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)
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Re: Secret votes
-
secrecy is fatal to deliberation, in my opinion.
further, the problem with “continuous voting,” that I see, is that it encourages people to vote before the deliberative process has proceeded.
What has not been considered is that it is a fair amount of trouble to vote. It is also work to follow debate. Someone who has already voted is quite likely to drop the topic.
So the opportunity to convince such a person through cogent debate or bargaining is lost.
Rather, don’t reinvent the wheel. Standard democratic process (such as Robert’s Rules) works quite well; voting happens often under RR, but most votes are procedural, and don’t fix an outcome. It is only at the end of the deliberative process that a question is finally presented, and most people could simply wait for that point.
It is entirely possible to run polls that are non-binding as part of the process. But I would rather rely on the proxy system to approximate general opinion after deliberation, because even if the proxy does not represent present public opinion, he or she is in a prime position to influence such opinion. So the proxy will, in a healthy system, tell you what the public would say if a vote were held immediately, but after the proxy has the opportunity to explain the situation to his or her clients. Approximately.
In democratic process, proposals are constantly shifting, being amended, studied, tabled, picked up from the table, referred to committee for study and revision, etc. How do you fit this with “continuous voting?”
How do you amend a proposal that people have already voted for or against? Obviously, you present a new one. So votes multiply and the whole thing becomes too tedious for people.
In a standard system, you can be asleep most of the time, you will be awakened when someone rises and says “I call the question” If you are ready to vote, you vote for the call. If not, you don’t, you abstain or you vote against it. Under Robert’s Rules, it takes a two-thirds vote to stop debate and proceed to a vote.
Hence the filibuster, by the way. Hence the outrage when a majority tries to effectively outlaw it. Outlawing it is striking at a key protection that stops an ill-considered majority from steamrollering a minority.
—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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
-
>secrecy is fatal to deliberation, in my opinion.
-Yes but you agree on that it might be necessary to use for the individual voter. But why do you envison non-TOP FA:s besides the open ones?
>further, the problem with “continuous voting,” that I see, is that it encourages people to vote before the deliberative process has proceeded.
What has not been considered is that it is a fair amount of trouble to vote. It is also work to follow debate. Someone who has already voted is quite likely to drop the topic.
So the opportunity to convince such a person through cogent debate or bargaining is lost…..-Please adress this issue in a proper string where I will respond, this one is about secret votes. (I have the same problem myself, leaving the subject every now and then…)
—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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
-
