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
- 02/06 18:00 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 02/06 01:01 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 29/05 16:59 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 29/05 16:25 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 29/05 14:23 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 29/05 13:09 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 29/05 13:04 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 24/05 20:10 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 24/05 19:10 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 24/05 11:33 +1 Re: Register of Electors
Latest posts
- 02/06 18:00 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 02/06 01:01 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 29/05 16:59 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 29/05 16:25 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 29/05 14:23 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 29/05 13:09 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 29/05 13:04 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 24/05 20:10 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 24/05 19:10 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 24/05 11:33 +1 Re: Register of Electors
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Re: Register of Electors
-
Yes, we do need to list all people that will be counted.
I have a proposition, technical one.
Anybody can propose or modify an electoral list. Just send a mail whose subject is:
Electoral list: name_of_electoral_listIn the body list all people involved, using their name and emails as presented in all our emails. For example:
- illegale <geoerdeaen@yahoo.com>
- MG <magnusgus@gmail.com>
- echarp <emmanuel.charpentier@free.fr>
- lpc1998 <lpc1998@lpc1998.com>
It’s transparent and straight forward, and can be used in our current context or in a more complex tool (some evolutions would be required in order to manage all that securely).
This plus the possibility to vote using -1/0/+1 mails, we would have something very usable already.
echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
-But what is wrong with the ones currently members of this group? It is know to everybody and all we need is to make a simple cosntitution stating under which circumstances a new member can enter and an unwabted one has to leave.
Or?
Am I missing something here?
+1
-
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 01:42:55PM -0000, MG wrote:
> But what is wrong with the ones currently members of this group? > It is know to everybody and all we need is to make a simple > cosntitution stating under which circumstances a new member can enter > and an unwabted one has to leave.
In the current group there are people which are not necessarily willing to directly participate, and there might even be double inscriptions! (I have two subscriptions for example)
Well, I’m nonetheless fine with the general group members, but then what of the majority? Will we manage using a simple relative majority instead of an absolute one? If so, what if there are 3 votes for and 1 against in a group of 20? Does it carry as much weight as a vote of 11 for and 9 against?
We could of course always and everywhere use the 3 variables:
- number of votes for (+1)
- number of votes against (-1)
- total number of people
Which can become 2 variables:
- percentage of votes for
- percentage of votes against
I’ve given some thought about such a thing, and we could simplify it further:
result = pro% – con%
It’s a simple percentage that takes care of all variables, but results in a strange “consensus making” process rather than the traditional majority decision, why?
Because a 1% result can involve
- +50.5% and -49.5%
- +2% and -1%.
While a 50% result can be
- +75% and -25%
- +51% and -1%
The 50% result would be considered more important than the 1% one. To me it’s an advantage, but I don’t know it it could be considered acceptable…
We could then manage everything as a matter of threshold…
echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
Since we will try to take some decisions on order to move forward, it is not so important if everyone are voting in every issue. According to the visions of AD we are aware of that not all will care or vote in all issues.
There is nothing wrong with that. Even if only 10% take a vote about somethnig and the rest remain passive it is perfectly alright as long as everything is made tranparent in order to let anyone in if neccessary.When it comes to larger groups also poll results will be important but for now only the possibility to take decisions and to come forward is important.
One parameter in order to not have an “internet-day to day”-democracy is to use the time factor to give people the time to reflect and to argue pro and con in an open debate.
As you know the AD-system will handle it even better since time for the votes will be dependant on how quick the accumulated support will grow over time…
So there you have it, small interest and few voters, slow decisionmaking. Large interest, much debate shift in majorities, also slow decisionmaking. Large interest, no shifts, quicker decisionmaking. In a case of very few in a small group, there might be need for a fixed voting time in order to come forward at a reasonable pace. In AD today, we have a fixed time for one 4 weeks.
We could start with that and if voter numbers grow, switch to another time or to the AD-system manually.What do you say?
+1
-
If I understand AD correctly, it relies on acceleration to determine if issues are approved or not. Am I right?
By the way and if I remember correctly, voters can change their mind.
Is there not the possibility that a quick decision be taken very fast yet realization that it was not so good sets slowly in, and it gets verrrrry difficult to correct because support for corrections gather over a much longer time span?
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 03:45:10PM -0000, MG wrote:
> Since we will try to take some decisions on order to move forward, it > is not so important if everyone are voting in every issue. > According to the visions of AD we are aware of that not all will care > or vote in all issues. > There is nothing wrong with that. Even if only 10% take a vote about > somethnig and the rest remain passive it is perfectly alright as long > as everything is made tranparent in order to let anyone in if > neccessary.
This should work all right in a small group and/or a limited number of issues. What of millions of issues and citizen?
> When it comes to larger groups also poll results will be important but > for now only the possibility to take decisions and to come forward is > important.
True.
> One parameter in order to not have an “internet-day to day”-democracy > is to use the time factor to give people the time to reflect and to > argue pro and con in an open debate.
Personally I consider that one advantage of internet is that we do not intrinsically need to take time into account. Issues can be voted upon at any time.
… Unless outside conditions set the agenda of course.
> As you know the AD-system will handle it even better since time for the > votes will be dependant on how quick the accumulated support will grow > over time… > So there you have it, small interest and few voters, slow > decisionmaking. Large interest, much debate shift in majorities, also > slow decisionmaking. Large interest, no shifts, quicker decisionmaking.
Isn’t that also true if we don’t use acceleration? What if we were to use a relative majority? For example let’s say that all issues accepted by 40% more people than those refusing it are automatically considered approved?
What if that limit was set at 10%?
A relatively small group of voters could then approve issues very rapidly. Of course if other groups “wake up”, then they can also vote and possibly change their status. No time limit (except for outside conditions), all the time an issue is valid it can gather votes, be on or off.
echarp – http://leparlement.org/top-politics
+1
-
>Is there not the possibility that a quick decision be taken very fast yet realization that it was not so good sets slowly in, and it gets verrrrry difficult to correct because support for corrections gather over a much longer time span?
-No, the corrections will take as much time as the first wave. And once there is a strong force for a correction, the pace will accelerate in that direction. The issue is not settled before there is at least an accumulated support for either side.
This puts the finger on to write good and well articulated proposals that not are unclear and can be misinterpreted in the firts case, if you are after effective and quick decisions.
Very much the opposite of what we have seen in most referendas.>This should work all right in a small group and/or a limited number of issues. What of millions of issues and citizen?
-AD envisons that the sorting capabilities for, level of support, area of interest, origin of proposals etc. will help a lot to the citizerns to only engage in important stuff, close enough to be decided upon in a near future.
The rest can wait (for ever, if badly written or totally wrong).>Personally I consider that one advantage of internet is that we do not intrinsically need to take time into account. Issues can be voted upon at any time.
… Unless outside conditions set the agenda of course.
-Well in a small group maybe, but for large majorities there can be populistic moves and that’s why the AD-system was invented. Time is very often the enemy of sanity. Very few bad decisions are taken with good amount of time involved.
And when you look at the history, very few would suffer from being voted upon for say 6 months or more.
The rest should ultimately be decided by elected administrators like the chief of police etc.>A relatively small group of voters could then approve issues very rapidly. Of course if other groups “wake up”, then they can also vote and possibly change their status. No time limit (except for outside conditions), all the time an issue is valid it can gather votes, be on or off.
-But then there will be a limit. If we set the limit for approval to 40% the only limit would be to reach this.
And if there shows to be an interest of more than 40% in a particular issue, how are these extra people getting there influence once 40% is reached?
And on the other side, maybe an issue is important enough to be settled after 6 months with small pace of support. This can still be decided upon even if there are fever than 40%. With a fixed level, some less relevant issues anyway can be handled.
Basicly: With AD, this is handled more advanced since the level of interest only will affect the time until a proposal is over. For now I would be happy to accept a fixed short time, 1 month for instance.
Once we are over 10 active voters we could switch to the AD-version where level of interest will rule.
It’s all about voting about the things important and not on small issues without relevance to the society.
Those issues should instead be handled by the individuals and not by the group/community/region/state.
+1
-
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 09:07:29AM -0000, MG wrote:
> > Is there not the possibility that a quick decision be taken very > > fast yet realization that it was not so good sets slowly in, and it > > gets verrrrry difficult to correct because support for corrections > > gather over a much longer time span? > > -No, the corrections will take as much time as the first wave. And once > there is a strong force for a correction, the pace will accelerate in > that direction. The issue is not settled before there is at least an > accumulated support for either side.
I don’t get it then. Is it a matter of acceleration of support or not? If a proposal is accepted in a short time frame, can corrections, whose support was to accumulate over a much longer time span, change the original issue?
By the way, do you expect that issues get “closed” after a while, or are they still and always “on”?
> -AD envisons that the sorting capabilities for, level of support, area > of interest, origin of proposals etc. will help a lot to the citizerns > to only engage in important stuff, close enough to be decided upon in > a near future. > The rest can wait (for ever, if badly written or totally wrong).
Sorry, but this is not enough to me.
What of the small issues a village has to manage?
What of the large and numerous issues a nation has to manage?
> > Personally I consider that one advantage of internet is that we do > > not intrinsically need to take time into account. Issues can be > > voted upon at any time. > > > > … Unless outside conditions set the agenda of course. > > -Well in a small group maybe, but for large majorities there can be > populistic moves and that’s why the AD-system was invented.
I think that no system can provide against the deficiencies of its participants. We can design tools, but we can not decide how they will be used.
> Time is very often the enemy of sanity. Very few bad decisions are > taken with good amount of time involved. > And when you look at the history, very few would suffer from being > voted upon for say 6 months or more.
Sorry, but I can point toward many many wars, the onset of insanity, that accumulated support of their population over many years.
echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
>> -No, the corrections will take as much time as the first wave. And once > there is a strong force for a correction, the pace will accelerate in > that direction. The issue is not settled before there is at least an > accumulated support for either side.
>I don’t get it then. Is it a matter of acceleration of support or not? If a proposal is accepted in a short time frame, can corrections, whose
support was to accumulate over a much longer time span, change the original issue?
-No proposal is accepted until the accumulated support has reached the number of 1.0.
Before that the majority can swing as many times it want.>By the way, do you expect that issues get “closed” after a while, or are they still and always “on”?
-They can live for ever or until they are accepted or rejected by reaching +1 or -1.
> -AD envisons that the sorting capabilities for, level of support, area > of interest, origin of proposals etc. will help a lot to the citizerns > to only engage in important stuff, close enough to be decided upon in > a near future. > The rest can wait (for ever, if badly written or totally wrong).
>Sorry, but this is not enough to me. What of the small issues a village has to manage? -This is to be handled by self determination. Right decisions on the right level.
The small village has to decide to raise opinion from neighbor villages or local region and, as today, try to raise opinion state-wide if needed. Has nothing to do with AD, DD or RD.>What of the large and numerous issues a nation has to manage?
-I envison that the real important onces are not so many. And those shall be easy to filter in all sorts of ways. As I said, most important would be after level of acccumulated support, how close to an acceptance or rejection is a proposal.
Only those close to end will have to be dealt with for the individual voter.
And only these will be the important ones with enoug support to being worty a vote.> > Personally I consider that one advantage of internet is that we do > > not intrinsically need to take time into account. Issues can be > > voted upon at any time.
> > … Unless outside conditions set the agenda of course.
> -Well in a small group maybe, but for large majorities there can be > populistic moves and that’s why the AD-system was invented.
>I think that no system can provide against the deficiencies of its participants. We can design tools, but we can not decide how they will be used.
-The power should be in the hands of the voters. The tools should be good enough.
There has to be a constitution.> Time is very often the enemy of sanity. Very few bad decisions are > taken with good amount of time involved. > And when you look at the history, very few would suffer from being > voted upon for say 6 months or more.
>Sorry, but I can point toward many many wars, the onset of insanity, that accumulated support of their population over many years.
-No, this accumulated insanity was concentrated to a few. If not, the insanity was used by a few by populistic manors. With more democracy, too many would have been involved to allow for these personal mistakes by these corrupted “leaders”. Show me one example that I’m wrong.
+1
-
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 05:10:22PM -0000, MG wrote:
> > Sorry, but I can point toward many many wars, the onset of insanity, > > that accumulated support of their population over many years. > > -No, this accumulated insanity was concentrated to a few. > If not, the insanity was used by a few by populistic manors. > With more democracy, too many would have been involved to allow for > these personal mistakes by these corrupted “leaders”. > Show me one example that I’m wrong.
First world war…
echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
>First world war…
Come on! Do you really regard the political situation around 1:st world war to be a democratic one?
An environement free to anyone to express and debate the shortcomings on the first attack (don’t remember wich one that was)? A working democracy with the possibilitry to stop such an attack? I don’t think so.
+1
-
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 11:09:28AM -0000, MG wrote:
> > >First world war… > > Come on! Do you really regard the political situation around 1:st world > war to be a democratic one?
Both population actually wanted war. They craved and asked for it!
> An environement free to anyone to express and debate the shortcomings > on the first attack (don’t remember wich one that was)?
Germans using the Schlieffen plan. The one that was reused during WWII, but much more efficiently (it’s incredible how faster than conscripts tanks can go).
All of Europe, had been preparing for war for decades. Populations wanted it as much as anybody. In France everybody was singing songs about Alsace and Lorrain, both departments parts of Germany since 1870. The soldiers on both sides actually went to war with flowers in their rifles (I don’t remember the English expression for “fleur au fusil”).
Those are the short comings of nationalism…
Yes, hopefully a proper TOP democratic process could open the eyes of all those involved, but there is no certitude about that, and there can never be…
echarp – http://echarp.org/blog
+1
-
-You describe yourself wrong… Nationalism is one form of bad populism.
Populism is not likely with TOP in place, because nationalism started by corrupt leaders using the masses for their own goals. Tell me one nationalistic movement without a criminal leader behind. It’s very big words to say that ALL citzens (or even the majorities of them) wanted war..
+1
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revanchism
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 02:25:03PM -0000, MG wrote:
> -You describe yourself wrong…
I do apologize if I don’t express myself properly.
> Nationalism is one form of bad populism.
They are linked yes. But I don’t believe that they require criminal leaders to exist.
> Populism is not likely with TOP in place, because nationalism started > by corrupt leaders using the masses for their own goals.
Sorry, this is one easy explanation I’d rather not over use. A nation can be wrong, a democracy can be wrong. I have no problem with that and will not resort to “corrupt leaders” to explain it away.
Hopefully yes, transparency will drastically improve the quality of our democratic decisions, but they nonetheless will be wrong at times!
> Tell me one nationalistic movement without a criminal leader behind. > It’s very big words to say that ALL citzens (or even the majorities of > them) wanted war..
I do believe that most of France wanted WWI, same with Germany and WWII.
By the way, here is a huge political reading: Discourse on Voluntary Servitude
Written by 18 year old “La Boetie” some 5 centuries ago.
echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
>Hopefully yes, transparency will drastically improve the quality of our democratic decisions, but they nonetheless will be wrong at times!
-Agreed
>I do believe that most of France wanted WWI, same with Germany and WWII.
-If this is a commonly accepted thruth (which I dount) it must be wrong. I don’t know about France but in Germany, WW2, there was a criminal leader involved at least..
+1
-
MG wrote:
> >Hopefully yes, transparency will drastically improve the quality of our > democratic decisions, but they nonetheless will be wrong at times! > > -Agreed
Somebody said that only in democracies decisions might be wrong.
ATB,
Gale
+1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[echarp]: "Yes, we do need to list all people that will be counted.
I have a proposition, technical one.
Anybody can propose or modify an electoral list. Just send a mail whose subject is:
Electoral list: name_of_electoral_list In the body list all people involved, using their name and emails as presented in all our emails. For example:- illegale <geoerdeaen@yahoo.com>
- MG <magnusgus@gmail.com>
- echarp <emmanuel.charpentier@free.fr>
- lpc1998 <lpc1998@lpc1998.com>"
+1
-
It seems you entered off topic.
As long as you Eric are initiator, I suppose it is up to you to lead this project till the moment you realise it/ find it innapropriate for any reason.
As long as I do suppose you still lead it and as long I do support it, I am very interested in seeing it being realised. If I got it right, it would be our first project in google groups be done, which is actally a step forward.
One more thing. If you are eventually leaving it, please explain the reason, as long as I am willing to take it over than. So, if I missed some part your experience would help not doing stuff that is not good.
ATB,
Gale
+1
-
19/05/06 20:17
Electoral list: top-politics
- illegale <geoerdeaen@yahoo.com>
- MG <magnusgus@gmail.com>
- echarp <emmanuel.charpentier@free.fr>
- lpc1998 <lpc1998@lpc1998.com>"
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 09:58:02AM -0700, lpc1998 wrote:
> Can you demonstrate to us how it is done?
This very mail is a demonstration of a possible usage.
Of course it is not implemented in any software right now.
echarp
+1
-
Though, I suppose people should firs acknowledge their own willingless for joining such a group.
In this moment, it is Eric, Magnus, Markus, you and me. Did I miss something?
What is up with other members? Mark, Pether, Charles, newbies?
ATB,
Gale
+1