Identity
Filter
Visitors
(1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (16) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Highest posts
Latest posts
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Re: Parlement Version 0.9
-
ec: And you have given no arguments on why “people” should be removed from politics.
Agreed. Nor have you, yet you want to limit people’s choice, such as not giving the individual voter the choice to have both DD and RD inputs simultaneously.
ec: I think I have, and in fact you did acknowledge it. Well, you said yes then no (how coherent of you). Direct participation is more potent, more legitimate, than indirect one.
-M: So your position is:- “people” should be removed from politics because direct participation is more potent, more legitimate, than indirect one? (Read the words above carefully.)
Are you sure that I am the incoherent one?
Not only that, but at the beginnings of this group you were repeating over and over, an analysis based on wrong information (the French “terror” being a Direct Democratic thing…). I presented other examples too.
ec: Oh, like a study which actually *destroys Representative Democracy and has no relationship with DD?
-M: What is that?
ec: What examples against DD do you really have? I have plenty against RD.
-M: Your V-V-V is RD. So the debate isn’t RD vs DD. (Unless you want to renounce V-V-V.) I just want to know why the V-V-V voter has the choice of RD or DD, instead of RD and/or DD. Again, why?
Saying and repeating that people are lemmings is not an argument.
But it is a founding fact that justifies republicanism.
ec: Oh, now it is a fact? By what miracle, your saying? You think anybody will consider you an authority on that? I don’t. And I claim that nobody will!!!
-M: I am the authority because my points win as evidenced by the dodge-monkeyism.
With an innately RD system like SD2-S, there is the guarantee of scalability. The two main differences between V-V-V and SD2-S: 1. V-V-V’s has a single proxy vs SD2-S multiple proxies, 2. V-V-V has a manditory DD overide of RD, by contrast SD2-S gives the voter RD and/or DD, this makes a more interconnected trust network. No one has yet justified this manditory override from a philosophical nor a technical perspective. ec: Lomax has explained it to you in clear words: it is not mandatory, it is each participant’s choice. M: Meaning that if the voter chooses DD, this manditorilly overrides RD. Or if the voter chooses RD, this manditorilly overrides DD. Again, for the thousandth time: WHY?
ec: Because in a simple system, unlike what you have in mind, we care about decisions. A participant can directly vote if he so choose. His choice.
-M: This means that the RD voter now isn’t providing DD data, and the DD voter isn’t providing RD data. :-(
The DD voter isn’t giving data about his administrators and/or legislators of choice.
Why this fuck’n limitation? Why, why, fuck’n why?ec: No invention like multi proxy, generalist, specialist, default proxy, deliberation threshold (your excuse of a direct participation),...
-M: Everyone participates. Its only the decisiveness of this participation that is sometimes filtered.
ec:...director, rank. In fact, your byzantine system is complex by design.
-M: All systems are complex by the time they reach administration. Your simpler V-V-V would require more complexity outside of the V-V-V program than would SD2-S.
My idea with SD2-S is to minimize overall complexity.ec: You want it to be difficult and remote. Not only is your online personality disagreeable, but your design is purposefully inelegant!
-M: It is purposefully reasonable to minimize outside complexity.
By contrast, with SD2-S, the voter can have both RD and DD inputs - infact, this is prefered.
ec: And they can fill a ten element form with inputs he won’t understand and care about.
-M: Maybe so, but atleast SD2-S would get more data from him than would V-V-V. This data then gets filtered to yield expert decisions.
ec: It’s simple, there are decisions to be taken and we are designing a democratic decision making system. Who is most legitimate to take those decisions? Well well well, the demo of course.
-M: Agreed.
-M: Presumptuous. This assumes that the choice is direct vs. indirect participation.ec: And what will be more legitimate, a direct or an indirect participation? Direct of course.
Where the fuck did you get this?
The real choices are:- direct and indirect participation vs.
- direct and indirect-participation-arbitrarily-filtered-to-one-markov chain vs.
- direct-participation-arbitrarily-filtered-to-one-markov chain
ec: You’ll probably invent “facts” against Direct Democracy. Any one we can verify and which won’t be a misinterpretation due to your lack of reading skills? Anything but baseless assertions?
-M: I have better descriptions.
- Electoral lists
With SD2-S, all voters would be on this list.
This means that you do not understand what is the point of electoral lists. In one word: legitimacy.
Since SD2-S is a more participatory system than competing systems, everyone is a representitive candidate. This is legitimate because it encourages participation.
ec: Your direct participation is limited to the deliberation threshold, this is a pathetic excuse of DD.
-M: So is your RD V-V-V. You aren’t making a comparison.
ec: To say “more participatory” while proposing such a byzantine and remote system designed so that the “common people” won’t directly take decisions is a flagrant incoherence. Stupid.
-M: Its more particapatory because there would be more reps, and people would be encouraged to organize with those of similar ranks and interest domains.
ec: Or will you dare to claim that indirect participation is more participatory than direct one???
-M: Yes, my way it is.
ec: A decision making system like democracy is about decisions. You want to remove people from them,...
-M: Emmanuel, I suspect that you understand PageRank. The specialist decisions are accumulative,
meaning that people’s voting power is preserved as it cascades up the Markov chains.
People’s votes are not lost as with non-Markov algorithms. I think that you understand this.ec:...to concentrate on a few chosen directors,...
-M: That is SD2, a generalist system. SD2-S is a specialist system that uses PageRank instead of counting the votes of general directors.
ec: this is contrary to the very purpose of democracy: rule of the demo. Your suspicions, despites and insults toward the common people make you an enemy of democracy.
-M: Lemmings are the enemy of democracy as evidenced by the Bushmonkey.
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
