Identity
Filter
Visitors
(0) (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
- 03/07 16:44 +3 Re: What does TOP mean to you?
- 10/07 16:49 +2 Re: What does TOP mean to you? #02
- 24/06 07:01 +2 Re: What does TOP mean to you? #02
- 19/08 16:42 +1 Re: What does TOP mean to you? #02
- 02/08 03:34 +1 Re: What does TOP mean to you? #02
- 02/08 02:34 +1 Re: What does TOP mean to you? #02
- 31/07 22:30 +1 Re: What does TOP mean to you? #02
- 31/07 04:12 +1 Re: What does TOP mean to you? #02
- 29/07 00:11 +1 TOP meaning? Input field for SD2-Smartocracy.
- 28/07 22:12 +1 Re: What does TOP mean to you? #02
Latest posts
- 19/08 16:42 +1 Re: What does TOP mean to you? #02
- 02/08 03:34 +1 Re: What does TOP mean to you? #02
- 02/08 02:34 +1 Re: What does TOP mean to you? #02
- 31/07 22:30 +1 Re: What does TOP mean to you? #02
- 31/07 04:12 +1 Re: What does TOP mean to you? #02
- 29/07 00:11 +1 TOP meaning? Input field for SD2-Smartocracy.
- 28/07 22:12 +1 Re: What does TOP mean to you? #02
- 28/07 20:56 +1 Re: TOP meaning? Participatory Democracy?
- 28/07 20:28 +1 Re: What does TOP mean to you? #02
- 28/07 02:50 +1 Re: TOP mean to you? Participitory Democracy?
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Re: What can 4 of us actually do?
-
Summing up:
The goal is clear definition of TOP
We can start topic Erics proposed “what does TOP mean to you?”
ATB,
Gale
+1
-
01/07/06 17:21
What does TOP mean to you?
Important Notice:
Although this discussion is initiated by a group of 4 members, it is open to all. So all comments and contributions are welcome.
============
TOP is the acronym for Transparent, Open and Public in reference to the governance of the country or in the conduct of public business. What is open and public in governance will make it transparent as well.
From the above definition, TOP clearly does not apply to private exchanges on private matters among the public officials or on public matters among private individuals.
How about private exchanges on public matters by public officials? In other words, should there be a prohibition of public officials discussing public matters in private? Should all discussions on public matters be open and public?
There is an obvious need, especially in the early stages, for non-public discussions or consultations among colleagues working on a public issue, matter or project. Perhaps, once when the official papers are finalized and presented to the appropriate authority for consideration and eventual approval, the whole process should be open and public with sufficient media coverage including the internet. At this point of time, public participation should be welcome and encouraged wherever practical, especially online 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and with elected or appointed discussion leaders. Even at this juncture, should there be a prohibition of public officials discussing or consulting each other on public matters non-publicly?
Apart from the discussion process, the discussion minutes and other documents and records should be available online to anyone who wants access to them, especially those who are participating or interested in the discussions.
Are there any exceptions to the TOP Principles? Perhaps:
1 The Secrecy of the Vote;
2 National security and state secrets; and
3 Any other matter where the body or authority responsible consider it a necessity in the national interests not to be open and public.
For Points 2 and 3, there has to be an elected or appointed independent body to review the decisions or recommendations not to be open and public, and the decision of this independent body should be make public and published in the media and the internet.
In the context of true democracy, the exceptions will be subject to the final say of the citizens through the use of the Citizens’ Initiative or Referendum (I&R), if any citizen disagrees with the decision of the independent body.
Best Regards
Eric Lim
illegale <geoerdeaen@yahoo.com> wrote: Summing up:
The goal is clear definition of TOP
We can start topic Erics proposed “what does TOP mean to you?”
ATB,
Gale
+1
-
09/07/06 18:01
What does TOP mean to you? #02
Important Notice: Although this discussion is initiated by a group of 4 members, it is open to all. So all comments and contributions are welcome. ============ While we are still waiting for Markus and echarp to say what TOP means to them, let us start preparing a list of the elements or ‘aspects’ of TOP from the responses so far we have received that would be incorporated into our group definition of TOP so that we may be in a position to vote on each of them when the list is finalized. The ‘aspects’ or elements so far articulated are: A1 TOP is the acronym for Transparent, Open and Public in reference to the governance of the country or in the conduct of public business. What is open and public in governance will make it transparent as well. A2 TOP clearly does not apply to private exchanges on private matters among the public employees or on public matters among ordinary citizens. A3 All important decisions must be fully transparent. The whole process should be open and public with sufficient media coverage including the internet. At this point of time, public participation should be welcome and encouraged wherever practical, especially online 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and with elected or appointed discussion leaders. A4 There shall be no prohibition of public employees from having private discussion on any public matter. A5 Apart from the discussion process, the discussion minutes and other documents and records should be available online to anyone who wants access to them, especially those who are participating or interested in the discussions. ____________________________________________________ Exceptions to the TOP Principles: E1 The Secrecy of the Vote; E2 National security and state secrets; and E3 Any other matter where the body or authority responsible consider it a necessity in the national interests not to be open and public. E4 For Points 2 and 3, there has to be an elected or appointed independent body to review the decisions or recommendations not to be open and public, and the decision of this independent body should be make public and published in the media and the internet. E5 In the context of true democracy, the exceptions will be subject to the final say of the citizens through the use of the Citizens’ Initiative or Referendum (I&R), if any citizen disagrees with the decision of the independent body.
______________________________________________________ Exceptions to the TOP Principles shall not be applicable to the following: N1 The Vote (It shall not be secret). ____________________________________________________ Members and readers are free to propose amendments or additions to the above draft items for voting. The vote shall only be called after the list of ‘aspects’ or elements of TOP are finalized. Best Regards Eric Lim
+1
-
> While we are still waiting for Markus and echarp to say what TOP means to them, let us start preparing a list of the elements or ‘aspects’ of TOP from the responses so far we have received that would be incorporated into our group definition of TOP so that we may be in a position to vote on each of them when the list is finalized. > > The ‘aspects’ or elements so far articulated are: > > A1 TOP is the acronym for Transparent, Open and Public in reference to the governance of the country or in the conduct of public business. What is open and public in governance will make it transparent as well.
Running issues by example is the best way to promote it. So, if we want to be powerfull citizens, we have to show governance how can it be done. That is the reason I look into promotion of new mechanism of generation of the power that can lead process before goverment in this very time also.
> A2 TOP clearly does not apply to private exchanges on private matters among the public employees or on public matters among ordinary citizens.
OK. This is a matter of organisations. Do they want to be TOP or not. Every single one of course. As long as I believe that democracy is in itc core idea of global citizan political engagement and as long as we take part of this big body by being a legitimated part of the process, it is aplied to every singe one who is participating in politics of any kind.
> A3 All important decisions must be fully transparent. The whole process should be open and public with sufficient media coverage including the internet. At this point of time, public participation should be welcome and encouraged wherever practical, especially online 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and with elected or appointed discussion leaders.
Why only important? This can only put some confusion into what is important and what is not important? So, why not all?
> A4 There shall be no prohibition of public employees from having private discussion on any public matter.
OK.
> A5 Apart from the discussion process, the discussion minutes and other documents and records should be available online to anyone who wants access to them, especially those who are participating or interested in the discussions.
OK.
ATB,
Gale> Best Regards > Eric Lim
+2
-
Dear group members
On Monday 10 July 2006 16:49, illegale wrote:
> Running issues by example is the best way to promote it. So, if we want > to be powerfull citizens, we have to show governance how can it be > done. That is the reason I look into promotion of new mechanism of > generation of the power that can lead process before goverment in this > very time also. Hehe, this elaboration associated me to a crazy idea. Lets form our own virtual country and try to create a TOP government by example ;-)
> Why only important? This can only put some confusion into what is > important and what is not important? So, why not all? >
+1 I think all decisions on public matter should be fully transparent.
Best regards
— Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
e-mail: markus.schatten@foi.hr
http://www.tiaktiv.hr
+2
-
On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 07:01:01AM +0200, Markus Schatten wrote:
> Hehe, this elaboration associated me to a crazy idea. Lets form our own > virtual country and try to create a TOP government by example ;-)
+1 :-)
> > Why only important? This can only put some confusion into what is > > important and what is not important? So, why not all? > > +1 I think all decisions on public matter should be fully transparent.
Let’s try to delineate what is public and what is not.
I have an idea about it, practical and corresponding to what is mostly already done => “all government recorded information should be made public. All democratic processes should be made so transparent that they can be replicated in real time”
No limit but for a time buffer which could be set at the instigation of a group of representatives (I dislike that idea, and am still looking for another mechanism).
echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
Dear Emmanuel
On Tuesday 11 July 2006 12:49, echarp wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 07:01:01AM +0200, Markus Schatten wrote: > > Hehe, this elaboration associated me to a crazy idea. Lets form our own > > virtual country and try to create a TOP government by example ;-) > > +1 :-) >
;-) What do the others think about this idea? TOP Union? ;-)
> > > Why only important? This can only put some confusion into what is > > > important and what is not important? So, why not all? > > > > +1 I think all decisions on public matter should be fully transparent. > > Let’s try to delineate what is public and what is not. > > I have an idea about it, practical and corresponding to what is mostly > already done => > “all government recorded information should be made public. All > democratic processes should be made so transparent that they can be > replicated in real time” > > No limit but for a time buffer which could be set at the instigation of > a group of representatives (I dislike that idea, and am still looking > for another mechanism).
Hmmm… when all professional communication (non-private) is done over a public information system than I think most of TOP principles are fulfilled. If you take todays media possibilities than everything could be easily accessable and on-line in real-time, or did I understand you wrong?
Best regards
— Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
e-mail: markus.schatten@foi.hr
http://www.tiaktiv.hr
+1
-
“All democratic processes should be made so transparent that they can be replicated in real time”
-How can all be public when there are representatives involved? Shall all telephone or live conversations be written out and published on the internet?
No-one would accept that as a rep.
The only solution to this is DD.
+1
-
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 07:12:27PM -0700, MG wrote:
> > All democratic processes should be made so transparent that they can > > be replicated in real time > > -How can all be public when there are representatives involved? > Shall all telephone or live conversations be written out and published > on the internet?
Just consider that the representatives are an intermediary step at the level of voters.
They don’t have to have any sort of special status, but for the fact that they represent more than their own voice.
> The only solution to this is DD.
In my opinion delegates are somehow representatives yes, yet they don’t control that many/much things.
To me what is important is that citizen can directly participate. Yet is it practical to consider that everybody should participate directly on everything? Particularly if there is no limit on the quantity of things managed democratically?
echarp
+1
-
“Just consider that the representatives are an intermediary step at the
level of voters.
They don’t have to have any sort of special status, but for the fact that they represent more than their own voice. "
-They have a very special status! They are the ones to put forward the proposals in a RD. So when they decide on strategy to get their hiden agendas fulfilled, thay have to be wired actually if we’r talking TOP-principles.
“In my opinion delegates are somehow representatives yes, yet they don’t
control that many/much things.”-In AD they control as much as their mandate from the voters give them. But they can be replaced or sacked in one day by an individual citizen.
“To me what is important is that citizen can directly participate. Yet
is it practical to consider that everybody should participate directly
on everything? Particularly if there is no limit on the quantity of things managed democratically? "-AD has means to both minimize the numbers of issues to read (the continous vote) and if still too many, to delegate one or all issues/areas for now until further change or for a specific time period.
+1
-
MG wrote:
> "Just consider that the representatives are an intermediary step at the > level of voters. They don’t have to have any sort of special status, but for the fact > that they represent more than their own voice. "[ec]
> -mG:They have a very special status! They are the ones to put forward the proposals in a RD. So when they decide on strategy to get their hiden agendas fulfilled, thay have to be wired actually if we’r talking TOP-principles.
-M: Yes, and its this special status which makes them elite by the definition that has been used. Based on how I understand the math of Parlement/EC-D, it is conceivable that a delegate could get dictatorial power over an issue with 51% of the vote delegated to that person. By contrast, SD2 would tend to spread the vote among boards of three or five.
> “In my opinion delegates are somehow representatives yes, yet they don’t control that many/much things.” [ec]
>mG: -In AD they control as much as their mandate from the voters give them.
-M: Which could lead to too much concentration of power. This is why I label boards of five in SD2 as ‘normal mode’ to discourage concentrations of power to smaller groups.
>mG: But they can be replaced or sacked in one day by an individual citizen.
-M: OK. We all seem to want PD and speedy replacements of those in power positions.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
“>mG: -In AD they control as much as their mandate from the voters give them.
-M: Which could lead to too much concentration of power. This is why I label boards of five in SD2 as ‘normal mode’ to discourage concentrations of power to smaller groups. "
-You have a point here. In Ad we actually don’t give this problem so much thought yet.
But it is possible to solve by maximising the percentage of the votes for one delegate o 20% or so. In AD case delegation also can be made to an organization which makes things a little more complicated. If this organization is a political party, things might be as today. The important difference is the instant drawback of the delegation…which stresses the best from all delegates apart from today.
And the fact that a delegation can be only for socfic issues, such as energy or environment, or for all issues for a certain time. In this way AD wan’t to give the citizens all possible levels of DD down to pure RD.“-M: OK. We all seem to want PD and speedy replacements of those in power positions. "
-A key issue!
+1
-
MG wrote:
> ">mG: -In AD they control as much as their mandate from the voters give > them. > > -M: Which could lead to too much concentration of power. This is why I > label boards of five in SD2 as ‘normal mode’ to discourage > concentrations of power to smaller groups. "
> -You have a point here. In Ad we actually don’t give this problem so > much thought yet. But it is possible to solve by maximising the percentage of the votes for one delegate o 20% or so.
-M: There could be a vote on the percentage limit. SD2-Smartocracy makes the PageRank of the decision decisive, and there is a vote on the number of executive committee members – 1, 3, or 5, and there is no rule against these executives also being among the highest legislators – very parliamentary.
>mG: In AD case delegation also can be made to an organization which makes things a little more complicated. If this organization is a political party, things might be as today. The important difference is the instant drawback of the delegation…which stresses the best from all delegates apart from today. And the fact that a delegation can be only for socfic issues, such as energy or environment, or for all issues for a certain time. In this way AD wan’t[wants] to give the citizens all possible levels of DD down to pure RD.
-M: By contrast SD2-Smartocracy is always extreme RD, because DD discourages PD by spreading peoples’ power to thinly. With SD2-S, particants are rewarded with rank – this rewards efforts with decisiveness.
> "-M: OK. We all seem to want PD and speedy replacements of those in power positions. "
>mG: -A key issue!
-M: PD or replacements? We seem to be in agreement on both, so the only issue seems to be how we communicate our opinions.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
“> "-M: OK. We all seem to want PD and speedy replacements of those in power positions. " >mG: -A key issue!
-M: PD or replacements? We seem to be in agreement on both, so the only
issue seems to be how we communicate our opinions. "
Both!
I really think that we could reach common agreement if you only stopped the L-words…
+1
-
MG wrote:
> "> "-M: OK. We all seem to want PD and speedy replacements of those in power positions. " > >mG: -A key issue!
> -M: PD or replacements? We seem to be in agreement on both, so the only issue seems to be how we communicate our opinions. "
>mG: Both! I really think that we could reach common agreement…
-M: You do have delegates – this is RD in practice. Political structures would be built around them.
Can delegates delegate to other delegates as with Parlement/EC-D?
If the depth of this delegation is unlimited, you will need a reiterative centrality algorithm like PageRank.
So far, Emmanuel has said that the way he would avoid having to use PageRank was to forbid delegates from voting for each other. How? Chronological priviliging? What about loops? Emmanuel keeps DODGING and would rather talk about the World Cup than mathematics or his constant contradictions. And why do users of his delegable proxy constraints have:
- only one delegate?
- a choice of delegate OR a position?
By contrast, SD2-Smartocracy offers:
- a trustee or
- trustees and/or
- a delegate or
- delegates and/or
- issue choice and/or
- decision thresholds
This gives maximum choice to the voter without arbitrariness. This identifies the expert opinion for each decision. This also identifies a body of generalists to act as political organizers and high administrators.
>mG:…if you only stopped the L-words…
-M: Emmanullemmings – they get in the way of participatory democracy. Now an “E”-word.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
-
-
-
-
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 05:46:15PM -0700, MG wrote:
> > Just consider that the representatives are an intermediary step at > > the level of voters. > > > > They don’t have to have any sort of special status, but for the fact > > that they represent more than their own voice. > > They have a very special status! > They are the ones to put forward the proposals in a RD.
Where does it say that?
> So when they decide on strategy to get their hiden agendas fulfilled, > thay have to be wired actually if we’r talking TOP-principles.
Do you want to wire all voters? What if they discuss and influence each others? What of a voter’s party or syndicate?
> > In my opinion delegates are somehow representatives yes, yet they > > don’t control that many/much things. > > In AD they control as much as their mandate from the voters give them. > But they can be replaced or sacked in one day by an individual citizen.
No need for any delay, their power change just as voters set or remove their delegations :)
> > To me what is important is that citizen can directly participate. > > Yet is it practical to consider that everybody should participate > > directly on everything? Particularly if there is no limit on the > > quantity of things managed democratically? " > > AD has means to both minimize the numbers of issues to read (the > continous vote) and if still too many, to delegate one or all > issues/areas for now until further change or for a specific time > period.
There can be a HUGE number of active issues at any one time. Consider that all our current laws are each an issue onto which a citizen can vote!
And that amount can increase by factors of 10, 100, 10^10, no limit!!! All laws, rules, nominations, communications, news, local and international, could be issues. All active and available for vote and discussions.
The delegation you are speaking about, is of what kind?
echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
29/07/06 00:11
TOP meaning? Input field for SD2-Smartocracy.
echarp wrote: […] > > In AD they control as much as their mandate from the voters give them. > > But they can be replaced or sacked in one day by an individual citizen.
>ec: No need for any delay, their power change just as voters set or remove their delegations :)
-M: Maybe that is what Karl meant. This is also how SD2-Smartocracy works.
> > > To me what is important is that citizen can directly participate. > > > Yet is it practical to consider that everybody should participate > > > directly on everything? Particularly if there is no limit on the > > > quantity of things managed democratically? "
> > AD has means to both minimize the numbers of issues to read (the > > continous vote) and if still too many, to delegate one or all > > issues/areas for now until further change or for a specific time > > period.
>ec: There can be a HUGE number of active issues at any one time. Consider that all our current laws are each an issue onto which a citizen can vote! And that amount can increase by factors of 10, 100, 10^10, no limit!!! All laws, rules, nominations, communications, news, local and international, could be issues. All active and available for vote and discussions. The delegation you are speaking about, is of what kind?
-M: (You are asking Karl this question, but I will pretend that you are inquiring into SD2-Smartocracy.)
I imagine that an issue gets voted on when the following conditions are met:
- It has the largest number of current votes(compared with competing issues).
- It meets the required voting volume(example: 20% of qualified voters)
- votes are distributed toward decisive positions(not ‘neutral’ or ‘deliberate’)
So my input field could be like this: ——————————————————————————————————————
Name ___________________________]
Manditory representitives: [(default), (default)]
Optional additional representitives: _______________________] ____________________________________________________]
Issue X Y Z
Vote:
Yes [ ] No [ ] Deliberate [ ]Optional delegate(s) (will default to representitives if none are selected): ________________________________________]
Decision threshold 60%… (range 50%+1 – 70%, default 60%)
…of a required 20%5 of qualified voters (range (0% – 40%)5, default 20%+5)
—————————————————————————
+1
-
29/07/06 00:11
-
-
27/07/06 02:31
TOP mean to you? Participitory Democracy?
echarp wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 07:12:27PM -0700, MG wrote: > > > All democratic processes should be made so transparent that they can > > > be replicated in real time
> >mG: -How can all be public when there are representatives involved? Shall all telephone or live conversations be written out and published on the internet?
>ec: Just consider that the representatives are an intermediary step at the level of voters. They don’t have to have any sort of special status, but for the fact that they represent more than their own voice.
-M: That is special status. What other special status is there?
> >mG: The only solution to this is DD.
>ec: In my opinion delegates are somehow representatives yes, yet they don’t control that many/much things. To me what is important is that citizen can directly participate.
-M: It seems that we have:
- direct democracy (L-DD)
- representitve democracy -a. popular RD (L-RD) -b. accumulative/augmented RD (SD2, and maybe Parlement/EC-D)
- participatory democracy (PD) (This seems to be the common ground of all of us – our mutually intended GOAL. AD seems to attempt this.)
>ec: Yet is it practical to consider that everybody should participate directly on everything? Particularly if there is no limit on the quantity of things managed democratically? echarp
-M: People can use PD to organize their:
- businesses
- volunteer activities
- political endevors
Isn’t it conceivable that a society could have 90% of the people organized with PD in atleast one of these categories? Maybe 70% organized with two of these categories?
50% with all three?shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
09/07/06 18:01
-
01/07/06 17:21