Open Meeting Direct Democracy Ireland

by DDI Mon Nov 08, 2010 01:06

This meeting will take place in the Central Hotel Exchequer Street at 8pm.

by Confused Mon Nov 08, 2010 09:10

Why does the facebook page have "email salafia@gmail.com" and Vincent Salafia "creator" .
Is Vincent Salafia associated with DDI or not?
Can we have some clarification please.

by Not from the Ireland Institute Wed Nov 10, 2010 00:26

The Ireland Institute proposes as a basis for discussion (on the link attached) what I would see as the bleeding obvious: "that the way capitalism organises the economy and society is at the root of the crisis. If we want real change, it will not be found in the solutions that are currently being proposed: more regulation of business and finance; reduction in the number of TDs; abolition of the Seanad; and updating of the 1937 Constitution."

The banks are stealing from us. The EU mandated this situation and demand that we pay for it. Stop muddying the waters.

by Observer Wed Nov 10, 2010 01:04

From the Ireland institute notice

Instead, the Institute considers that full democratisation of politics and the economy is the only way to change society so that, in the future, the common good of all citizens will be at the heart of policy. This means that all citizens must have a real share in decision making in Ireland, not just a vote every few years for one or other political elite.

by me Wed Nov 10, 2010 18:42

How about we do away with voting all together and establish a computerised open-source (audited by anyone with the ability to do so) lottery system?

All citizen s above a certain age, that can demonstrate an ability to practice the 3 R's at a practical level, should be legally-bound to serve a five-year term in office, if they happen to be one of the few chosen at random by the computerised lottery system

For this they should be remunerated handsomely - so handsomely that they should never feel the need to accept bribes of any sort - say something in the region of 1 or 2 million quid per annum, to be paid at the end of the five year term. During that time all expenses (private and professional) to be the responsibility of the Taxpayer. Any person found to be corrupt forfeits all remuneration and is sentenced to a manditory minimum of at least 5 yrs.

A buffer between leaders and Civil Servants, consisting of independent individuals with suitable qualifications, i.e: a degree/specialising in a particular area (business and Commerce, Medicine etc) - these individuals could again be chosen at random by lottery, from a database of anyone and everyone holding such qualifications. Free education so that virtually anyone with the brains and will to learn can meet the minimum criteria for inclusion as an adviser - again advisers to well paid - say 300,000 quid per year, subject to the same conditions and penalties as the leaders in the event that they are found to be corrupt - the bar to be set pretty low on what constitutes corruption

No one can serve more than one term as leader or as adviser.

therefore no need to pander to fickle Public sentiment nor to the wishes of Media Tycoons, since no one is running for re-election

Statistically speaking almost any 'of-sound-mind' individual could potentially find themselves chosen as either a leader or an adviser.

Statistically speaking there is no way they could be any worse at governing than the shower of craven fucktards we now call 'politicians'.

(I'm sure there's a ton of flaws and loopholes in this idea but it certainly could not be any worse than the system we call 'democracy')

by Proof Mon Nov 15, 2010 22:31

Irish times Provides Proof that the above suggestion would most likely lead to better Gov't

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2010/1115/1....html

Random system of promotions may be just the job

LUCY KELLAWAY - Irish Times Mon 15th Nov 2010

If a new theory is right it will overturn everything we ever thought we knew about management

Promoting people at random makes companies more efficient.

It was developed by three Italians at the University of Catania who used mathematical simulations and game theory to make their point. If they are right, with one bound they have overturned everything we ever thought we knew about management.

Though the hypothesis sounds improbable, I have first-hand experience of it working well. Every week at my primary school the teacher selected a child at random to be milk monitor. If you were picked you felt honoured and rose to the occasion. If you weren’t picked, you took it in your stride and didn’t develop a profound hatred both of the teacher who rejected you or of the successful monitor.

When your turn came to hand around the cartons, you learnt that there were some good things about being in charge – the tingle of power was agreeable – and a lot of bad things – you got the blame when the milk was late or warm even though it wasn’t your fault.

Gospel Oak primary school wasn’t a pioneer in random promotion; ancient Athens got there first. It chose its magistrates and decision-makers by sortition – or drawing lots – and as far as I know (though my knowledge of classical history is feeble) that society was really rather successful.

In the 3,000 years since then the corporate world has developed a raft of complex promotion systems, all based on merit.

We compile long lists of “competencies” and draw matrices and give people scores.

We do psychometric tests, give interviews, role plays, simulations.

We have industries of HR people and headhunters to agonise about “skillsets” and “cultural fit”.

But even with the best will in the world, we often don’t know what sort of merit we are looking for or recognise it when we see it.

A further trouble is that the people making decisions don’t usually have the best will in the world.

Instead we are swayed by all sorts of things we shouldn’t be swayed by. How tall someone is, or how good looking they are. What school they went to.

We compare them to ourselves, and either hire people just like us or, under extreme duress from our chief diversity officer, we hire people because they are not like us at all.

Then, when we have awarded the job, we can’t get rid of them if they are no good because we chose them.

This may not matter much as it’s impossible to tell if they are good or not because of the time lags involved. With management, the proof of the pudding comes not in the eating but after it has worked its way through the digestive tract.

The main objection to the scheme is that there would be no reason to work hard if we all knew that promotion never came as a result. This argument is weak as promotion and hard work aren’t closely linked anyway.

The random system would boost morale by eliminating petty politics and resentment. It would save acres of time. It would mean the dreaded word diversity was never heard again. It would be the end of HR and executive search.

Indeed, the new system might even make the average person work harder. If I knew that I might suddenly become CEO tomorrow I would look sharp today as I wouldn’t want to disgrace myself.

The second objection is that you would sometimes end up with dim people in charge.

But this happens anyway, the only difference being that under the present system the dim leaders believe they are smart, which is even more dangerous.

And I’m not sure that being a bit dim is really so bad. There have been plenty of dim US presidents and it isn’t clear they have performed any worse than the bright ones.

The system would have the final advantage of eliminating corporate greed. The top man would get the right amount for doing the job. Enough to compensate for the additional work of handing out the milk and enough for taking responsibility when it gets spilt. – (Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010)