Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Direct Democracy light.

Posted 2 years ago on Nov. 6, 2011, 6:11 p.m. EST by LobbyDemocracy (615)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Wish that you had more of a say in what is going on with the government, but not convinced that Direct Democracy is the right answer? I have a middle ground proposal that is already up and running.

Welcome to Lobby Democracy. We are a lobbying organization dedicated to representing the perspectives of the majority. Essentially we will convey the desires of a direct democracy to our indirect democracy. If our elected leaders act responsibly, and listen, then they can keep their jobs and represent your perspectives. If they don't, we will vote them out of office and bring someone in who does.

I too have been frustrated by the control that the 1% has gained over our government, but would prefer to try to take it back before we scrap the whole system. If you are interested, please check us out at www.lobbydemocracy.com and let us know what you think. If you like what you see or have questions please post them here so that we can rise to the top of the list and be seen by others.

40 Comments

40 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I think it would be useful if the population could express their vote

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Do you mean in a direct democracy kind of way, or do you mean in a polling kind of way? Direct democracy would involve a major constitutional rewrite. The system I am putting in place, although not as powerful as a direct democracy, is immediately implementable.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 2 years ago

You would not have to change the Constitution if the direct democracy vote was not used to decide whether or not an issue went forward or an official was elected.

The direct democracy vote could be used to compare to the vote the elected official cast to take the temperature of how what the people meshed with how the official was voting.

[-] 2 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Which is exactly what lobby democracy does. It polls the majority to determine where they stand on the issues and then conveys this information to our elected leaders.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 2 years ago

Interesting. So then our elected leaders pomptly ignore the majority opinion, because they have no incentive to do otherwise.

[-] 2 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

We will be keeping track of the polling record or all of our members. We will compare those polling records with the voting records of their elected leaders. In this manner our members will be able to follow how well their interests are being represented by their leaders. The threat of this knowledge will help provide the power of the organization. I do understand that it needs serious numbers to gain power, but I think the structure is functional.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 2 years ago

I just "liked" Lobby Democracy on facebook.

[-] 2 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Thank you. Please stay in touch as we get off the ground. If you have any other questions just let me know.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 2 years ago

I will do that. Thanks.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

can it be publicly verified ?

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I have to find an auditor. To protect people's perspectives and identities I cannot leave the system completely open. I do understand the need for an audit of the system though. As our numbers grow, and the polling process kicks in I will work with out membership to find a system that they can have confidence in.

[-] 1 points by ozgirlost (7) 2 years ago

One of the major things that could change this world for the better is the development of a new economic model based on new very cheap ways of generating energy, like Andrea Rossi' Ecat and Searl Magnetics SEG generator. please read this thread and lobby these technologies for us.

http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=11389

P.S. The authors other posts are also well worth the read if you have the time.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I think that changing the way we attain energy is very important for our society. I hope that our society has enough foresight to think big on these issues rather than just searching for a new way to gain access to fossil fuels.

[-] 0 points by Peretyatkov (241) from город Пенза, Пензенская область 2 years ago

Please! Every word about a true democracy - is very good!

P.S. - Nardialog - Say it word in all languages ​​of the World!

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

There are any number of examples in the world today where democracy has been introduced which have adopted a similar yet somewhat more flexible republican form of government. Many of them are failing because they were not designed upon the one basic premise that man is a corruptible creature; they are failing because they do not contain these necessary fail safes.

Direct democracy is not the answer; nor is any watered down version of it.

But one of the things I have often wondered, is if we should perhaps not shorten election cycles. If for example, the Pres ruled for but one year, he would be far more inclined to make popular decisions representing the majority and far less inclined to yield to party corruption.

[-] 3 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Currently the system is run by a very small minority of our population. Although I understand the importance of protections for the minority, I would rather lose out to a majority opinion than big oil.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 2 years ago

Agreed.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Well how do u feel about state rights? Or the concept that some inhabit a particular territory, comprised of an independent regional economic logic, that are intent on preserving their state rights? Or the idea that people in Arizona do not want people in CA or NJ deciding their lives for them?

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

The system is set up in manner to protect that. We will be polling nationally, but then looking state by state and district by district. An issue must have 65% support nationally to be considered. We will then only contact the representatives of districts that also have 65% support. This helps make sure that we do not represent against someone's interest unless they are both in the national and regional minority.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Let's say that 65% are Roman Catholic and believe that no priest should ever marry (and with the rising Hispanic population this is a very real eventual scenario). Let's say the representatives in my district agree and they have 65% support. Does that mean you intend to force the 35% who are Protestant priests to divorce their wives? Or disavow their faith? I ask because my ancestors were absolutely adamant that the preference for a single lifestyle was fully capable of undermining all order and stability necessary to our very existence. And they were very well aware of the moral corruption it had introduced in the Catholic faith. And it just so happens that I agree with them - priests should marry.

Why would you want to shut out the minority voice? Do you really believe this is better than what we have? What if you yourself are the minority voice? And how do you label this, "democracy"?

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I would not be shutting out the minority voice. The system that I am putting in place is there to make sure that the majority voice is heard. Under the current system, the influence of an elite minority have overpowered the interests of the majority. I think that it is important that our elected leaders understand the perspectives of the people that they are supposed to be supporting.

Notice that this is different than a direct democracy. The perspective of the majority will not automatically be adopted as law. I am also not asking for a pledge from out representatives to always vote with the majority of their district. We will still have a representational democracy. The only thing that will change is that our elected leaders will have constant access to the perspectives of their constituents and an increased ability to communicate with them.

I do really believe that this system is better than the system that we currently have. I am attempting to insert the voice of the majority into the debate. I for one would rather have my ideas fail to be enacted because they were in the minority than because they were not accepted by the 1% elite.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

If I am to interpret it as written (is there any other way) then you are all about shutting out minority opinion by force of law. It's a very shallow philosophy.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I am not talking about shutting out the minority opinion. For our government to run, something needs to drive the focus and direction of legislation. Currently that is a $3.5 lobbying industry. I don't know why the addition of the voice of the majority to the conversation scares you so much. Would you rather have all of our decisions made to benefit the rich and powerful at the expense of the majority? Are you happy with the system the way it is now? What would you propose that we do?

[-] 1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

I believe that the current system as exists, which requires full financial disclosure, is as close as we will ever get to perfection. To put this another way, I would prefer to discard the fanciful and absurd in favor of a framework that is actually workable.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 2 years ago

In practice there is very little financial disclosure. I assume you mean the system in theory is good; however, in practice it fails because of corruption.

[-] 1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

I view it as legislative perfection in light of a corruption that we never succeed in eliminating, regardless of law.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 2 years ago

That makes sense.

[-] 2 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Although we may never succeed in eliminating the effect of corporate money on our government, I think we can do a better job of bringing the voice of the majority into the mix. We do not need to shut out the voice of the pharmaceutical industry or big oil to be effective. We control the votes, and no matter how corrupt our system has become votes are still the ultimate political currency.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 2 years ago

How do we get there?

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I am working diligently on expanding the membership base of Lobby Democracy. We just signed someone on to handle advertising and PR for the organization. Although we have nearly no budget now, I think that it is important that we have someone dedicated to simply getting the word out about the organization.

This week I will also be posting some information about my own political perspectives on lobby democracy to help people understand where I am coming from. Although my vote will count once like everyone else's I think that it will help people if they know who it is that is steering the ship.

As membership grows we will be able to expand the services that we provide. If you have ideas, please let me know. I hope that you will also keep in touch with the organization and consider partaking in the process.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I would say that full financial disclosure is a stretch. The institutions of Super PACs and other outside funding sources either prevent full financial disclosure or mask it. I also agree with you on discarding the fanciful and absurd in favor of a workable framework. The framework that I am constructing is completely within the structure that is currently in place. We are simply using the pathways that are already in place for big business and special interests to convey their opinions to represent the interests of the majority.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Do you think big business would openly convey that information?

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

No I don't. That is why I am using the same pathways that they use to carry that information to our elected leaders.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 2 years ago

The OWS General Assembly (GA) claims to vote via direct democracy, but in reality the OWS system is very undemocratic.

The system requires the voter to be physically present at the GA meeting (In NYC that mean in downtown Manhattan) 4 times a week at 7 pm. If you can't do that, your voice is not heard at all.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Well, truthfully, they were advocating for a national electoral process that is exactly the same - elimination of all air time, all televised political speech, and a direct in-person vote. All rather absurd.

[-] 1 points by monjon22 (508) 2 years ago

Not all of us are advocating for electoral reform. There is a very, very powerful group who likes things exactly the way they are. Unfortunately, this group includes our elected officials who are the ones able to change things.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

I agree. With all of the technology that we have available to us it is easier now than ever to be inclusive.

[-] 0 points by smartguy (180) 2 years ago

The middle ground is called a "Republic". It helps avoid the problem of mob rule in a democratic system. Having your rights taken away by the 51% is never fun.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

We also are only supporting perspectives backed by a 65% super majority. This will also help protect the minorities rights.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 2 years ago

Fortunately those protections are built into the system that we already have. That is part of why I don't want to scrap the whole system.