Is participatory delegate democracy practical without internet access

Who ever wrote that article probably was smoking Marihuana. The so called Founding Fathers of the USA were the landlords who stole all the lands and possession from the real founders and discoverers of the Americas., and it was built by the tyranny of a minority group of peoplesBlacks, Latinos, and Indians were let outside the constitution,  because it was a country that was built over slavery. At the beginning peoples had to pay money in order to be able to vote, and then, any white person without being born in the US was able to vote too. The whole official  history of the USA is based on fairy tales.  Women were also kept out of the pictureThe USA was going to be a very small nation surrounded by 4 big nations, and all the lands stolen from the Aztlan created the expansion toward the West and the South.Democracy can not exist in a capitalist society with internet and without internet, at the present time it is just the dictatorship  of the minority, or the democracy of the minority 

"Participatory delegate democracy" is not the same as "direct democracy" (where everybody votes on everything). It's where everybody gets a chance to elect a delegate to pursue the mandate of the group (community, workplace, etc) of which they are a membe and where the person elected is answerable for their decisions to that group and who can be recalled by a vote at any time.This could have existed long before the invention of the internet. It doesn't rule out some issue requiring a yes or no answer being but to a referendum, but this is not appropriate in all cases since in most cases there are more than one possible answer and so best decided by a committee of elected delegates.

Here's something on this from our pamphlet What's Wrong with Using Parliament?:

So, what do you understand by "delegate" in the term "participatory delegate democracy" that you introduced?

This is a much better approach to this particular situation, and it is not based on bourgeois illusionshttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/whats-wrong-using-parliament

I would prefer to change the debate a little bit by looking at democracy in general and how it could work or not work in communism as I think a perceived weakness of the communist democratic model is that it would be incredible complicated and unwieldy. One basic problem is the number of decisions that would need to be taken and thus the number of votes that would have to taken. You could trivialise it, a bit, by taking the example of decision over street lighting in a small town in Peru etc and multiplying that problem up. Second  problem is just the technical way democratic decision making is made with all its amendments to resolutions, addendums and all that crap that most organisations go in for; as does the SPGB. When I first joined the SPGB I attended a conference and was horrified by the complexity and confusion involved in the process and lack of transparency about what was actually happening; and I was fairly well educated. Not that I wasn’t already familiar with that kind of thing as I had previously briefly attended student union political meetings and associated with the kind of middle class gobshites who liked to spend their time doing that kind of thing. For them it was a game for the elitist nomenklatura, understanding or the technical procedures. It gives a decision making advantage to the intelligentsia, who know how to play the system, of so called democratic procedures and latent bureaucrats. The old Bolsheviks knew how to take advantage of it during the very brief period before they could dispense with even that. Third problem is that so called mandated delegates can just be a euphemism for representative democracy. Where the delegates get selected on the same basis as representative democracy; clever sounding and convincing bull-shitters irrespective of what kind of system they are intended to administer and or corrupt.     I think delegates should be selected by lottery, or randomly selected by picking a name out of a hat; with the caveat that people can vote to exclude them just in case a self serving latent bureaucrat whose ambition is to organise those that do real work chances to get picked. The fourth, L bird problem, is decisions being made by people who aren’t ‘qualified’ to make them; like me. So recently I was in a what turned into a lively debate between me and several other informed scientists about the relative merits of (photo electric) solar versus wind power. We were all ‘informed’, there was no doubt about that, however there was some argument about ‘capital’ outlay (set up cost’s), maintenance ( the solar power people think their no moving parts solar PV panels will last for 10,000 years whilst these windmills will grind to a halt after 30) and transmission costs ( getting solar power from hot sunny places like the Sahara to Manchester etc etc, etc).        The solution to that kind of problem is that you randomly select say 1000 people from all walks of life including Peruvian peasants, Warrington bin men, and even the least qualified people, with double firsts in Oxbridge in the humanities, who are likely to be a drag on it, and force them to gem up and make a decision.  It is called Demarchy. It rests on well established mathematical statistical principals that a rigorously exercised ‘poll’ will represent the views of a majority. And decisions made by it can go through on the ‘nod’. It is of course an anathema to bureaucratic social climbers of all descriptions.