BE (come!)

Harmonisation Values in Civilizations - Sunday, March 5, 2006

Maybe this next article serves the initiation of the strife?
There may be more articles on this topic, which may not be the theme of the authors of the article,
but is brought in here by the GGvoter site-master in charge.

= = > Europeanconstituentprocess Building on Initiation of the Third Millenium Awakening Democracy Call Paradigm ("NooDigm Initiative 2006"):

Systems of Voting: is there a bug, there?

  1. Content

  2. * Foreword

  3. * Background

  4. Fields of Sorcered Bugs:

  5. a-The “Pretended Humans’ Equality” bug

  6. b-The “Territory” bug

  7. c-The “Initiative & Referendum” option bug

  8. d-The “Abstention = Consent” bug

  9. e-The “All Voters are Equals” bug

  10. f- The “Pleasing” bug

  11. g-The “No Freedom from Speech” bug
  12. The main axiom of Democracy

  13. Conclusion

Systems of Voting: is there a bug, there? :{pre-liminary version}:
By Antonio Rossin, Jan Gieszen and S'ace - March 1, 2006


All of our civil societies deal with collective policies to be discussed and decided, which overall function requires a voting system and, of course, a political arrangement to implement it.The civil debate is up, about the different political arrangements that are appropriate in a democracy, what is the best. Here the dialectic is developing between a Representative Democracy (RD) model, that is adopted almost everywhere in our western countries, and a Direct Democracy (DD) model, intended to avoid some democratic flaws that might be implicit within RD.We do not want to decide here what the best political arrangement is, whether RD or DD, since any decision on this matter belongs to the people with interest. This notwithstanding, let’s but declare some personal preference for DD – meant as the political arrangement where the people have the first and the last say. Also, let’s make it clear that this study is mostly addressed to people who cultivate the same DD preference, since the RD supporters do delegate their Representatives for any judgment and subsequent decision, on the voting system they adopt, therefore they do not seem likely to endorse changes in the political function of voting systems, but only in the voting technology.
Anyway, we don’t want to add anything to the current RD-DD dialectics here. But, since both these political arrangements unavoidably need and use a voting system, let us go and see whether everyone’s approach to one’s own political system at large and to the related voting system in particular, is the best. And, if it were not such, let us question what could be the bad features hidden inside: bugs, indeed.


This analysis has been prompted by an intriguing debate posted in the European Constituent Process forum by two discussants, namely Bruce and S’ace, one American and the other European, mainly about the equality of voters.

Let us quote from the dialectics there:
The American’s thesis reads:"We are still fighting for the right to vote, and there are groups who are constantly trying to limit who can vote. Many States in the US have laws which hinder the right for certain groups to vote. This allows certain "elites" to control the election. Whenever a person or group of persons are excluded or if their vote is not equal, power is no longer equal.
Humans are all equal. Regardless of sex, race, religion, sexual preference, age etc. we are equal. We have fought hard for EQUALITY, and must continue or we will loose it.
Globally, a person existing in Iraq, Africa, France, Netherlands should have a right to vote on Global matters. One vote, one person."

S’ace’s antithesis reads:
"one man/one vote is a way to point to another man who's got to do the job; NOWadays in our complex community this is a false paradigm hidden in our democracy system of voting ... WE can do and invent a better way of communicating our life together ..."
{sensing the function of equality as a dynamic reaction on the essence of radiance – S’ace - relation dynamical core}

Well, let us question what is the best of these two opposite opinions about humans’ equality, either the American’s thesis or the European’s antithesis: where are the hidden bugs? Because one bug at least must be at work there, in global outside of today. Where to the American democrats the idea could be felt as good that the Iraqi humans are equal to the U.S. humans, to the Iraqi the idea that the U.S. humans are equal to the Iraqi humans is very likely to be felt as a bloody insult.
It seems to me, the bug comes into light when the supposed voters' equality moves from the domain of politics to that of economics. Plainly, in both the U.S. and the Europe democracies, the voting system deals with the power of deciding and implementing policies – and every voted policy does unavoidably involve an economic implication, where humans’ equality is a fancy. In this perspective there is a dialectic polarity between the domains of politics and economics and they are moulded together like the two sides of one coin. People tend to have equal value and possibilities in contributing and influencing of politicians in democracy. Economy, being derived from scientific laws governing the creation and flow of goods and services from sources in the realm of human contributions to its environment, tends to vary considerably the equality of people. Well, now let us go and see whether “we democrats” are able to spend this coin – and strive after a fair equality.

The “Pretended Humans’ Equality” bug
To this regard, the American’s thesis goes like saying: "All of us humans are equal, so let us go and vote, oneman/onevote. Done? Done. Now we equals have the free market: and now that all of us have voted in a fair equality, let us equal persons go to the free market all together, happily and fraternally..."
The European’s antithesis does not comply with this equality “within the free market”. Really, what happens there? Let me quote, from the American Journal of Political Economy, March 2005, at
After being thrown out of the WB in 1999 for whistle-blowing, Joe Stiglitz, ex-finance man of that venerable institution, received the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2001, for his explanation of how “asymmetric markets” work. An asymmetric market is one where some people know more than others. Had the Nobel Prize existed in Aesop’s time, the fox that enticed the crow to speak so as to make him drop his cheese would have easily qualified for it…
The man and his prize are emblematic of the disorder in economic affairs that has been spreading since The Wealth of Nations. The past 200 years have increasingly seen what may well be called “the Stiglitz paradox:” parallel to the setting up of university chairs, tenured professors, prestigious textbooks, journals of great erudition, and thousands upon thousands of doctoral theses (published or not), not to mention the Nobel awards, the economy of the real world, suffered in the flesh by countless men, women and children, is a world where poverty reigns side by side with opulence; unemployment rises its ugly head side by side with the need for work; the gap between the rich and the poor widens by the day; and the scourge of war and terrorism goes together with a diminishing freedom caused by the oppressive intromission of the State in personal and family affairs.

I wonder: how could a voting system based on humans' equality – in Bruce’s thesis – accomplish with the economic reality of the free market? Mostly in the world of today where political votes are bought by the rich? Is the rich equal to the poor? Especially in the U.S.? Obviously, once cast into the ballot box, votes are all equal. But voters are not, and that of the humans’ equality seems to be only a slogan concocted and claimed by the dominant class of an asymmetric society wanting to keep its privileges unchanged. If we were all equals, as they claim we are, would it be the social imperative to defend the exploited and the oppressed in a greedy economy?
Anyway, let me go on and search for what a "a false paradigm hidden in our democracy system of voting" could be eventually.

The “Territory” bug

There is still little attention for the simple fact that Democracy is a territory-linked social arrangement. The “Territory” parameter requires Democracy policies to be applied within the boundaries of a given territory by the inhabitants of that territory. The width of the involved “given territory” does not matter: be it the Family, a company, a town, a country, or else the world, it is only the inhabitants of the territory which a policy is addressed to, who should be eligible for deciding it by voting.

For example, it is not done that the Europeans go and vote for the U.S. Constitution, as well as the U.S. inhabitants come into Europe to vote and decide about the European Constitution.For the same token it would be unthinkable that a group of Worldwide Direct Democracy supporters decide by voting on what the Worldwide Democracy policies & rules have to be -- unless they were the elected Representatives of the worldwide community. But in this case, the political arrangement they set up is Representative Democracy, not just DD. Unfortunately, this RD bug seems to affect and immobilize too many so-called DD activists and supporters, up to date.

The “Initiative & Referendum” option bug

Some Voting Systems (VS) do allow the people’s I&R direct sharing-in to lawmaking, and some do not. Since one’s voting does implicitly support the voting system one applies, here the question arises: Shall DD supporters go and vote into a voting system that does not allow – whose political establishment does not allow – the I&R option?
The bug here is the contradiction for a Direct Democrat to support in fact (i.e., by voting) a VS that doesn’t support Direct Democracy and at large, any social organization based on the people’s bottom-up policy-making. Indeed, to be consistent, Direct Democrat should only go and vote into any VS whose political establishment does support I&R as the major instrument to originate collective policies from the bottom-up.
This is a core point of Democracy people retaining their votes in order to withhold support for politicians who keep the people’s from direct, I&R-made sharing-in. I point to the International Simultaneous Policies Organization (ISPO) ( ) as the paragon for its know-how.
“We ISPO adopters will vote for those politicians only who pledge they will adopt the SP measures when the time has come,” they say. In short, the SP measures are policies, originated by the people bottom-up with aims of implementing a fair economic equality worldwide. Therefore the I&R option is quite implicit with ISPO, and let me suggest the ISPO adopters to make it explicit among their policies. For the same token, let me suggest the DD supporters to account ISPO as a major political-economic platform to set up Democracy worldwide.
This conforms with the tendency of politicians of powerful nations to propagate democracy. This introduces another dialectic polarity, a polarity that serves as a source of energy: People working together convivially, bridging borders, frontiers and such, in order to support a sustainable world for people around the world.

The “Abstention = Consent” bug

Usually, when a given policy goes to be voted by the eligible inhabitants of a given territory, a discrete amount of them abstain from sharing-in and voting. The abstainers’ amount can just overcome the total amount of the voters. What is its meaning, and how should it be accounted by the voting system establishment?
Clearly, in order of being empowered to rule, all VS establishments in office want their territory inhabitants to come to the voting. No wonder then they apply the “abstention = consent” formula to validate the voting they need. That is, they do not require any “quorum” for the votings they set up. They do the opposite in the case of a voting set up by the people, to wit, a Referendum.But, when a majority of eligible voters abstains from voting, some considerations could be made.

  1. the democratic people holding back distrust the politicians, the voting system, and the political establishment arranging it; or-and:
  2. the policy to be voted or the political body in the occasion of political elections, does not serve the collectivity in its variety; or-and:
  3. the voters’ collectivity has been misinformed about what the votation is about;
  4. the voters experience an environment they live in, deteriorating under the government:
  5. and so on.

In any case, the so-called “Abstention = Consent” rule goes in favour of the VS establishment ruling over the people, not in favour of the people themselves. To fix this bug, a quorum in any votation should be required. Which requirement implies the reversal of the “Abstention = Consent” rule into a more democratic “Abstention = Dissent”, in the top-down arranged votations the same way as in the bottom-up arranged ones (Referenda)
At least, if a political votation would not overcome the 50%+1 required quorum, the political establishment in office should present a better way of selecting policies and nominations, to meet more closely with the people’s desires so that the people may feel more satisfied by sharing-in and voting.

The “All Voters are Equals” bug

Having been invited to deepen this “voters’ equality” topic, the European discussant added:“I am a bug” is the thought that first comes up to my mind when I am diving in this matter. And then the mantra or-line “i don’t wanna grow up”, which actually refers to a song which resonates in my bones, put in there by an artist-fellow or rather a fellow-artist named Tom Waits ...

“When I’m lyin’ in my bed at night
I don’t wanna grow up
Nothin’ ever seems to turn out right
I don’t wanna grow up
How do you move in a world of fog
That’s always changing things
Makes me wish that I could be a dog
When I see the price that you pay
I don’t wanna grow up
I don’t ever wanna be that way
I don’t wanna grow up”

A personal tragedy, or more cynical, loading oneself up for a thing?
The fog representing our governments, representatives struggling in a democratic harness guided by people one day every four years in a sort of carnaval event they call the election campaign.
And what about the dog? Well, one can be unique, un-equal, being a people member. How about you, fellow earthling? Or do you prefer to articulate the word “citizen” which fits in- & constitutions? Then I suggest you to replace my selected word earthling to citizen and continue dialogue.

A song, or a tune whistling may evolve the mind from a puzzling thing to a more comfortable vision of what you really want to enliven... all alone or together with somebody else... or with a family or a group or a crowd ... Yeah, in a big crowd we want to be and can really survive... as it seems the meaning of a mass of people dancing the U2-concerts. And I, I did that too... occasionally... things, lively, fruitful things, need to happen... every now and then ...

Now returning to the world of politics and economics, the world of decision makers, decision demanders and decision commanders, other people that arrange a programmatic circus around a peculiar thing.
Well, Government and political parties manage to mediate a free choice to a free advertisement of an illusion : a sustainable society in the world of today.I support the peculiar thing of a wo/man being available as a representative for people, is her/himself voting ... and is mediated as an example voter.See: “I am a true citizen, you can vote on me, I am doing my duty in servicing this convivial society”

Another vaster thing, which I myself sense to be a vaster thing, is the starter-civilian at first wondering what occupation or what contribution or what art-skills or even scientific skills “I” want to develop and how to build a living ... while (re)membering community.

As a starter, I may start at a level that gives me the idea to develop myself into top-voter citizen.
At the other side of the mirror of life, I live a life settling me into a political network and into an economical suit that fits me. By practising and networking my personal bio-, or rather lifesphere, I tend to free myself of the arena of elections because I see other generations that come to govern and (be trusted to) take responsibility in the dynamic energy of “their time of creation and presence”. There are lots of opportunities to have more harmony in our mutual livings ... which can only come up if the “older me” communicates trust throughout the unique life and manifestations of potentials.

The considerations above are integrated in the guidelines for voting over a lifespan. It realises a sense for generation binding and more as expressed in a conceptual web-dialogue on .

Focus a variety of people like ants on this stairway, or do you prefer temple, moving, meeting, communicating in all kind of directions except from right to left ... in the physical world which, remembering the Waits lyrics, refers to the price we pay & growing up.

Active forces, also universal forces, are articulated that enrich lifes conviviality. This site is an invocation for you reader, fellow citizen, to contribute in reaching out for a sustainable world ... for all of us. This model comprises the natural and systemic morbidity of man.

The blockade or should I say block-age may be the question ... why didn’t we organize our election events in the paradigm defined in this New Manner of Thinking & Possible Doing?

Has for instance Thomas Friedman a right to say the world flattened by technology?

I have a desire to grow-up in the flow of processes, fit to open up for the next step of consciousness and according practice. Getting grown-up together with my fellow humans who have an equal harmonizing desire integrated in the community effort we are striving to emerge in.

So at the end it may reveal my mind there never was a real bug, we just had some new understanding in how to revive our way to communicate in a networked world, as [translating a Dutch quotation] Micah L. Sifry so aptly said:

“The era of the hierarchical politics, where election campaigns, institutes and media are lost communities, where the course is preset by hardly collected amounts of capital, is over. Something more wild, more exciting and to individual partakers more satisfying is growing-up now next to the old order.”

The “Pleasing” bug

People has changed its practices over centuries. Often it came with pain of massive inequality and slavery, energy crises, war, pollution and also through democratization as printing of books, schools, public transport, health care and other developments. We learned to live in the changed environment.
The challenges of today can be expressed by learning to die in a changing environment. A few practices we need to change in order to vote for policies that prolong life instead of promote death.

One of them is choose for voting principles that fit the rhythm of today.This rhythm varies for the diverse matters to govern, so we need variety, otherness. Since some people still think that the people in general does not understand the complexity of life, learning and openess is needed. The natural environment or biosphere is changing far beyond our human control. Policies to recognize our ways and taking other ones will become available.

A serious bug in our present voting systems is pleasing. We live a culture of pleasing each other. Even in attacking a problem and taking political measures to resolve it are coming from ways of pleasing as politicians do it to the voters. Customers or clients need to be pleased in order to be and stay in the market – so is thought – no matter if all of this “pleasing” of ourselves turns into ourselves being not in, and staying not in, a sustainable world.

The “No Freedom from Speech” bug

Finally, let’s recall that any deciding process – be it informal like choosing one’s own private policies or formal like voting collective policies – is only the last step of a communication process, by which the deciding voter is informed about the chances to choose and makes one’s own appropriate evaluations before voting.

We know, all of this “communication” process goes under the principle of “freedom of speech”. That means, in both politics and informal discussions, that any one is free to advertise one’s own propaganda, trying to convince the others to decide - vote accordingly. Yet we also know that a sizable amount of voters fall down as the defenceless victims of the opinion-makers and the political propaganda. It looks as if the People were able to perform “freedom of speech” on one side of the communication coin – that of (politicians and) advertisers – but are unable to apply “freedom from speech” on the other side of that same coin: the side of voters.

To dig for this “no freedom from speech” bug, let’s search for the epistemological difference between Axiom and Dogma. Now the question becomes: why do so many people take the authority’s words as dogmas, never to be questioned like the religious-fundamentalist mandatory dictates – instead of axioms, always to be subjected to one’s own personal confirmation and responsibility? Accordingly, in today’s democracies, some voting peoples’ decisions are not the real outcome of people’s decisions any more, but the decisions made by the drivers of the people’s manufactured beliefs: illusions and dreams, indeed.

As the predictable result of this “no freedom from speech” bug, today’s democracies become increasingly corrupted by the rich that can buy the best skilled opinion-makers and advertisers – they do just perform “freedom of speech", no? which the people are not free from.

No wonder so many claims are heard all around for building a “true democracy”, where the Voting System may really and finally express the aware and well-informed decisions of the people. Such a “democracy building” seems but to require the people’s switching from the dogmatic-fundamentalist to the axiomatic-flexible approach to the information world.

Let’s now see how this switching can be made in order to fix our “no freedom from speech” bug, for all the consequences it implies. The needed axiomatic reasoning follows:

The main axiom of Democracy

1. Since "Democracy" is a product of the people's minds, it is inside the people's minds that it must be built first. Where "mind" is meant to be the creative thinking function of an active human brain or do we prefer to say: “mind is calling the human for being creative and present as a whole operational potentiality”.From this axiom, some logical deductions, or subordinated axioms, follow. That are:

1. a - The person in whose mind "Democracy" has been built first, becomes fit to produce Democracy (and so aware voting).

Let's also remark that the same first Axiom is valid for all the products that qualify the human mind. The subject "democracy” can be replaced with a lot of alike "products" or conceptions as Peace, Freedom, Justice, Honesty, Sustainable World and so on.Therefore, we have further axioms correlated to Democracy, such as:

1. b - Since Peace is a product of the people's minds, it is inside the people's minds that Peace must be built first;
1. c - Since Freedom is a product of the people's minds, it is inside the people's minds that Freedom must be built first;
1. d - Since a Sustainable World is a product of the people's minds, it is inside the people's minds that sustainability and awareness of the world we live in must be built first

and so on. Hence, to sum up the above, Axiom 1. becomes:

1. e To be able to output its “products” successfully, all people's minds must have been first freed and opened for personal conception accordingly.

There is but another axiom to be accounted as very relevant. It is:

2. All “products” do exist through Communication.

Accordingly our initial first Axiom, to encompass all the above becomes:

3. - Since “Democracy, Peace, Freedom and a Sustainable World" – all of which comes into existence through Communication – are all “products” of the people's minds, it is inside the people's minds that Communication must be conceived first…

How? We could make a start here, instead let’s offer you a proposal, free at Flexible Learning ( Einstein Project author).


This writing is a support not to go on and vote in tradition. All of us know very well that voting is a fundamental right and duty of every citizen in every Democracy.

Yet we also know, in any decisional process, such as Democracy, that voting is only a step in a thinking and discussing process that invokes self-awareness and criticism and intensive training to the axiomatic approach in what we call “Freedom of, and freedom from, speech”.

It is in this view, that we give this writing a meaning, as a contribution to the neverending reflection that supports the steps of every democracy lover on the difficult way to build up Democracy.

With these words – like a wish, in the current of this haunted Year 2006 – we think that this little contribution of ours is concluded.

The authors (antonio , jan & s'ace)

onemanonevote is a way to point to another man who's got to do the job;
NOWadays in our complex community this is a false paradigm hidden in our democracy system of voting ...
WE can do and invent a better way of communicating our life together ...

When in respect to those aspects contra and/or supporting arguments/textures are delivered contributing the dialogue essentials,
… please come in … ; y/our team will promote your perceptions in the spotlight you wish.