Comments on: An Open Source Legislative Process http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2007/04/30/an-open-source-legislative-process/ In search of a better way to live and make a living, and a better understanding of how the world really works. Thu, 09 Sep 2010 16:57:14 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Dar http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2007/04/30/an-open-source-legislative-process/comment-page-1/#comment-3808 Dar Fri, 01 Jun 2007 00:58:50 +0000 http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2007/04/30/an-open-source-legislative-process/#comment-3808 <a></a>This is creative and interesting, yet would need safeguards. Also, for the 21st century democracy, it does not address global collaborations of millions of groups but rather is regional. How can collaborations work and yet sovereignty is protected? The regional government must have constraints. This is creative and interesting, yet would need safeguards. Also, for the 21st century democracy, it does not address global collaborations of millions of groups but rather is regional. How can collaborations work and yet sovereignty is protected? The regional government must have constraints.

]]> By: Corey Reid http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2007/04/30/an-open-source-legislative-process/comment-page-1/#comment-3807 Corey Reid Tue, 15 May 2007 02:41:37 +0000 http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2007/04/30/an-open-source-legislative-process/#comment-3807 <a></a>While this suggestion offers a lot of promise for one of the main purposes of government (sharing resources), it defeats the other main purpose: providing people who want power with the chance to feel like they have it. Without some kind of mechanism to satisfy those people, no governing system can last, because eventually those people will turn to methods outside the system and undermine it.How would this system handle such people? Or would they perhaps seek to satisfy their power needs in other arenas such as private enterprise?I worry that without a strategy to manage this need, such a system could never survive. While this suggestion offers a lot of promise for one of the main purposes of government (sharing resources), it defeats the other main purpose: providing people who want power with the chance to feel like they have it. Without some kind of mechanism to satisfy those people, no governing system can last, because eventually those people will turn to methods outside the system and undermine it.How would this system handle such people? Or would they perhaps seek to satisfy their power needs in other arenas such as private enterprise?I worry that without a strategy to manage this need, such a system could never survive.

]]> By: tim http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2007/04/30/an-open-source-legislative-process/comment-page-1/#comment-3806 tim Tue, 01 May 2007 22:22:46 +0000 http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2007/04/30/an-open-source-legislative-process/#comment-3806 <a></a>Dave,Yes. Wikis are perfect for this kind of thing. It can hardly be worse than the present situation. Dave,Yes. Wikis are perfect for this kind of thing. It can hardly be worse than the present situation.

]]> By: David http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2007/04/30/an-open-source-legislative-process/comment-page-1/#comment-3805 David Tue, 01 May 2007 20:52:50 +0000 http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2007/04/30/an-open-source-legislative-process/#comment-3805 <a></a>I would be willing to help out with the creation of a new political party drafted along these lines. The party would designate and elect figurehead representatives who would simply submit the legislation and amendments worked out by the party at large. The party would eventually take over our current government which could then be restructured. There are a few issues to be solved however. 1) Identity on the internet is complicated. 2) Without proper safeguards, interested technocrats (and corporations) would have a much greater say in shaping laws then they do now. (e.g. by paying large numbers of citizens to modify wikies / vote for certain ammendments, etc.) 3) Who's to say that the graft and corruption in our system is the only reason that it works. If there aren't ways for powerful interested parties to get the things they want, who says they would continue to support the system. Why do we elect puppet presidents who are controlled by the corporatocracy who puts them in power? I would be willing to help out with the creation of a new political party drafted along these lines. The party would designate and elect figurehead representatives who would simply submit the legislation and amendments worked out by the party at large. The party would eventually take over our current government which could then be restructured. There are a few issues to be solved however. 1) Identity on the internet is complicated. 2) Without proper safeguards, interested technocrats (and corporations) would have a much greater say in shaping laws then they do now. (e.g. by paying large numbers of citizens to modify wikies / vote for certain ammendments, etc.) 3) Who’s to say that the graft and corruption in our system is the only reason that it works. If there aren’t ways for powerful interested parties to get the things they want, who says they would continue to support the system. Why do we elect puppet presidents who are controlled by the corporatocracy who puts them in power?

]]> By: Martin-Eric http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2007/04/30/an-open-source-legislative-process/comment-page-1/#comment-3804 Martin-Eric Tue, 01 May 2007 20:04:05 +0000 http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2007/04/30/an-open-source-legislative-process/#comment-3804 <a></a>Funny, I have been saying that ever since I was a kid, looking at people's disgruntled face whenever a politician would back-peddle on an electoral promise:<blockquote>Politicians should be legally bound by their promises and consider it a mandate, to which they are contractually liable for delivering the goods. This also implies that failure to do what they were elected for would effectively place them in breach of contractual agreement, subject to payment of hefty compensations to their constituents. It should also permanently bar them from ever being candidates again and from ever being employed in the public sector or by government-owned corporations.</blockquote>That this would place an extremely high burden on voters to be careful of what they demand from their politicians and require becoming deeply familiarize with a variety of issues, in order to make an informed decision about what they demand and who is the best qualified to represent them in Parliament is a whole other issue. Funny, I have been saying that ever since I was a kid, looking at people’s disgruntled face whenever a politician would back-peddle on an electoral promise:
Politicians should be legally bound by their promises and consider it a mandate, to which they are contractually liable for delivering the goods. This also implies that failure to do what they were elected for would effectively place them in breach of contractual agreement, subject to payment of hefty compensations to their constituents. It should also permanently bar them from ever being candidates again and from ever being employed in the public sector or by government-owned corporations.

That this would place an extremely high burden on voters to be careful of what they demand from their politicians and require becoming deeply familiarize with a variety of issues, in order to make an informed decision about what they demand and who is the best qualified to represent them in Parliament is a whole other issue.

]]> By: Just 6 Dollars http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2007/04/30/an-open-source-legislative-process/comment-page-1/#comment-3803 Just 6 Dollars Tue, 01 May 2007 20:03:06 +0000 http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2007/04/30/an-open-source-legislative-process/#comment-3803 <a></a>All great ideas. However, would this also reduce the cost of getting elected? Part of what drives our political process is (a) the ability of candidates to raise tons of money and (b) the ability of corporate donors and wealthy individuals to write big checks and give away the kind of money that comes with expectations and accountability attached. Until we take care of that problem, making elected officials accountable to the voters is going to remain an uphill battle. All great ideas. However, would this also reduce the cost of getting elected? Part of what drives our political process is (a) the ability of candidates to raise tons of money and (b) the ability of corporate donors and wealthy individuals to write big checks and give away the kind of money that comes with expectations and accountability attached. Until we take care of that problem, making elected officials accountable to the voters is going to remain an uphill battle.

]]> By: Tracy Puett http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2007/04/30/an-open-source-legislative-process/comment-page-1/#comment-3802 Tracy Puett Tue, 01 May 2007 13:52:50 +0000 http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2007/04/30/an-open-source-legislative-process/#comment-3802 <a></a>Sounds in line in some ways with Wisdom Council proposed by Jim Rough (<a href="http://www.co-intelligence.org/P-wisdomcouncil.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.co-intelligence.org/P-wisdomcouncil.html</a>)Thanks for this. Maybe some day we will mature towards a more collective governance structure. Until then, the US STILL has the Electoral College (now THAT'S a broken way of doing thinhs!). Sounds in line in some ways with Wisdom Council proposed by Jim Rough (http://www.co-intelligence.org/P-wisdomcouncil.html)Thanks for this. Maybe some day we will mature towards a more collective governance structure. Until then, the US STILL has the Electoral College (now THAT’S a broken way of doing thinhs!).

]]>