Comments for Philosophyhelmet

Comment on People Aren’t Too Stupid for Democracy by Are People Too Stupid for Democracy? « Dispatches from Radioville

Are People Too Stupid for Democracy? « Dispatches from Radioville — Wed, 09 May 2012 01:08:41 +0000

[...] its full potential effectiveness has some critics. The blog Philosophyhelmet brands the study as “anti-democratic elitism” and complains that The basic assumption made, that the rest of us are simply here to elevate the [...]

Comment on Participatory Representation by Beth

Beth — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 11:15:23 +0000

Oh good. My email is 1,2(at)riseup.net, but with the numbers as words, no punctuation, could you please send me an email and then I can send you what I got so far. Thanks so much!

Beth

Comment on Participatory Representation by Alex Sparrow

Alex Sparrow — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 01:45:22 +0000

Why thank you so much! Of course, I’d be happy to help in any way I can.

Comment on About by Mary Kehaulani Dias

Mary Kehaulani Dias — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 21:29:02 +0000

Unanimous Consent and the Local Hawaiian Culture by Mary Kehaulani Dias 03/18/12
Mr. Alex Sparrow, I appreciated reading your post, “Consensus and Majority Rule.” It was on a subject that is very important to me right now. As a member of a non-profit housing cooperative in Hawaii it was upsetting when Management hired a professional Parliamentarian who presided over our Annual Membership Meeting and changed the voting style from Majority Rules to Unanimous Consent.
Unanimous Consent is not conducive to a Culturally passive population of [local] people who were strictly raised to show respect and not interrupt someone who is speaking, especially someone in authority. With Unanimous Consent, unless there is an objection, the matter at hand passes. Unfortunately, objections must usually be made while a person is speaking so with this group, no objections are made.
The (non-local) Parliamentarian did not explain what Unanimous Consent was and he ramrodded through business so fast that many members, especially the elderly, could not keep up. Therefore, changes were made to some policies, including the voting method and relinquishing some power over to the Board of Directors without the members being aware of it. Later when what had been done was discovered, it was too late. The matters had passed because no one had objected at the time.
One Member had found an error in the Annual Financial Report earlier in the meeting but politely waited until New Business near the end of the meeting to bring it up when the Parliamentarian finally stopped talking.
Was the hiring of a Parliamentarian to preside over the meetings in such a fashion a ploy by Management to gain more power? Probably. The sad thing is that the only time most of the Co-op Members have a chance to play an active role in our community is when they attend the Annual Membership Meeting and cast their [individual] vote to approve the minutes of last year’s meeting. That no longer happens thanks to Unanimous Consent.
So while Unanimous Consent might work well in small group meetings, it does not do justice to a large body culturally polite, non-aggressive people and it certainly eliminates participation in a Democratic process that the Majority Rule provides. Mahalo.

Comment on Participatory Representation by Beth

Beth — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 17:13:15 +0000

I am so glad I found this blog – I’ve been trying to work out a system quite close to this, but was a long long way from getting to anything this coherent. I’m putting together plans for anti-party politics campaign for the next UK general election, seems kind of called for, and am trying to figure out if it’d be feasible to organise community selection of independent candidates who would stand on a pledge of introducing increased participation and accountability in their constituency. I am struggling to put together a model for how this would work, this post has helped a lot. I am still in completely over my head though, and if you’d be up for giving me any ideas or feedback then I’d be eternally, fawningly grateful.

Comment on by Ival

Ival — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:44:56 +0000

It’s posts like this that make suifrng so much pleasure

Comment on Consensus and Majority Rule by The Big Question of 2011: Why Occupy? | Philosophyhelmet

The Big Question of 2011: Why Occupy? | Philosophyhelmet — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 22:25:23 +0000

[...] a modified consensus rule of achieving 90% agreement (I’ve expressed my qualified skepticism on this site). Thus, we could conclude that one thing that the 99% desire is popular democracy, the capacity [...]

Comment on Personal Notes from Occupy Richmond by The Big Question of 2011: Why Occupy? | Philosophyhelmet

The Big Question of 2011: Why Occupy? | Philosophyhelmet — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 22:24:21 +0000

[...] our intrepid reporters (me – I was the intrepid reporter) brought you a firsthand account of its Richmond branch, we are a philosophy site, not a news site. So on this New Year’s Day, I’m answering a [...]

Comment on Rousseau and the General Will by Consensus and Majority Rule | Philosophyhelmet

Consensus and Majority Rule | Philosophyhelmet — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:51:37 +0000

[...] answer is that the majority is always correct about constitutes the “general will,” which I have discussed before. The short version is that the majority is always right about the general will of the community [...]

Comment on Was the Killing of Osama bin Laden Justified? by President Obama Commits Extrajudicial Killing | Philosophyhelmet

President Obama Commits Extrajudicial Killing | Philosophyhelmet — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 14:30:29 +0000

[...] They will just say that they “don’t care about Awlaki’s rights,” just like Osama bin Laden before him. In fact, when Obama informed an audience with the news, they applauded. The error here is not [...]