows the decision makers to evade
that
> accountability. In any kind of direct system, you spread the
responsibility so
> thinly that nobody is accountable.
>
> If you really think that racism is a feature only of "self interested
> minorities", you are far to naïve and lacking in education or experience
to put
> forward any credible ideas on human organization.

Where did I use the word 'racism'? I see you are one of those types who both
snip out opposing arguments in order not to have to answer them and also try
to misquote them without it being too obvious, putting emotive words in
others' mouths to argue against them. Pretty pathetic stuff - you have no
argument so you turn to straw men. Surprised you haven't yet brought up the
N word too, but no doubt you will get around to it, so I'll leave you to
talk to yourself about it.

From - Fri Jan 10 17:21:20 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!opentransit.net!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr19.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!bd4f8a43!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <3DFF8EA1.1FBB4B31@lusby.org>
From: Peter J Lusby <pjl@lusby.org>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.history.british
Subject: Re: direct vs representative democracy
References: <UhDG9.922$2S1.242971@news20.bellglobal.com> <3DFC7FE3.4CC7EC34@iniref.org> <ICkL9.8935$y17.29276@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <3DFE6B76.41D41A7E@lusby.org> <OsuL9.10053$y17.33334@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <3DFE7A35.A5AAC8C5@lusby.org> <USyL9.11178$y17.35908@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 59
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.196.69.172
X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net
X-Trace: newssvr19.news.prodigy.com 1040158439 ST000 63.196.69.172 (Tue, 17 Dec 2002 15:53:59 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 15:53:59 EST
Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com
X-UserInfo1: [[PAPDONTJS[B_\YGRHBOFTBTR\B@GXLN@GZ_GYO^ZUDUWYAKVUOPCW[ML\JXUCKVFDYZKBMSFX^OMSAFNTINTDDMVW[X\THOPXZRVOCJTUTPC\_JSBVX\KAOTBAJBVMZTYAKMNLDI_MFDSSOLXINH__FS^\WQGHGI^C@E[A_CF\AQLDQ\BTMPLDFNVUQ_VM
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 20:53:59 GMT
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net alt.history.british:54958

Neville Lindsay wrote:

> "Peter J Lusby" <pjl@lusby.org> wrote in message
> news:3DFE7A35.A5AAC8C5@lusby.org...
> > Just a handful of comments.
> >
> > Your ideas are as unworkable as the now thoroughly discredited theories of
> > communism, and for the same reasons. You completely fail to take into
> account
> > human nature. People are inherently selfish and self centred. A
> political
> > system which holds the decision makers accountable for their decisions is
> always
> > infinitely preferable to one which allows the decision makers to evade
> that
> > accountability. In any kind of direct system, you spread the
> responsibility so
> > thinly that nobody is accountable.
> >
> > If you really think that racism is a feature only of "self interested
> > minorities", you are far to naïve and lacking in education or experience
> to put
> > forward any credible ideas on human organization.
>
> Where did I use the word 'racism'? I see you are one of those types who both
> snip out opposing arguments in order not to have to answer them and also try
> to misquote them without it being too obvious, putting emotive words in
> others' mouths to argue against them. Pretty pathetic stuff - you have no
> argument so you turn to straw men.

Not at all. In my previous message, I asserted that "racial segregation and
discrimination is *still* the will of the majority almost anywhere you go on the
planet today" to which you replied

"On the contrary, these evils you proclaim are the will of the self-interested
minorities who claim the right to rule."

So, your little ad-hominem doesn't get you off the hook. Try debating the
issue.

> Surprised you haven't yet brought up the
> N word too, but no doubt you will get around to it, so I'll leave you to
> talk to yourself about it.
>
> NL

TTFN
+

--
"A dust whom England bore, shaped, made aware" - Rupert Brooke - "The Soldier"

Peter J Lusby
San Diego, California, USA
www.lusby.org

From - Fri Jan 10 17:21:20 2003
From: "Allen" <allencelsie@sympatico.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.history.british
References: <UhDG9.922$2S1.242971@news20.bellglobal.com> <3DFC7FE3.4CC7EC34@iniref.org> <ICkL9.8935$y17.29276@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <3DFE6B76.41D41A7E@lusby.org>
Subject: Re: direct vs representative democracy
Lines: 142
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Message-ID: <WswL9.1547$cN3.453355@news20.bellglobal.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 22:04:39 -0500
NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.208.65.17
X-Complaints-To: abuse@sympatico.ca
X-Trace: news20.bellglobal.com 1040094134 216.208.65.17 (Mon, 16 Dec 2002 22:02:14 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 22:02:14 EST
Organization: Bell Sympatico
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!newsfeed.news2me.com!snoopy.risq.qc.ca!torn!webster!nf1.bellglobal.com!nf2.bellglobal.com!news20.bellglobal.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net alt.history.british:54925

I think you raise some legitimate concerns. However I believe 1) the
population is much better educated today than in the past. 2)Mass
communication is a new factor 3) There could/should be a fundamental
hierarchy of laws at the top being fundamental human rights 4)There could
and should be experimentation with direct democracy starting at a smaller
level ie local and expanding upward 5) direct democracy has the ability to
harness a much greater segment of the population into direct action-this
harnesses much more human energy and intellect into the governing process
and hopefully public apathy will lessen. 6)you assume that voting per se
will remain the same but the process could evolve into an open voting system
for example whereby the results are ongoing. There are many many ways that
direct democracy could be implemented and the way it is implemented would be
a result of the societal environment that is present.

Allen

"Peter J Lusby" <pjl@lusby.org> wrote in message
news:3DFE6B76.41D41A7E@lusby.org...
>
> Neville Lindsay wrote:
>
> > "Wallace-Macpherson" <mm@iniref.org> wrote in message
> > news:3DFC7FE3.4CC7EC34@iniref.org...
> > > Allen wrote:
> > >
> > > > Does anyone know a good book on this topic. Also does anyone know
of
> > > > specific examples of direct democracy?
> > > >
> > > > Allen
> > >
> > > The sort of exchange which followed Allen's leader is occurring quite
> > > frequently across the world, originating especially in Australasia and
> > > Europe, on this and closely related topics.
> > >
> > > That's good. But I want to quibble with the title of the thread:
> > > Subject: direct vs representative democracy
> > >
> > > I find the assumption that "direct" and "representative" forms of
> > > democracy are bound to be in conflict is (a) likely to be
> > > self-fulfilling prophecy and (b) not entirely correct either
> > > historically or prospectively.
> > >
> > > For purposes of illustration I'll sketch a simplified picture of
> > > "direct" and "representative" forms of democracy.
> > >
> > > The predominant form of of democratic governance is based on elected
> > > MPs, a parliament and two or more strong parties. "Direct" democracy
is
> > > often conceived as a procedure in which citizens' initiative
proposals,
> > > after being approved by an agreed number of citizens, go before the
> > > people for referendum, e.g. as "ballot issues" which are put up for
vote
> > > simultaneously with elections. These citizen proposals or draft laws,
if
> > > passed, overrule parliament and indeed under specified conditions may
> > > form or change constitution. Parliament, which formally and sometimes
> > > genuinely represents popular will and which carries accumulated
> > > experience of litigation and government, is "short-circuited" out of
the
> > > law-making process. Conflict is pre-programmed, especially where
> > > elements of direct democracy are introduced into well established
> > > parliamentary systems.
> >
> > This seems to presuppose that a parliament exists in a direct democracy.
No,
> > the people are the parliament. No parliamentary representatives.
Therefore
> > no parliament to over-rule. That is the idea of direct democracy. Though
> > practicality requires some sort of council to prepare/predigest
proposals.
> > But this council doesn't decide anything so it can't be over-ruled.
> >
> > Which of course is why politicians oppose direct democracy or even CIR
like
> > the plague - their goes their power and patronage.
> >
> > NL
>
> I'm not a politician. I'm a humble techie-nerd. And I will oppose direct
> democracy with every breath in my body if you try to impose it on me.
Why?
> Because that truly would be "mob rule." Right now, the only thing that
keeps
> the will of the majority from trampling the rights of the individual is
the rule
> of parliamentary law. Remember that slavery was the will of the majority
in the
> south of ante-bellum america. Remember that witch burning was the will of
the
> majority for centuries. Remember that, like it or not, hidden just below
the
> veneer of political correctness and "civilized" posturing, racial
segregation
> and discrimination is *still* the will of the majority almost anywhere you
go on
> the planet today.
>
> The ballot initiative process in California was recently subverted to
allow a
> tiny percentage of the population to dictate to the rest of us what meat
we are
> allowed to eat, for heavens sake! With only a 28% turnout, an initiative
to ban
> the sale of horse meat passed by 51%. That's less than 15% of the
registered
> voters, or about 6% of the population, dictating to the rest of us what
goes
> into our larders. The only way I would support the introduction of direct
> representation, or its extension in any way here where I live, would be if
there
> were a presumption in favour of the status quo, and a requirement that any
> change to the status quo be approved by a majority of the registered
voters - if
> you can't get 50% of the electorate to the polls to support your idea, it
goes
> down in flames. But even that is a two-edged sword, because that kind of a
> requirement makes it just as hard to right an injustice as it does to
create
> one.
>
> Better leave well enough alone, and leave the governing of our world to
those
> with the time, energy and inclination to study up on how to do it
properly.
>
> TTFN
> +
>
> --
> "A dust whom England bore, shaped, made aware" - Rupert Brooke - "The
Soldier"
>
> Peter J Lusby
> San Diego, California, USA
> www.lusby.org
>
>

From - Fri Jan 10 17:21:21 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!diablo.theplanet.net!news.indigo.ie!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr17.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!bd4f8a43!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <3DFFAB70.B5ABE796@lusby.org>
From: Peter J Lusby <pjl@lusby.org>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.history.british
Subject: Re: direct vs representative democracy
References: <UhDG9.922$2S1.242971@news20.bellglobal.com> <3DFC7FE3.4CC7EC34@iniref.org> <ICkL9.8935$y17.29276@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <3DFE6B76.41D41A7E@lusby.org> <WswL9.1547$cN3.453355@news20.bellglobal.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 62
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.196.69.172
X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net
X-Trace: newssvr17.news.prodigy.com 1040165815 ST000 63.196.69.172 (Tue, 17 Dec 2002 17:56:55 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 17:56:55 EST
Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com
X-UserInfo1: FKPO@SBE@BWWSTLX@ZKDM^P@VZ\LPCXLLBWLOOAFMAVNDQUBLNTC@AWZWDXZXQ[K\FFSKCVM@F_N_DOBWVWG__LG@VVOIPLIGX\\BU_B@\P\PFX\B[APHTWAHDCKJF^NHD[YJAZMCY_CWG[SX\Y]^KC\HSZRWSWKGAY_PC[BQ[BXAS\F\\@DMTLFZFUE@\VL
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 22:56:55 GMT
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net alt.history.british:54975

Allen wrote:

> I think you raise some legitimate concerns. However I believe 1) the
> population is much better educated today than in the past. 2)Mass
> communication is a new factor 3) There could/should be a fundamental
> hierarchy of laws at the top being fundamental human rights 4)There could
> and should be experimentation with direct democracy starting at a smaller
> level ie local and expanding upward 5) direct democracy has the ability to
> harness a much greater segment of the population into direct action-this
> harnesses much more human energy and intellect into the governing process
> and hopefully public apathy will lessen. 6)you assume that voting per se
> will remain the same but the process could evolve into an open voting system
> for example whereby the results are ongoing. There are many many ways that
> direct democracy could be implemented and the way it is implemented would be
> a result of the societal environment that is present.

I'd like to see a somewhat different approach, which almost stands the whole
idea of direct representation on it's head. Given that nobody can *really*
know more than a few hundred people, I'd like to start with a basic population
unit, which I'm going to call a parish. This unit will be physically
contiguous, will have at most 2000 members (and I'm not sure this isn't already
getting too big), and a minimum of 20 members. The parish conducts all its own
affairs, with as direct or indirect a level of participation as its constituent
members desire. All authority that the people choose to delegate to some
governing body is vested in this unit. And I do mean all authority - the police
power, the power to tax, the power to regulate, the power to compel, the common
defence, everything. Parishes can then, *if they so choose*, pool resources
with neighbouring parishes, and combining with them into a township to provide a
wider range of services (roads, schools, etc.) than the parish can rationally
perform by itself. Each parish would have an equal voice in the township, and
representative(s) from each parish would be delegated to the township "council"
by direct universal suffrage in each parish. Note that the township is given no
authority; it exists only to achieve economies of scale in providing services
that need to be co-ordinated across parish boundaries. We can then build up
larger units - counties, which combine several townships, and then regions which
combine several counties, before we arrive at the national level (for the USA,
one would insert States between regions and the national co-ordinating body).
Still, though, all police power (I use this term in the strict US jurisprudence
sense, meaning the power to regulate) remains at the lowest possible level, and
the primary decisions are all based on the immediate needs of the local
community. Each additional level of government serves only to co-ordinate the
efforts of the smaller units, not to dominate or regulate them.

I believe that this system would maximize the accountability that is essential
to good government, and also provide each individual with the maximum control
over his own destiny.

I welcome any feed back, positive or negative, as I try to refine this concept.
It is one that I've had in my head for years, but this is my first attempt at
formalizing it in writing, so it is obviously in need of considerable polishing.

Regards
Peter

--
"A dust whom England bore, shaped, made aware" - Rupert Brooke - "The Soldier"

Peter J Lusby
San Diego, California, USA
www.lusby.org

From - Fri Jan 10 17:21:21 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!newsfeed.arcor-online.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newspeer1-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: "a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com>
Newsgroups: alt.history.british
References: <UhDG9.922$2S1.242971@news20.bellglobal.com> <3DFC7FE3.4CC7EC34@iniref.org> <ICkL9.8935$y17.29276@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <3DFE6B76.41D41A7E@lusby.org> <WswL9.1547$cN3.453355@news20.bellglobal.com> <3DFFAB70.B5ABE796@lusby.org>
Subject: Re: direct vs representative democracy
Lines: 95
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Message-ID: <PrWL9.61$zE1.36717@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 08:37:01 -0000
NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.252.176.131
X-Complaints-To: abuse@ntlworld.com
X-Trace: newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net 1040200559 62.252.176.131 (Wed, 18 Dec 2002 08:35:59 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 08:35:59 GMT
Organization: ntlworld News Service
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net alt.history.british:55006

Peter J Lusby <pjl@lusby.org> wrote in message
news:3DFFAB70.B5ABE796@lusby.org...
> Allen wrote:
>
> > I think you raise some legitimate concerns. However I believe 1) the
> > population is much better educated today than in the past. 2)Mass
> > communication is a new factor 3) There could/should be a fundamental
> > hierarchy of laws at the top being fundamental human rights 4)There
could
> > and should be experimentation with direct democracy starting at a
smaller
> > level ie local and expanding upward 5) direct democracy has the ability
to
> > harness a much greater segment of the population into direct action-this
> > harnesses much more human energy and intellect into the governing
process
> > and hopefully public apathy will lessen. 6)you assume that voting per
se
> > will remain the same but the process could evolve into an open voting
system
> > for example whereby the results are ongoing. There are many many ways
that
> > direct democracy could be implemented and the way it is implemented
would be
> > a result of the societal environment that is present.
>
> I'd like to see a somewhat different approach, which almost stands the
whole
> idea of direct representation on it's head. Given that nobody can
*really*
> know more than a few hundred people, I'd like to start with a basic
population
> unit, which I'm going to call a parish. This unit will be physically
> contiguous, will have at most 2000 members (and I'm not sure this isn't
already
> getting too big), and a minimum of 20 members. The parish conducts all
its own
> affairs, with as direct or indirect a level of participation as its
constituent
> members desire. All authority that the people choose to delegate to some
> governing body is vested in this unit. And I do mean all authority - the
police
> power, the power to tax, the power to regulate, the power to compel, the
common
> defence, everything. Parishes can then, *if they so choose*, pool
resources
> with neighbouring parishes, and combining with them into a township to
provide a
> wider range of services (roads, schools, etc.) than the parish can
rationally
> perform by itself. Each parish would have an equal voice in the township,
and
> representative(s) from each parish would be delegated to the township
"council"
> by direct universal suffrage in each parish. Note that the township is
given no
> authority; it exists only to achieve economies of scale in providing
services
> that need to be co-ordinated across parish boundaries. We can then build
up
> larger units - counties, which combine several townships, and then regions
which
> combine several counties, before we arrive at the national level (for the
USA,
> one would insert States between regions and the national co-ordinating
body).
> Still, though, all police power (I use this term in the strict US
jurisprudence
> sense, meaning the power to regulate) remains at the lowest possible
level, and
> the primary decisions are all based on the immediate needs of the local
> community. Each additional level of government serves only to co-ordinate
the
> efforts of the smaller units, not to dominate or regulate them.
>
> I believe that this system would maximize the accountability that is
essential
> to good government, and also provide each individual with the maximum
control
> over his own destiny.
>
> I welcome any feed back, positive or negative, as I try to refine this
concept.
> It is one that I've had in my head for years, but this is my first attempt
at
> formalizing it in writing, so it is obviously in need of considerable
polishing.
>

Surely equals total chaos?

Surreyman

From - Fri Jan 10 17:21:21 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!xmission!news-out.spamkiller.net!propagator2-maxim!news-in.spamkiller.net!feed.newsfeeds.com!feeder.nmix.net!reader.nmix.net!not-for-mail
From: "Kareem" <kstradspamspam@cyberport.com>
Newsgroups: alt.history.british
Subject: Re: direct vs representative democracy
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 17:10:46 -0700
Organization: NMIX
Lines: 119
Message-ID: <atto3a$2b4q$1@reader.nmix.net>
References: <UhDG9.922$2S1.242971@news20.bellglobal.com> <3DFC7FE3.4CC7EC34@iniref.org> <ICkL9.8935$y17.29276@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <3DFE6B76.41D41A7E@lusby.org> <WswL9.1547$cN3.453355@news20.bellglobal.com> <3DFFAB70.B5ABE796@lusby.org> <PrWL9.61$zE1.36717@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.206.93.28
X-Trace: reader.nmix.net 1040343978 76954 206.206.93.28 (20 Dec 2002 00:26:18 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@nmix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Dec 2002 00:26:18 GMT
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net alt.history.british:55077

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:PrWL9.61$zE1.36717@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
>
> Peter J Lusby <pjl@lusby.org> wrote in message
> news:3DFFAB70.B5ABE796@lusby.org...
> > Allen wrote:
> >
> > > I think you raise some legitimate concerns. However I believe 1) the
> > > population is much better educated today than in the past. 2)Mass
> > > communication is a new factor 3) There could/should be a fundamental
> > > hierarchy of laws at the top being fundamental human rights 4)There
> could
> > > and should be experimentation with direct democracy starting at a
> smaller
> > > level ie local and expanding upward 5) direct democracy has the
ability
> to
> > > harness a much greater segment of the population into direct
action-this
> > > harnesses much more human energy and intellect into the governing
> process
> > > and hopefully public apathy will lessen. 6)you assume that voting per
> se
> > > will remain the same but the process could evolve into an open voting
> system
> > > for example whereby the results are ongoing. There are many many ways
> that
> > > direct democracy could be implemented and the way it is implemented
> would be
> > > a result of the societal environment that is present.
> >
> > I'd like to see a somewhat different approach, which almost stands the
> whole
> > idea of direct representation on it's head. Given that nobody can
> *really*
> > know more than a few hundred people, I'd like to start with a basic
> population
> > unit, which I'm going to call a parish. This unit will be physically
> > contiguous, will have at most 2000 members (and I'm not sure this isn't
> already
> > getting too big), and a minimum of 20 members. The parish conducts all
> its own
> > affairs, with as direct or indirect a level of participation as its
> constituent
> > members desire. All authority that the people choose to delegate to
some
> > governing body is vested in this unit. And I do mean all authority -
the
> police
> > power, the power to tax, the power to regulate, the power to compel, the
> common
> > defence, everything. Parishes can then, *if they so choose*, pool
> resources
> > with neighbouring parishes, and combining with them into a township to
> provide a
> > wider range of services (roads, schools, etc.) than the parish can
> rationally
> > perform by itself. Each parish would have an equal voice in the
township,
> and
> > representative(s) from each parish would be delegated to the township
> "council"
> > by direct universal suffrage in each parish. Note that the township is
> given no
> > authority; it exists only to achieve economies of scale in providing
> services
> > that need to be co-ordinated across parish boundaries. We can then
build
> up
> > larger units - counties, which combine several townships, and then
regions
> which
> > combine several counties, before we arrive at the national level (for
the
> USA,
> > one would insert States between regions and the national co-ordinating
> body).
> > Still, though, all police power (I use this term in the strict US
> jurisprudence
> > sense, meaning the power to regulate) remains at the lowest possible
> level, and
> > the primary decisions are all based on the immediate needs of the local
> > community. Each additional level of government serves only to
co-ordinate
> the
> > efforts of the smaller units, not to dominate or regulate them.
> >
> > I believe that this system would maximize the accountability that is
> essential
> > to good government, and also provide each individual with the maximum
> control
> > over his own destiny.
> >
> > I welcome any feed back, positive or negative, as I try to refine this
> concept.
> > It is one that I've had in my head for years, but this is my first
attempt
> at
> > formalizing it in writing, so it is obviously in need of considerable
> polishing.
> >
>
> Surely equals total chaos?
>

Or the opposite, tyranny. I believe Moses tried this. Worked really well
as long as you have honest, well-serving individuals in positions of
responsibility over people with a common goal. The Soviet system was very
similar......then leaders began to be appointed from the top down instead of
bottom up. This was enforced by gun barrel, since the top echelon naturally
controls the police/army.

--
Kareem
Pax Vobiscum

From - Fri Jan 10 17:21:22 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!news.stealth.net!news.stealth.net!newspeer1-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: "a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com>
Newsgroups: alt.history.british
References: <UhDG9.922$2S1.242971@news20.bellglobal.com> <3DFC7FE3.4CC7EC34@iniref.org> <ICkL9.8935$y17.29276@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <3DFE6B76.41D41A7E@lusby.org> <WswL9.1547$cN3.453355@news20.bellglobal.com> <3DFFAB70.B5ABE796@lusby.org> <PrWL9.61$zE1.36717@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net> <atto3a$2b4q$1@reader.nmix.net>
Subject: Re: direct vs representative democracy
Lines: 24
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Message-ID: <vQAM9.47$457.36839@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 08:51:07 -0000
NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.252.176.76
X-Complaints-To: abuse@ntlworld.com
X-Trace: newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net 1040374171 62.252.176.76 (Fri, 20 Dec 2002 08:49:31 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 08:49:31 GMT
Organization: ntlworld News Service
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net alt.history.british:55083

Kareem <kstradspamspam@cyberport.com> wrote in message
news:atto3a$2b4q$1@reader.nmix.net...
>
> Or the opposite, tyranny. I believe Moses tried this. Worked really well
> as long as you have honest, well-serving individuals in positions of
> responsibility over people with a common goal. The Soviet system was very
> similar......then leaders began to be appointed from the top down instead
of
> bottom up. This was enforced by gun barrel, since the top echelon
naturally
> controls the police/army.
>
But even so, even with well disposed people (impossible overall!), this is
surely the (genuine) soviet system gone mad. It appears that you'd have
different levels of education, policing, essential services almost village
by village, even within villages. Start with the warlord in the east of the
village and the beautiful people hugging trees in the west of the village
and take it from there ...
Unless I have misunderstood something very basic, it's crazy.

Surreyman

From - Fri Jan 10 17:21:22 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr13.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!bd4f8a43!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <3E03516F.1E01C49@lusby.org>
From: Peter J Lusby <pjl@lusby.org>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.history.british
Subject: Re: direct vs representative democracy
References: <UhDG9.922$2S1.242971@news20.bellglobal.com> <3DFC7FE3.4CC7EC34@iniref.org> <ICkL9.8935$y17.29276@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <3DFE6B76.41D41A7E@lusby.org> <WswL9.1547$cN3.453355@news20.bellglobal.com> <3DFFAB70.B5ABE796@lusby.org> <PrWL9.61$zE1.36717@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net> <atto3a$2b4q$1@reader.nmix.net> <vQAM9.47$457.36839@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 38
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.196.69.172
X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net
X-Trace: newssvr13.news.prodigy.com 1040404922 ST000 63.196.69.172 (Fri, 20 Dec 2002 12:22:02 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 12:22:02 EST
Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com
X-UserInfo1: SCSYASBE@BWWSTLX@ZKDM^P@VZ\LPCXLLBWLOOAFQATJUZ]CDVW[AKK[J\]^HVKHG^EWZHBLO^[\NH_AZFWGN^\DHNVMX_DHHX[FSQKBOTS@@BP^]C@RHS_AGDDC[AJM_T[GZNRNZAY]GNCPBDYKOLK^_CZFWPGHZIXW@C[AFKBBQS@E@DAZ]VDFUNTQQ]FN
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 17:22:02 GMT
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net alt.history.british:55126

"a.spencer3" wrote:

> Kareem <kstradspamspam@cyberport.com> wrote in message
> news:atto3a$2b4q$1@reader.nmix.net...
> >
> > Or the opposite, tyranny. I believe Moses tried this. Worked really well
> > as long as you have honest, well-serving individuals in positions of
> > responsibility over people with a common goal. The Soviet system was very
> > similar......then leaders began to be appointed from the top down instead
> of
> > bottom up. This was enforced by gun barrel, since the top echelon
> naturally
> > controls the police/army.
> >
> But even so, even with well disposed people (impossible overall!), this is
> surely the (genuine) soviet system gone mad. It appears that you'd have
> different levels of education, policing, essential services almost village
> by village, even within villages. Start with the warlord in the east of the
> village and the beautiful people hugging trees in the west of the village
> and take it from there ...
> Unless I have misunderstood something very basic, it's crazy.

It is instructive to take a look at the original structure of the New England
colonies, and especially what was called a "township", and who the "select men"
were. The fundamental concept seems to have worked extremely well for several
hundred years. How many European constitutional experiments lasted that long?

TTFN
+

--
"A dust whom England bore, shaped, made aware" - Rupert Brooke - "The Soldier"

Peter J Lusby
San Diego, California, USA
www.lusby.org

From - Fri Jan 10 17:21:22 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!mephistopheles.news.clara.net!news.clara.net!colt.net!kibo.news.demon.net!demon!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!newspeer1-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: "a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com>
Newsgroups: alt.history.british
References: <UhDG9.922$2S1.242971@news20.bellglobal.com> <3DFC7FE3.4CC7EC34@iniref.org> <ICkL9.8935$y17.29276@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <3DFE6B76.41D41A7E@lusby.org> <WswL9.1547$cN3.453355@news20.bellglobal.com> <3DFFAB70.B5ABE796@lusby.org> <PrWL9.61$zE1.36717@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net> <atto3a$2b4q$1@reader.nmix.net> <vQAM9.47$457.36839@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net> <3E03516F.1E01C49@lusby.org>
Subject: Re: direct vs representative democracy
Lines: 22
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Message-ID: <IeJM9.861$457.208721@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 18:25:03 -0000
NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.252.176.218
X-Complaints-To: abuse@ntlworld.com
X-Trace: newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net 1040408616 62.252.176.218 (Fri, 20 Dec 2002 18:23:36 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 18:23:36 GMT
Organization: ntlworld News Service
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net alt.history.british:55128

Peter J Lusby <pjl@lusby.org> wrote in message
news:3E03516F.1E01C49@lusby.org...

>
> It is instructive to take a look at the original structure of the New
England
> colonies, and especially what was called a "township", and who the "select
men"
> were. The fundamental concept seems to have worked extremely well for
several
> hundred years. How many European constitutional experiments lasted that
long?
>

But they had nothing like the technology to maintain, national &
international standards to meet, nor today's expectation of sanitation,
security, etc., etc.

Surreyman

From - Fri Jan 10 17:21:22 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!not-for-mail
From: Wallace-Macpherson <mm@iniref.org>
Newsgroups: alt.history.british
Subject: Re: direct vs representative democracy
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 11:08:43 +0100
Organization: Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R http://www.iniref.org
Lines: 148
Message-ID: <3E004921.640972F0@iniref.org>
References: <UhDG9.922$2S1.242971@news20.bellglobal.com> <3DFC7FE3.4CC7EC34@iniref.org> <ICkL9.8935$y17.29276@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <3DFE6B76.41D41A7E@lusby.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: news.eusc.inter.net 1040206100 22694 217.230.201.74 (18 Dec 2002 10:08:20 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eusc.inter.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net alt.history.british:55011

It seems that you were not impressed by my proposal to integrate citizens'
initiative with parliamentary democracy. I think that it has advantages over the
ballot system which you have in California.

Those who want to know more about the bill of the ruling parties in Germany can
find a translation and some discussion in uk.politics.constitution. I have pasted
the translation below.

Newsgroups:
uk.politics.constitution, uk.politics.parliament,
uk.legal, alt.politics.british
Subject:
Democracy law - a model for Britain?
Date:
Thu, 21 Nov 2002 20:13:40 +0100
Message-ID:
<3DDD3050.89B86A9@WITHOUTiniref.org>

DRAFT LAW TO INTRODUCE CITIZENS' INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM INTO THE
BASIC (CONSTITUTIONAL) LAW OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

In 1998 the social democratic and green/alliance 90 political parties
agreed in their "red-green" coalition negotiations to include a
statement of intention to introduce a law allowing citizen-lawmaking at
the "country" level. (This is already possible in most Lands, and in
many towns and districts). A bill was introduced rather late in the
parliamentary session. There was a vote in the Bundestag which showed a
majority in favour but the bill was not passed because a constitutional
majority was not achieved. Too many opposition party MPs were against.

Again in 2002 the red-green government in its second consecutive term
has a similar statement in the coalition agreement. Presumably the bill
or a similar one will be presented again. There is a chance that enough
opposition MPs will support so that the bill can become law.

There follows a translation showing the proposed reform, which would
allow the practice of some elements of direct democracy.

Accuracy of this translation is NOT guaranteed.

--------------------------------------------

German Bundestag (parliament) 14th election period - Document 14/8503
Draft law to introduce Citizens' Initiative, Referendum-demand and
Referendum into the Basic Law

Parliament (Bundestag) with agreement of the Council of Lands
(Bundesrat) has passed the following law:

Article 1
Changes to the (constitutional) Basic Law (introduction of Citizens'
Initiative, Referendum-demand and Referendum)
1. Article 76 Paragraph 1 (Introduction of draft laws) will be changed
as follows:
"(1) Draft laws may be introduced by the Bundesregierung (federal
government), from the Bundestag or by citizens' initiative."

2. Article 79 Paragraph 2 (Changes to the Basic Law) will be changed as
follows: "Such a law requires the votes of two thirds of the members of
Parliament and two thirds of the votes of the Bundesrat or approval in a
referendum."

3. After Article 82 the following Section will be inserted: "VII a.
Citizens' Initiative, Referendum-demand and Referendum
Article 82a (Citizens' Initiative)
(1) Four hundred thousand (citizens) eligible voters can oblige the
parliament to deal with a draft law backed up by the reasons for its
introduction. Representatives of the Citizens' Initiative (hereafter:
the Speakers) have the right to be heard in Parliament.
(2) Citizens' Initiatives with financial effects are permitted. Excluded
are Citizens' Initiatives on the budget law, on tax law, public service
and pension law, law concerning members of the German Parliament as well
as law to re-introduce the death penalty.

Article 82b (Volksbegehren - Citizens' referendum-demand)
(1) If after eight months the draft law has not been passed by
parliament, the Speakers may introduce a Citizens' referendum-demand.
(2) If the Government, a Land Government or a third of parliamentary
members consider the draft law to be against the constitution, the
Constitutional Court will be called to decide.
(3) The Citizens' referendum-demand comes into effect if within six
months five out of a hundred citizens (eligible voters) give their
agreement.

Article 82c (Volksentscheid - Referendum)
(1) If a Citizens' Referendum-demand succeeds, a referendum will take
place within six months, unless in the meantime the law has been passed.

(2) Parliament may under Article 77 put a draft law to referendum
{comment: presumably this means that as an alternative to the citizens'
referendum-demand parliament may put to referendum an alternative
proposal in the same matter}
(3) A draft law is passed if a majority of voters has agreed and at
least twenty out of a hundred citizens have taken part in the
referendum.
(4) A constitutional draft law is passed if two thirds of voters have
agreed and at least forty out of a hundred citizens have taken part in
the referendum.
(5) For laws which require agreement of the Bundesrat (Council of Lands,
second chamber of parliament) and for constitutional law the result of
the referendum within a Land (state of the federation) counts instead of
its Bundesrat vote.

Article 82d
(coming into effect of new law) This law comes into effect six months
after pronouncement of its passing.

Berlin, 13th March 2002
Dr. Peter Struck und Fraktion
Kerstin Müller (Köln), Rezzo Schlauch und Fraktion

Regards
Wallace-Macpherson

-----------------------------
Peter J Lusby wrote:

> I'm not a politician. I'm a humble techie-nerd. And I will oppose direct
> democracy with every breath in my body if you try to impose it on me. Why?
> Because that truly would be "mob rule." Right now, the only thing that keeps
> the will of the majority from trampling the rights of the individual is the rule
> of parliamentary law. Remember that slavery was the will of the majority in the
> south of ante-bellum america. Remember that witch burning was the will of the
> majority for centuries. Remember that, like it or not, hidden just below the
> veneer of political correctness and "civilized" posturing, racial segregation
> and discrimination is *still* the will of the majority almost anywhere you go on
> the planet today.
>
> The ballot initiative process in California was recently subverted to allow a
> tiny percentage of the population to dictate to the rest of us what meat we are
> allowed to eat, for heavens sake! With only a 28% turnout, an initiative to ban
> the sale of horse meat passed by 51%. That's less than 15% of the registered
> voters, or about 6% of the population, dictating to the rest of us what goes
> into our larders. The only way I would support the introduction of direct
> representation, or its extension in any way here where I live, would be if there
> were a presumption in favour of the status quo, and a requirement that any
> change to the status quo be approved by a majority of the registered voters - if
> you can't get 50% of the electorate to the polls to support your idea, it goes
> down in flames. But even that is a two-edged sword, because that kind of a
> requirement makes it just as hard to right an injustice as it does to create
> one.
>
> Better leave well enough alone, and leave the governing of our world to those
> with the time, energy and inclination to study up on how to do it properly.

From - Fri Jan 10 17:21:23 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!not-for-mail
From: Wallace-Macpherson <mm@iniref.org>
Newsgroups: alt.history.british
Subject: Re: direct vs representative democracy
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 10:11:05 +0100
Organization: Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R http://www.iniref.org
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <3DFD98A5.F8DDF4DF@iniref.org>
References: <UhDG9.922$2S1.242971@news20.bellglobal.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.eusc.inter.net 1040029840 5582 217.230.198.214 (16 Dec 2002 09:10:40 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eusc.inter.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net alt.history.british:54901

Allen wrote:

> Does anyone know a good book on this topic. Also does anyone know of
> specific examples of direct democracy?
>
> Allen

You can find links to information and literature about direct democracy
at http://www.iniref.org/learn.html

Regards

Wallace-Macpherson