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
- 13/05 22:52 +2 Re: CLD2 Voting Program Questions
- 17/05 18:35 +1 Re: CLD2 Voting Program Questions
- 17/05 18:17 +1 Re: CLD2 Voting Program Questions
- 14/05 10:23 +1 Re: CLD2 Voting Program Questions
Latest posts
- 17/05 18:35 +1 Re: CLD2 Voting Program Questions
- 17/05 18:17 +1 Re: CLD2 Voting Program Questions
- 14/05 10:23 +1 Re: CLD2 Voting Program Questions
- 13/05 22:52 +2 Re: CLD2 Voting Program Questions
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] CLD2 Voting Program Questions
-
Emmanuel Charpentier wrote:
> We are discussing CLD2, which can be used on > this voting website: http://directdemocraticgov.org
Yes.
> Basically, from what I can gather this tool aims to: > * propose categorise and reword issues (only for administrators)
This is probably accurate, but a bit vague, i believe. Anyone can propose categories, or specific questions or propositions. Only the administrator has access to
entering the categories or questions/propositions.I see no realistic/workable way around this
if any voting program is to be run with any degree of efficiency.Someone has to be in change of organizing the data. If others have realistic alternative ideas,
i would be glad to hear them.> * list issues (in one level deep categories)
No. The categories can go to an infinite-depth of sub-categories. This has just not been set in motion yet.
Perhaps if more users would participate.> * rate issues on a [0%-100%] scale
Yes.
> * rate the wording of issues [0%-100%]
Yes, as an option, if desired by the voter.
> * rate the importance of issues [0%-100%]
Yes, as an option, if desired by the voter.
> * change vote
Yes, Instantaneously.
This is a very powerful feature, which i see seldom discussed. This powerful feature can turn representative-democracy into effectively acting as direct-democracy.> * display results in a table
Yes. These are “Spreadsheet Tables”,
which display a lot of info in a very small space.Easy comparisons with other voters, on how they voted in related issues. This will build coalitions very quickly & efficiently.
> Administrators are very important, in that they propose and categorise > issues plus can change them anytime they wish.
True, the power is centralized in the administrators. This is counter-balanced by distributing the program broadly, & enabling others to set up competing systems, & voters can go to those administrators who set up the best systems. i call this the “Free Market” approach.
Thanks Emmanuel.
It was great chatting with you on IRC a while back.
Sorry for this later response.
Charles … ******************************************************** > Here are some questions I asked: > * why use weighted votes when yes/no would be enough? > * any chance to access the system with mails? > * why rate a question wording? > * who can propose issues? > * why not free software? > * why PHP? > > On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 10:32:21PM +0000, charles.opensource wrote: >> echarp wrote: >>> * why use weighted votes when yes/no would be enough? >> I presume that you & all members of this group >> will recognize & admit there are many issues where >> simple “yes/no” votes" is Not “enough”, Emmanuel. > > Yes. > > But I’m afraid that most votes will be matters of yes/no. > >> But the main point is, that: >> if voters want just simple yes/no voting, >> they can use the radio buttons to quickly enter >> the numerical average of a weighted yes or no vote. >> >> So, all concerns of those who desire simple yes/no voting >> are addressed in this way; >> & while admitting to a bit more complexity in the appearance of the ballot, >> i believe those who desire such simplicity will be happy with this system. > > It is more complex. > > How do you manage approval voting? How, using [0%-100%] votes, can you > allow ranked voting ala Condorcet, can you add candidates easily? > > By the way, how are results calculated? Is it a simple averaging of all > the [0%-100%] votes? This kind of thing being easily gamed to skew > results toward one end or the other… > >> > * any chance to access the system with mails? >> >> Perhaps. >> I can talk with my programer, Joe. >> I would like to see the system gain better usage first; >> before other features are added. > > Ok, I guess this is a “forget it” feature for now (rather complex to > implement by the way). > >> > On your system: >> > * why rate the fact that a question is worded correctly or is important? >> >> This program handles that problem in large part by >> empowering the administrator of the domain hosting each voting program >> to be the ultimate arbitrator of the wording of the questions. >> >> … >> >> Further, each administrator can disable this feature if he feels that is best. >> Then he will have to handle concerns by voters >> concerning efficiency of wording of propositions/questions >> in some other & probably less-sensitive manner. >> >> Problems concerning the administrators possibly abusing authority >> by prejudicially wording the question/propositions >> is also handled by way of making the program public-domain & open-source, >> & those who feel abused can seek remedy by >> setting-up their own systems in competition with >> the alleged abusive administrator’s system. >> >> But here-under; “Feed-Back” concerning wording of the question/propositions >> will surely eventually become of critical importance. >> >> … >> >> This places the power in the hands of each administrator >> to be able to closely monitor this comparatively minor concern, >> along with the bigger concerns, >> so that all possible concerns of the voters >> are capable of being fully addressed by all responsible administrators. > > This is a HUGE security hole!!! Giving enormous power to > administrators. > > Why not allow everyone to propose and let everyone sort the good from > the bad? This is the force of the crowd, many eyes and brains to work on > what is a huge task. Some issues would then naturally percolate to > higher and higher awareness. > > This is my idea of a healthy market of ideas… > >> > * who can propose issues? >> >> If you or anyone else who desires to propose issues >> merely send them to me, already worded, in an email; >> i will put that issue in the voting program. >> I will enter & retain that wording “unedited”, for at least a few months. > > Ok, yet another HUGE power given to administrators! > > Why not allow any one to propose issues? > >> > * why not free software? >> >> I already gave a free copy of this program to Marcus. >> I will give you a copy, if you desire it. >> >> I will give a free copy of it to >> all whom i consider to be honorable people. >> >> I do not comprehend why you presumed other-wise. > > Giving free copies does not make it Free Software. Do you know the GPL? > >> > * why PHP? >> >> I am willing to work with others >> who desire to re-write the code in another language. >> >> PHP does seem to be a broad-based internet standard. >> >> I see no pressing need to write in another language, >> at least not until this program is being used well >> & clear problems are encountered which PHP is not able to address. > > Sorry, but cld2 does not seem very advanced yet (that’s no critic, just > an observation), and php is not a language I really appreciate. > >> Presently, i see no voting-program in existence on this planet >> which even comes close to competing in empowering the common people >> as this CLD2 2 Voting program does, Emmanuel. > > My former project VeniVidiVoti allowed more: > everyone could propose, vote, translate, and even delegate their vote > (although there were huge bugs on that last feature, I never really > finished it). > >> I think that it should be given opportunity to make some real-world changes >> before we seriously consider re-writing it, sir. > > Same with everybody’s projects ;) > > echarp – http://leparlement.org > > > > > >
+1
-
charles.opensource je napisao/la:
> > Basically, from what I can gather this tool aims to: > > * propose categorise and reword issues (only for administrators) > > This is probably accurate, but a bit vague, i believe. > Anyone can propose categories, or specific questions or propositions. > Only the administrator has access to > entering the categories or questions/propositions.
This is what I find be a big conceptual problem. Democracy is based on equality, you did not enable equality on your site.
> I see no realistic/workable way around this > if any voting program is to be run with any degree of efficiency.
http://kovach.web.srk.fer.hr/tiaktiv/index.php?mode=projekt_forum&jezik=en
The rough ideas is that everyone can do whatever he thinks it is right. If you agree with the one, choose his filter and accept him be your “administrator”. You can be administrator too, yet only those who find you be the good one for you will acknowledge you.
> Someone has to be in change of organizing the data.
OK. Yet. Why should I accept you be better than me? Only because that you administer that? Peaches and oragnes, does not work.
ATB,
Gale
+2
-
+1
On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 01:52:21PM -0700, illegale wrote:
> charles.opensource je napisao/la: > > echarp said: > > > Basically, from what I can gather this tool aims to: > > > * propose categorise and reword issues (only for administrators) > > > > This is probably accurate, but a bit vague, i believe. > > Anyone can propose categories, or specific questions or propositions. > > Only the administrator has access to entering the categories or > > questions/propositions. > > This is what I find be a big conceptual problem. Democracy is based on > equality, you did not enable equality on your site.
Yes.
And to have some administrators be in charge of things which can be left in the care of citizens seem like an un democratic move.
> > I see no realistic/workable way around this if any voting program is > > to be run with any degree of efficiency. > > http://kovach.web.srk.fer.hr/tiaktiv/index.php?mode=projekt_forum&jezik=en
Interesting forum idea. Just bits of complexity here and there that I think are not required, but still very interesting.
> The rough ideas is that everyone can do whatever he thinks it is right. > If you agree with the one, choose his filter and accept him be your > “administrator”. You can be administrator too, yet only those who find > you be the good one for you will acknowledge you. Or
Everybody can propose issues any place in the tree of issues. Be it a new issue or a copy or rewording of an existing one.
Citizens vote on those issues they think are interesting (or delegate their voice to someone who can also do it), when you visit the tree you only consult those elements with scores above a limit you set, the tree organises itself…
> > Someone has to be in change of organizing the data. > > OK. Yet. Why should I accept you be better than me? Only because that > you administer that? Peaches and oragnes, does not work.
Every body can be in charge of organising the data.
echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
echarp wrote:
> +1 > > On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 01:52:21PM -0700, illegale wrote: > > charles.opensource je napisao/la: > > > echarp said: > > > > Basically, from what I can gather this tool aims to: > > > > * propose categorise and reword issues (only for administrators) > > > > > > This is probably accurate, but a bit vague, i believe. > > > Anyone can propose categories, or specific questions or propositions. > > > Only the administrator has access to entering the categories or > > > questions/propositions. > > > > This is what I find be a big conceptual problem. Democracy is based on > > equality, you did not enable equality on your site. > > Yes. > > And to have some administrators be in charge of things which can be left > in the care of citizens seem like an un democratic move. > > > > I see no realistic/workable way around this if any voting program is > > > to be run with any degree of efficiency. > > > > http://kovach.web.srk.fer.hr/tiaktiv/index.php?mode=projekt_forum&jezik=en > > Interesting forum idea. Just bits of complexity here and there that I > think are not required, but still very interesting. > > > The rough ideas is that everyone can do whatever he thinks it is right. > > If you agree with the one, choose his filter and accept him be your > > “administrator”. You can be administrator too, yet only those who find > > you be the good one for you will acknowledge you. > > Or
No need for OR. I assume it can be AND. Right?
> Everybody can propose issues any place in the tree of issues. Be it a > new issue or a copy or rewording of an existing one. > > Citizens vote on those issues they think are interesting (or delegate > their voice to someone who can also do it), when you visit the tree you > only consult those elements with scores above a limit you set, the tree > organises itself… > > > > Someone has to be in change of organizing the data. > > > > OK. Yet. Why should I accept you be better than me? Only because that > > you administer that? Peaches and oragnes, does not work. > > Every body can be in charge of organising the data. > > echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
>Every body can be in charge of organising the data.
-If they are supported by a good system, yes.
+1
-
-
-
