D.A.V.I.D. party for LAW and the ENVIRONMENT
Democratic Authorities Ventures Investments Demarcations
party for Law and the Environment,
DAVID-WE, or internationally: NL/DAVID/WE
The party stops accepting members when organizing 10%
of the Dutch population. At which point the organization
of a sister party would be sought, so that power concentration
remains low. Influence will be achieved by cooperation with
sister DAVID parties and other parties.
Members are expected to subscribe to: I, ..... ................., underwrite the Democratic Authorities, Ventures, Investments, Demarcations model for society, understand what it means, and will depart from DAVID-WE when either DAVID-WE or I no longer support these goals. Can't be too careful. A wide-open party without restriction can be steered any which way by a hostile organized new voter attack. This declaration gives the party a means of revoking memberships of people who start to move the party away from the DAVID system goal, which is the likely goal of such an organized hostile voter attack. A conflict arises here if new hostile members are in a majority. The elected leadership of the party is then expected to side with the DAVID system and repel the majority.
Splitting the party: The leadership should facilitate a new organization in its initial communications, despite disagreement, such as where and how as published by the starters of the new initiative. This way a split occurs and members are in a position to make a comfortable choice regarding their own membership position. This publication support obligation holds for when 5% or more of members wishes to start a new initiative, at least for a total of 5 messages each 1 x A4 or larger in a period of at least one month. A split is a tactical/strategic method. It delivers diversity and dynamics between the emerging groups. Makes it harder to manipulate groups from the outside using the media, or from the inside by political minorities, infiltrators, corruption and weakening of political will. A politically motivated split can lead to a separation where one party is better then the other, with the smaller being the better one. It is then useful to pursue the split in such a way that members can make an informed decision. The better party can then become an example for the lesser, if both have better and lesser points they become each others example. Splits therefore are in principle a good thing, as long as it does not splinter too much. In case of splintering parties can merge, up to a certain point. This type of movements makes it hard for hostiles of whatever sort to get a grip. With half a dozen minority parties, each working in their own ways to make a DAVID system real, cooperating horizontally to form a majority Government, there is little that can stop a DAVID system from becoming the law.
Who gets the old name and logo: The people having made and agreed to the initial name giving and have always remained members decide by vote where the old name goes. If these people are not available the choice goes to the party who organizes 60% or more of people who have been members for more then one year in the pre-split party. If no resolution can be achieved by these rules an outsider flips a coin: to the winning group goes the choice.
New members: new members have all voting rights after one month of becoming member, to prevent short term opportunistic members who want to sway a single vote and then leave the party again. A member can be given voting rights within one month if 2/3rd of members agree, a member can be withheld from voting for maximum of two months after becoming member if 2/3rd of members agree. Members can be have their membership revoked for political reasons by a 2/3rd majority vote of all members. These rules are not to be used to circumvent the party split protocol, which is an important part of the long term party strategy to protect the political will toward the DAVID goals from infiltration, opportunism, corruption, weakening of position.
Focussing on DAVID + Environment + direct voting is strategically not a problem since the goal is to be a minority party and cooperate. Differently slanted DAVID sister organizations will be able to cater to different sets of people, or the same kind.
The strategy would vary depending on the outcomes of the member votes. The outcome of the member votes is binding and the members will elect whomever represents them and administers the party. The voting can go against the DAVID program and still be binding, however it is hoped such an event would not occur. At that point the party would potentially be lost and a new one may have to be started, perhaps with a stronger level of member screening to prevent hostile-member takeovers. Ultimately there has to be a choice: do the members rule by democracy, or does a disciplinary mechanism rule - but whom administers it ? This party chooses the former mechanism. The latter mechanism is not without its own problems, to wit a change of the leadership against the DAVID system goal. Members should be prepared to switch to other parties or re-establish a DAVID conforming party in case the party leadership is lost or becomes manipulative. Party loyalty is not a virtue here, it is a sin.
Number of members: