"Democratizing" attracts no voter!


#1

I registered just now, after I saw that the circle of proposals has a "Democratize Europe" on the top, and no direct strategy to do that.

That consolidates an already consolidated narrative:

  1. Democracy doesn’t work fine.

  2. All we can do is find workarounds to make it less stinky.

Many people believe, that Orwell’s 1984 exaggerates when it tells, that a specific vocabulary can be used to hide history or reality and divert to a fake common ground.

So, any attempt to say, that the last 200 years of development did not culminate in terminating the construction of democracy at any time, and much less on starting one, doesn’t have any chance to be taken seriously.

Is there a way to prove such a weird and "anachronistic" claim?

Yes, there is! And it is pretty simple:

It needs only to focus on the electoral process, and show, that in order to turn on the motor of democracy, there is a part of it that mandatorily should be handled in a different way!

So, if you really want to send out an impacting message, focus on just one clear message to the whole world:

To assure, that people (the "demos"") holds the power and exercises self-determination, we must assure that its elections are a 1:1 force applied to society!

Democracy means, that the direction society choses depends on the expression of the will of its majority.

Reality is, that the direction is determined by "the markets", a label fabricated to hide a very small quantity of people, who use money to impose their will onto the world!

In reality, our modern world was built up to assure, that very few single people could use money as a lever to decide over life and death of entire nations, and the expectations humanity can have for the future.

Resuming: The fact, that money is much stronger than the will of people who vote, shows either that democracy is much weaker than money, or that there is an undetected trick that makes voting useless, or even a process that renews the subordination to capital (and those who control it).

If a vehicle doesn’t run the way it was meant for, and you hear hundreds of engineers putting together a 20-30 point plan to apply to the vehicle, to improve its performance, you get a strong feeling in your guts, that the whole engineering on the vehicle was a failure from beginning.

When you propose demarchy, you practically dismiss the whole idea, that self-determination is the right way!

In reality you never thought, that self-determination of a society is bad. You just noticed and accepted, that "on the way" there is some unexplainable "kidnapping", and the "self" of "self-determinations" gets lost. Always! So, your real purpose is to disturb the kidnapping entity, and make sure, a random agent gets in charge.

I could write onto a receipt of a doctor, how elections should be made.

But I know for sure, that a very very very few number of people will like the idea.

Those few people are people with intuition.

All other people are people who already accepted an "Orwellian" narrative and "vocabulary".

So, if you want me to continue, remember one thing: Most of you came to DiEM25 (or similar organizations) because you wanted to change Europe or the world.

(And several came to DiEM25 to see if they can get a salary at Brussels or in their national parliament!)

You perfectly know, what kind of things came together, and many of you are already dissatisfied with the outcome.

The bigger dissatisfaction comes from realizing, that just 6,000 people all over Europe reacted to DiEM25’s call.

If you still believe, the path you put together is the best possible one, you are telling voters, you seriously believe, having a few elected people in Brussels or national parliaments changes the world.

And that is absolute crap no voter believes anymore!

Just see the numbers "Demokratie in Bewegung" or "Deutsche Mitte" got!

If you approach voters, by explaining and showing them, why voting is useless, and how to make it the instrument it should be, several of them will listen. And if your goal is, to make voting work, to make it into a lever that applies the sum of sovereign power of individuals onto society, with a much bigger force any money can have, you will be able to put together lots of people. From any political flavor.

"Not right and not left" was a slogan up to now, because protest movements had and have no idea on how to change the system.

But it is an intuitive slogan, because systemic engineering has nothing to do with taking a direction.

To finish this introduction, I put an example:

If we imagine that democracy is a car, people will ignore your promises to do this and that, because they already got convinced, that there is no car and no driver. They feel they are on a train that is remotely controlled.

You have to show them, it is a car that can be driven by a conductor, but it always had drivers who take their instructions from an elite, because they are not bound to voters, although they are voted.

The technical problem is in the voting itself.

Voting expresses a preference, but it doesn’t translate into obligation!


#2

Long but still good :slight_smile:

That’s all it comes down to. Elections undermine democracy. Its bizarre that we consider the two going together. Citizens need to control and work legislation, executive processes and jurisdiction not participate or express their opinion. Random selection into the political process is the only way to cut off the privileged access of money and power. We need examples for incorporating it. The obvious thing to do would be a new constitution. Europeans like the thought of that.

Propose something different if you have ideas other than that…


#3

I have ideas different than that … obviously.
I didn’t vote the last 34 years. I had lots of time to think about the whole thing, and as strange as it seems, I consider lottocracy far worse than democracy.

With democracy I mean that thing we absolutely ignore, since we never saw it working.

I assume, you want lottocracy, because it interrupts or disturbs the magic attraction between the elite and politicians/parties.

That happens, because voters did not realize up to now, that democracy would work a way such a thing is difficult to happen.

The worst thing with demarchy (sortition, lottocracy, etc.) is, that it abandons the principle of self-determination.
This means that it is on the same line as oligarchies and dictatorships.

I think it is somehow weird we show in public the propaganda worked, and we got convinced that self-determination is not a valid goal, and we better dismiss the intention long before we arrived there!

We cannot deny people would in vast majority opt for self-determination.
While all of us have no problem to add, that we never had the feeling, we ever had a chance to do so in our life.
Taking people randomly means, we have to accept fate.
That’s very near to accept “the markets”.

And I still didn’t hear, why randomly selected people would be a better choice to oppose the capital.
Because the only thing that is more or less clearly expressed is, that we would “cut” the bond of interests between elites and parties, but we leave the elites untouched.

Sebastian, in case it sounds aggressive be assured it’s not my intention!
It is anyway a good thing that the number of people who feel, this situation is not acceptable grows!
And a bit better are those who at least give alternatives a chance!

It means, we are not apathetic, and we look for “a way out” or a chance to change direction.

I mentioned to problems I see in demarchy, but a third one must also be placed onto the table:
Since most people do not feel easy with the idea to “let it happen”, it would be very difficult to put together a majority to decide for such a bigger change of rules.

In theory, every possible change is an arbitrary act of a group of people (that should be majority to have a chance to see it happening).
There is one exception: If it is a mandatory correction that statutes and constitution require with no need to put together a majority or a political force.


#4

So, what is the “alternative” proposal or option?

The “to do” is simple.
It was proposed by several people, but never as a complete kit, and never by presenting arguments.
And … the Orwellian ministry of truth spent lots of efforts to domesticate people and make them dismiss such a “useless” and foolish change.

My approach starts with denying the vocabulary. And in refusing to use vocabulary the way it is commonly used.

There is no “to do”.
It is a MUST DO!

We own the right to democracy.
Since WWII nobody ever dared to put into discussion nations right to self determination!
The whole propaganda and moves against it were a very weak (but very efficient) “it doesn’t work”!

If we possess the entitlement to democracy, and we DISCOVER something in the process that is meant to assemble a democratic period, that prevents democracy from being triggered, we are entitled to get it corrected!

Our talking is not about some dozen things we really would love to improve on democracy.
Our talking is, that the fucking shit got kidnapped, and we were dumb enough to not notice it!

Why didn’t we notice it?
Because the trick was not named before 1950, and not presented until the Eighties, and most people never heard the technical name!

The good news is, that nearly everybody knows the trick!
Perhaps it was already used by cavemen!
Probably our parents used the trick to trick us, and probably we use the trick with our won children.

The trick is called “double bind”, and it defines a communication strategy, or better, a manipulation.
It is very easy to show how it is used in families, and very difficult to recognize it again in our elections.
To be able to see it, we have to analyze, how it works in families, and identify a few important things.
When we got those things (two of them are important), we go and search for them in the rules that regulate electoral processes worldwide.
We will find the double bind in elections, and we will know, that as voters we are the kids, somebody else who hides is in charge, and we get a limited range of options, and are ignored if we want self-determination instead.

When a critical mass of voters understands, why elections don’t change a fuck, the magic is exposed, and doesn’t work anymore!

To do so no congressman is needed anywhere!
Paid people in crucial and influential positions would help a lot, but people who want to make politics instead of system engineering are useless!

So, if the movements associated here on european spring want to produce just some more politicians, I’ll do what I always did. Keep my vote. I do not delegate anybody to blow against a mountain.

If the movements, who are still in time, decide that it is much more intelligent to come together for only one action, and that is to turn on the fire to start a worldwide revolution by using the laws and constitutions who are on our side, I will be in.

To assure the poor people who “invested” years of time to develop programs and internal organization:
You didn’t waste your time. Politics is perfectly OK AFTER the system is changed.
And changing the system means, that collective vote is much much heavier than elites, because power comes from vote and not from money!
Money is an instrument, and it is subordinated to societies who use it to make life easier and better.


#5

Cool stuff :smiley:

I’m convinced that not voting is the worst possible course of action in a representative democracy. But I also think its the least important part of the democratic process. More important are information and debate in small and big circles and action for the things that matter. It all starts with Ideas and the Stories we tell each other. They are the most powerful thing in our lives. Mostly they are abstractions and ideologies to make sense of a world we can’t fully grasp or understand in detail. Ideas spread like wildfires if they are appealing. Voting on those ideas just reflects what everyone already knows. Taking a random sample also reflects that, but it turns out its less open to manipulation than elections. That makes it better to me. Both need transparency and simplicity at the core to work in large scale practice. As you clearly pointed out vocabulary is important, words imply powerful ideas, easily manipulate opinions and blur the clear demands of a people into abstract and widely applicable justifications for anything.
I like to read Orwell, its really a warning and it is frightening to see how much of his nightmare already lives, not least of all due to a lack of attention when it comes to political and economic slogans that we fail to hear in full attention. We are sick in body and spirit and he manages to give you a waking moment.

Politics, democracy, economics - it all starts with your own ideas and action. It spreads through your surroundings, and if you don’t pay attention, it infects the whole world. But please vote for something :smiley:


#6

Sebastian,
somebody who voted all the time has a very hard time to get a feeling for not voting :wink:

If you do not vote, but you follow politics, it stimulates you to leave the “not voting is the worst possible course of action” level.
Imagine it like a videogame: Not voting is a training, and if you exercise for a while, you discover a whole new level :slight_smile: :slight_smile:

OK, let’s leave the joke.

Not voting is a fundamental part of democracy.
If you decide to ignore non voters, you make the reverse magic: instead ofg democracy, you get oligarchy!

I repeat it: This is not a joke!

So, please listen carefully:
The whole democracy thing lies on one pillar:
The voter is sovereign!

That is somehow a king!
That means, that any kind of power emanates from the king.
The evolution from times when people had one only king is, that now the king is the whole collective of people.
And the genial idea is, that as society, people have nobody above them.
No rich, no military, no money!

Now imagine that king:
There is a menu of choices.
When he chooses, he invests his choice with power to work for him.
(He does not transfer power!)

What happens, if he does not choose any of the options, because he doesn’t like any?
Does his power vanish?
The moment you decide (it is a conscious rule!) to ignore a refusal, you subordinate voters!
That means, that the rule that calls to ignore all those voters who refused to make a choice, transforms elections into a process of subordination!
In other words: Voting, the way it is done, is equivalent to stepping down from sovereignty and acting from a subordinated level!
Or in one sentence:
Voting the way it is done means avoiding democracy! It is the opposite of an enabling act of democracy.

I can show you exactly this situation through an example most people know.
What they lack is the knowledge, that the communication model can be analyzed and its components identified.

If you have a child, and it asks you for something that you will not allow (having a pocket knife for example), you could offer a menu of 3-4 choices as replacement.
Like 1) going to the cinema, 2) buying a toy, 3) going for an ice-cream, 4) making an excursion.
If your child doesn’t chose any of the alternatives, nothing happens. There is nothing outside the range of choices you offered, and everything is OK.

That model is called “double bind”.
If you analyze it, you easily detect, that it has nothing to do with democracy. The one who decides the choices is the authority, the other one is subordinated.

That characteristic is very hard to detect in elections, because no authority is visible.
What is easy to detect is that non voters are ignored, and 100% shares are anyway distributed among parties and politicians.

The fact, that non voting doesn’t count in any way, makes democracy impossible, because it creates subordination by ignoring disagreement.
A king who is not entitled to disagree is not a king!

I think you are german.
And I am sure you never heard, that the only country that once counted non voters … is Germany!

I repeat:
The way rules handle non voters determine, if the outcome will be a democracy or not!


#7

I know that point of view only too well. Are you interested in other opinion? You don’t take any of my comments as serious and you confuse the ideal democracy with what we live in. Why exactly is voting not an option / not the best option? Don’t make this about country or voting history, that is unprofessional.


#8

Hi Sebastian,

sorry for taking that long time to answer!
Of course I am interested!
You say I don’t take your comments as serious and I make confusion.

I rechecked what you wrote, and it wasn’t very much.
And I know, I would need at least 20 pages to give you a bigger picture of what I mean. But that would not look fine, because it wouldn’t be a discussion.
my email id od (at) laserdie (dot) com. I would send you a booklet. in german if you want. You will waste two hours, and at least you would know the paradigm that is the fundament of my weird and confused statements.

Here on the forum I prefer to listen to your opinion.
I liked one of your sentences: " Ideas spread like wildfires".

That is exactly what I propose!
To use such an idea and create a wildfire, instead of trying to democratize or attract voters for a new party.


#9

Please, I’m sure you can do short comments if you try. (It’s also possible to send messages on this site)

What are your ideas? They only convince when they are good, and they only evolve into something awesome and inspirational with cooperation. How do you imagine a future political process to look like?

I think we have established that democracy is the best approximation of government of the people, by the people and for the people. Separating legislation, executive and judiciary branches and including a system of checks and balances has proven itself. What remains open for me is how to get these branches to make decisions in line with the people’s constitution.


#10

I know it is not possible to include links, but let me try if I can cut the link in pieces and you put them back together:

s000. tinyupload. com/index.php?file_id=17407437662534881186

You have to take off the two spaces I added, and you will get to a download page.

My idea is very simple:
The modern world never tried democracy.
The original purpose was to take the Athenian idea of direct democracy, and build up a version that could work for large territories and multitudes of people, through the election of representatives.

That process took over two centuries, and at a certain moment it was assumed, representative democracy had ben achieved.
But it was kidnapped on the way.

Time proved, that the most stable formula to assure that money can rule the world is to have its institutions built up to run as democracy, and take off a nearly invisible ingredient.
It is enough to maintain open elections (and influence them from behind courtains) and keep people busy with them, to create the solid belief, the whole thing IS a democracy.

So, all efforts of the last century were oriented towards creating instruments to control political forces and ask for transparency.

It is a fact, that nobody was able to see what is wrong or what is missing.
But a large part of humanity is able to feel, this is a fake.

So, my proposal is to help people SEE and UNDERSTAND what is missing, and that knowledge will create the demand for correction.


#11

If you want to change the world, the first thing you do is …

not thinking about a way to fix it!

If you do that, you took a solipsistic shortcut, because your solution will come from your own understanding.

If you are an economist, your solution will consist of several changes on legislation that affects finances, debt, economy and banks.

But most of the time, the real question is, that you need a magic wand to start changing, and that magic wand is something you don’t have.
You need that lots of people give you their little piece of wand, and you have to put together enough of those pieces to have necessary power in that wand.

So, it is wrong to go straight to think out a solution!

The first thing to do is to LISTEN!

Listen and make questions.

When you do that, two opposite things can happen:
You get answers and suggestions, and you start to be “guided”.
And after some time you find out, you made circles and didn’t move from where you started.

Or you fall back to make questions and guide through questions to your worldview.

When you make questions, remember that answers reflect different degrees of understanding and misunderstanding.
Distrust both of them first!
If you feel the urge to change the world, every available worldview could be wrong!

You don’t have any problem with discarding a foreign religion as wrong, because you were not exposed to it while you grew up, and its axioms were delivered to you as truth.
But you understand, that there are people in those “wrong” religions, that do not lack intelligence. And they rationalize the irrational with rational arguments.

Now go to the mirror and observe yourself:
That person there got thaught a few wrong things about democracy!
And since it is an intelligent person, her worldview about democracy is the result of the experiences made with false labeling, forgery and misleading propaganda that often consists of partially or mostly rational arguments.

What’s “wrong” with democracy?

  • Nobody has an idea how it would work! Democracy was never at work in the last 300 years!
  • It is true many nations have institutions built to work in a democracy, but that has zero impact, if power is controlled through hard-to-see strings that are in the hands of the very rich!
  • It could be totally false, that “this” is the best we can get!
  • It is false, that elections cannot change things. THEY DO NOT!

I hope this explained the “riddle” I posed some day ago when I said elections are useless. They are, but that could be changed!

The question is why they could, how, and why that would make a huge difference!


#12

That is a very narrow view. Only Sith deal in absolutes. Although democracy as implemented had imperfections, it also had an increasing impact derived from the people’s ideas and opinions. If you discard that you insult millions of men and women that died for the ideal. How can you be so callous?


#13

Compliments Sebastian!

you make it a very hard task to tell you something new!

Have you ever heard of “double bind”?
I am very sure, you know what it is, but you didn’t know it has a name.
And I am also sure, you would deny that elections are a double bind, unless you take it very slow, and accept to analyze the components of a double bind.

Does that make a difference on the topic democracy?
Yes, it makes a lot of difference!

You can download the booklet, and you would have the advantage to get the whole thing at once, before your vision of what is reality pushes you to react.


#14

btw. You complained that I do not react to the things you observe.
The first sentence was a judgement (narrow view), followed by another one (you deal in absolutes).
Then you made an observation, but I don’t feel concerned, because I do not deny anything.
If you want, let me make my observation: If you are impressed by what was possible by an oligarchy shaped like a democracy, be open to the adventure of a real democracy!
And you end with another sentence about me (I’m callous).

Do you want me to discuss your ad personam arguments?
What I see is, that you have very strong opinions, and you fight different proposals before you understand them.

It is very easy to show I am wrong:
You have to prove a very easy thing:
That electoral laws are not a double bind!
My theory is falsifiable, but to counter it, you have to do the effort to understand it first.
If you cannot prove that electoral laws are not a double bind, my deductions that lead me to make the observations in my previous comments have a rational fundament, no matter if you like them or not.
And what is sure is, that you are adding stuff that is not part of the paradigm (you won’t find any denial of any “impact” derived from people’s ideas and opinions and sacrifices for democracy.

There are a few people I respect in the history of making of democracy, but I honor specifically the very unknown man who said “if voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal”. That man said something additional, and that makes him the grandfather of democracy of the XXI century, when it will finally start to work in a few years.


#15

Dear Orazio,
I get that you think elections don’t matter, but your deduction from that is confusing - and your basic premesis is not scientifically tenable as you have no proven and can’t prove that elections don’t matter. I say there are a lot of indications that elections do matter. I will not concede that point to you just because you say that and write some circular arguments. If you are willing to face examples, just go over a history book. Women’s rights, abolition of slavery, ban of nuclear energy and the death penalty, elections as an expression of these ideals contributed to their standing today.

We can talk about the amount they matter - not enough.
We can talk about what could replace them - there are better ways of democratic expression and decision.
The core problem is not that elections are a bad instrument per se, but that the instrument in current democracies is often misused with misrepresentation and manipulation.

To make this exchange productive I would like to focus on what could replace them and how that is - practically - achievable. I will gladly answer questions if they are not just rhetorical.

Nonviolent communication is difficult as it is, please make it simple for me. I got my giraffe ears on.


#16

I am searching for the place where I said that elections don’t matter and should be replaced by something else …

There is no such place, because I never said that.
I said, that elections are done the wrong way, if the intention is to have democracy as outcome!
And I had given you a link for a download, where I explain that thoroughly.

If elections are done as a double bind, they will not produce democracy.

You can download the small book to understand what I mean.


#17

Ok, I have to admit that I am simply confused about everything you said and do not understand even your headline. Sadly.


#18

Das Wählerhandbuch
(I can post links, so I did it!)


#19

Sebastian, I am not offended!

I know perfectly that the way I speak about democracy is different from the common talk about the topic.
The paradigm took 6 years to come together, and I don’t want to keep it for me. It needs to go out and come to life with others.


#20

That is very kind!

Here is the english version:
s000. tinyupload. com/index.php?file_id=03815794278880016141

And here the italian one:
s000. tinyupload. com/index.php?file_id=05851722257523814582

They are slightly different, because I had different countries in mind, and I am not very happy with the english version.
I will modify first the italian one, move chapters and add one analyzing demarchy. After that I will update the other ones.