Identity
Filter
Visitors
(0) (0) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Highest posts
- 06/11 15:58 +1 Re: Openness
- 05/11 18:19 +1 Re: Openness
- 04/11 10:25 +1 Re: Continuous voting
- 01/11 17:53 +1 Re: Continuous voting
- 01/11 10:27 +1 Continuous voting
- 01/11 03:43 +1 Re: Openness
- 31/10 12:59 +1 Re: Openness
- 26/10 21:21 +1 Re: Openness
- 23/10 22:47 +1 Re: Openness
- 23/10 20:24 +1 Re: Openness
Latest posts
- 06/11 15:58 +1 Re: Openness
- 05/11 18:19 +1 Re: Openness
- 04/11 10:25 +1 Re: Continuous voting
- 01/11 17:53 +1 Re: Continuous voting
- 01/11 10:27 +1 Continuous voting
- 01/11 03:43 +1 Re: Openness
- 31/10 12:59 +1 Re: Openness
- 26/10 21:21 +1 Re: Openness
- 23/10 22:47 +1 Re: Openness
- 23/10 20:24 +1 Re: Openness
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Re: Openness
-
At 04:29 PM 10/22/2006, ketty wrote: >Well, 100% would be no more arbitrary if not less.. If choosing >between 100% and 50%, would you say one of them is more democratic? >Or would you see them as the same?
50% is not arbitrary. Any other number is minority rule. This is often overlooked, and people think that consensus systems are somehow more democratic. But if the status quo favors a minority, they can block changes unless the majority can make a decision.
Obtaining greater than 50% is desirable but if it becomes a fixed rule, it can be quite oppressive, I’ve seen it happen.
It’s really not 50% but that the Yes votes outnumber the No votes for a measure to pass. And then there are quorum requirements. In DP organizations quorum can be quite high; in non-DP organizations
- i.e., just about every one to date -high quorum requirements can be a severe problem, depending on the organization.So, again, technically, it is not majority rule, but the majority of those voting, which is almost always a minority of the total membership.
Roberts Rules provides that even the constitution of an organization can be amended at any time by an absolute majority of members. The two-thirds requirement which is what most people think is necessary is for amendment by a quorum at a meeting upon prior notice.
DP organizations could behave quite differently from what people expect. DP is not merely a voting method. It sets up a deliberative process that is maximally inclusive without becoming inefficient. It is far more important than what people who first encounter the concept think.
+1
-
+ 1
Hi Abd,
The need for a balance between consensus requirements and status quo in connection with majority voting is very clearly put. In terms of quorum and voting methods I would be curious to know your opinion regarding Magnus’s swedish AD party’s approach – continuous voting.
A brief overview can be found here:
http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Voting_MethodsBest regards,
Serge
+1
-
At 02:24 PM 10/23/2006, Serge wrote: >The need for a balance between consensus requirements and status quo in >connection with majority voting is very clearly put. In terms of quorum >and voting methods I would be curious to know your opinion regarding >Magnus’s swedish AD party’s approach – continuous voting. > >A brief overview can be found here: >http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Voting_Methods
I found that incomprehensible.
I prefer deliberative process. With deliberative process the question continually changes as it is amended. I think this has been overlooked.
The key to the DP revolution is that deliberative process works very well already when the group size is relatively small, say, well under 100. Twenty might be ideal, if they are twenty who are knowledgeable. DP makes it possible for 20 people to collectively represent maybe 99% of the members.
And if direct voting is allowed, the rest are not shut out, they can even participate in deliberation though their proxy — or any other proxy functioning at that level.
+1
-
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> At 02:24 PM 10/23/2006, Serge wrote: > >The need for a balance between consensus requirements and status quo in > >connection with majority voting is very clearly put. In terms of quorum > >and voting methods I would be curious to know your opinion regarding > >Magnus’s swedish AD party’s approach – continuous voting. > > > >A brief overview can be found here: > >http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Voting_Methods > > I found that incomprehensible. > > I prefer deliberative process. With deliberative process the question > continually changes as it is amended. I think this has been overlooked. > > The key to the DP revolution is that deliberative process works > very well already when the group size is relatively small, say, > well under 100. Twenty might be ideal, if they are twenty who are > knowledgeable. DP makes it possible for 20 people to collectively > represent maybe 99% of the members. > > And if direct voting is allowed, the rest are not shut out, they can > even participate in deliberation though their proxy — or any other > proxy functioning at that level.
-Please explain why you find it incomprehensible. Also with full DD, the question is changing, so it is not overloocked. In fact the continous voting process of AD takes this into account better than any other voting algortihm.
And why is it optimum to have exactly 20 people deciding everything? Why not 10 or 100? (AD have also possibility for delegates since we realize the need for time reasons and competence by the individual voter)
+1
-
At 06:59 AM 10/31/2006, MG wrote:
> > >A brief overview can be found here: > > >http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Voting_Methods > > > > I found that incomprehensible.
>-Please explain why you find it incomprehensible.
I can’t do that. I have a limited amount of time, and to explain why I found it incomprehensible, I’d have to remember it, which, since I found it incomprehensible, I don’t. My memory is increasingly poor, my doctors tell me it is normal at my age. Suffice it to say that when I was younger, I’d have been able to remember even what I didn’t understand. Now, I need the multiple connections that understanding brings.
All I can say is that the explanation did not lead me through how the process works. One of the errors that are made by people who have invented a system is that they assume knowledge on the part of the reader which may not be there.
In particular, when some characteristic of a system is mentioned in a manner that is devoid of the reason behind the characteristic, it can be difficult to remember, to keep in mind when reading the rest. So even if the reason later might become clear, it doesn’t.
>Also with full DD, the question is changing, so it is not overloocked.
How poll results are “continuously” updated for a changing question was, shall we say, unclear. Do voters have to vote continuously as well?
Traditional decision systems hold votes at key points. Members can be absent for much of what is going on, but when a vote is coming up, it gets their attention. Votes come up frequently as a question evolves under parliamentary procedure, but only the final vote is truly binding.
In formal parliamentary process, a question is not presented simply upon a motion and second. It takes a two-thirds majority, under Robert’s Rules, to end debate and discussion and proceed to a vote. (But it only takes a majority to table a motion, which means that the members don’t have to worry about it for a while, or to refer it to committee.) The process works extremely well, actually. It is entirely unclear what Continuous Voting is trying to accomplish, what problem it aims to fix or improvement it seeks to bring. Absent some explanation of this, it looks to me like it is dangerously complicating the process.
I’m not saying that it is doing this, but this is how it appears with the depth of explanation that was on that page.
>In fact the continous voting process of AD takes this into account >better than any other voting algortihm.
This is completely unclear to me, I have not even seen the beginnings of argument in this direction.
>And why is it optimum to have exactly 20 people deciding everything?
Well, it may not be. Where did 20 come from?
I have sometimes suggested 20 as an ideal size for deliberation, in a delegable proxy context. This is based on my observation of various size groups as they attempt to come to agreement or a decision. More than that, full deliberation becomes increasingly difficult. With several hundred, it can become practically impossible. This is why large bodies end up doing most of their work in committee…. And I may have mentioned that.
>Why not 10 or 100? (AD have also possibility for delegates since we >realize the need for time reasons and competence by the individual >voter)
Some writers on delegable proxy have suggested limiting the number of direct clients that a proxy can handle. This is related to the optimum group size because every proxy forms a kind of group, and may have, indeed, a meeting with clients (such as a mailing list). However, I am generally opposed. I consider that group size is up to the groups to establish. Groups that are too large can fission, and groups that are too small can merge with others.
FA/DP generally, we assume, allows direct voting, so it is not that we would have “20 people deciding everything.” They don’t decide anything on their own, unless all the members interested have given them that power. And this is like continuous voting, for proxy assignments can be changed at will, with practically immediate effect.
>
+1
-
>I can’t do that. I have a limited amount of time, and to explain why I found it incomprehensible, I’d have to remember it, which, since I found it incomprehensible, I don’t. My memory is increasingly poor, my doctors tell me it is normal at my age. Suffice it to say that when I was younger, I’d have been able to remember even what I didn’t understand. Now, I need the multiple connections that understanding brings.
All I can say is that the explanation did not lead me through how the process works. One of the errors that are made by people who have invented a system is that they assume knowledge on the part of the reader which may not be there.
-Please spend less time writing long answers and take 5 minutes to read our manifesto in whole to start with:
http://wse75376.web16.talkactive.net/ads%20websida/Party%20program.html I’ll be happy answer your questions after that.>How poll results are “continuously” updated for a changing question was, shall we say, unclear. Do voters have to vote continuously as well?
-Well, in a way if they don’t delegate. What I mean is that many times a proposal is not attracting enough voters to ever be over (reaching +1 or -1 and being approved of disapproved)
If the authour of the proposal still wants to have a change of any kind he will have to rewrite his proposal or split it up in more parts in order to find more interest in the question.
This leads to changing questions, raised opinion and/or evolution of better and better proposals until finally one is attracting so many voters that the isse is either approved or disapproved in a reasonble short time. And if the authour is not happy with a disapproval, he will write an even better proposal next time.>FA/DP generally, we assume, allows direct voting, so it is not that we would have “20 people deciding everything.” They don’t decide anything on their own, unless all the members interested have given them that power. And this is like continuous voting, for proxy assignments can be changed at will, with practically immediate effect.
-OK, cool by me.
—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
01/11/06 10:27
Continuous voting
If I can try to chime in about continuous voting…
It just means that a vote is open for a long time. Generally it also implies that you can vote as many times as you want, the last vote overrides the previous ones.
Continuous voting has one great consequence: it diminishes the need for complex voting procedures. Because participants see in real time how a vote evolve, and they can decide to change their vote accordingly, or not.
AD, from what I gathered, also encompass a way to “close” a vote. But it is complex :-(
Me personally I find that unnecessarily, at worst an irrelevant vote is just that, irrelevant, no need to close it.
echarp – http://leparlement.org/top-politics
+1
-
At 04:27 AM 11/1/2006, echarp wrote:
>If I can try to chime in about continuous voting… > >It just means that a vote is open for a long time. Generally it also >implies that you can vote as many times as you want, the last vote >overrides the previous ones.
Okay, then. A poll can — and should, for an internet meeting — be open for a “long time.” How long? That’s for the majority to determine, whether through rules or through direct decision, including a decision to suspend the rules. Some of these actions might properly require supermajority.
But, after a certain lapse of time when a question has been called
- that that process should exist, it should not be merely a matter that a majority has come to support a motion, for many may not vote until they know that debate is essentially over, good idea, eh? (it’s Robert’s Rules) -then a majority vote to do so should be able to close a vote.I have been assuming that FA/DP polls would indeed be open polls, with the present status of the vote open, including voter identities, particularly so that you can tell how your proxy voted, if it interests you. If you don’t like it, you can then simply vote yourself. And, if the problem is bad enough, go change your proxy assignment.
The idea is to actually attract as many people as possible to vote, whether directly or indirectly. Most will vote on most issues indirectly, by simply don’t nothing. If they have a proxy assigned.
A group may send a nagging email to members who have not voted and they do not have a vote cast by proxy, for whatever reason. The member can ignore the mail, and can even shut these notices off. But the default is on. A member who has a functional proxy structure to which he belongs should very rarely receive such a mail, and would presumably want to know if the structure fails.
+1
-
> >If I can try to chime in about continuous voting… > > > >It just means that a vote is open for a long time. Generally it also > >implies that you can vote as many times as you want, the last vote > >overrides the previous ones. > > Okay, then. A poll can — and should, for an internet meeting — be > open for a “long time.” How long? That’s for the majority to > determine, whether through rules or through direct decision, > including a decision to suspend the rules. Some of these actions > might properly require supermajority.
There is no need to close a poll.
One great consequence to that, citizen can change their mind!
> But, after a certain lapse of time when a question has been called
- > that that process should exist, it should not be merely a matter that > a majority has come to support a motion, for many may not vote until > they know that debate is essentially over, good idea, eh? (it’s > Robert’s Rules) -then a majority vote to do so should be able to > close a vote.Again, no need to close it. Whether the debate is mostly over or not is another matter. It could also reopen for whatever reason.
echarp – http://leparlement.org/irc
—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Lomax wrote:
> ketty wrote: > >Well, 100% would be no more arbitrary if not less.. If choosing > >between 100% and 50%, would you say one of them is more democratic? > >Or would you see them as the same?
>L: 50% is not arbitrary. Any other number is minority rule. This is > often overlooked, and people think that consensus systems are somehow > more democratic. But if the status quo favors a minority, they can > block changes unless the majority can make a decision. > Obtaining greater than 50% is desirable but if it becomes a fixed > rule, it can be quite oppressive, I’ve seen it happen.
-M: Yes. And with SD2-S, the number of voters needed for an issue to pass is variable and determined by DD principles.
>L: It’s really not 50% but that the Yes votes outnumber the No votes for > a measure to pass.
-M: Different issue. The first issue was: % of voters out of a population to qualify as ‘democracy’. You seem to be starting a new issue: Ratio of ‘yes’ to ‘no’ votes to render a decision.
>L:[…] So, again, technically, it is not majority rule, but the majority of > those voting, which is almost always a minority of the total membership.[…]
-M: Yes, another reason why DD is just a fantasy.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
Its all up to the question are you powerfull enough to enforce your political decision, better to say to stop those who are willing to make this not happen. Mere numbers do not help it too much.
ATB,
Gale
+1
-
