top-politics

[top-politics] Fwd: To whom the country belongs?

[top-politics] How democratic is SD2? #01

Thank you, Mark, for your interesting comments.

You have stated, among other things, that “SD2 tries to represent 100% instead of 50%+1 by allowing as much of the voters voting power to extend as deeply into the network as possible.” This is very interesting indeed as a democratic proposition. I have only a vague idea of how SD2 works or will work in practice. Would you like to explain how decisions are made through SD2 in a community of, say, 1,000 persons where 1% are very intelligent and capable, where 80% spend most time and energy on work, family and personal entertainment and where some of the aforesaid 1% and the rest are politically active? Btw, are you agreeble to democracy being defined as the Rule by the People who are therefore sovereign and have the final say in all matters concerning the country and the people? If you do not, please state what democracy means to you personally. Yes, I have noted you have given various dictionary definitions of democracy. Best Regards Eric Lim

Mark <parashakti108@yahoo.com> wrote: —gale wrote:

[Gale]:"I suppose it would be really good to find out, what we are

actually looking for? I mean, talking about democracy without having in mind what is the whole thing about it, does not takes us far. …."

[Eric Lim]: "Okay, I take democracy to mean its literal meaning: the

sovereignty of the people, meaning the people have the highest level of authority in the country. Having the highest level of authority means the people have the final say on all matters concerning the country and people.

M: (interspirsed comments:) -—————————————————- Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
democracy
Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: di-’mä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy [-M: dEmokratia = people + rule]

1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority [-M: In practice, democracy has usually been majority rule because this is the algorithm easiest to impliment.]

b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly… [-M: Ancient Athenian democracy and FAILED French direct-democracy during the French revolution are examples of this.]

…or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections [-M: I call this ‘democratic-republicanism’ and SD2 is an example of this.]

2 : a political unit that has a democratic government [-M: A political unit organized by SD2 would be a ‘democracy’. It would also be a ‘democratic republic’.]

: the common people especially when constituting the source

of political authority [-M: The source or authority in SD2 are the participants. SD2 is less sensitive to poorly informed participants voting for underqualified representitives, so I see no reason why even children and foreign visitors couldn’t vote. This is ‘common people’ to the extreme.]

5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges [-M: In many democratic-republics, class distiction does matter. In the USA, most elected federal officials are rich and/or of ‘high’- birth. SD2 is intended to remedy this problem.] -—————————————————————-

E: The immediate question arising from this definition is that how

do the people exercise their sovereignty and make decisions as the “people” is not a single organism with one brain, but made up of numerous individuals. So this implies majority decision which at the very least is 50% + 1 and the right to vote. So in practice, the sovereignty of the people = the sovereignty of the electoral majority."

M: This is how it has been, but it leads to Bushmonkeys getting elected. :(

E: The reason is in the fact that people legitimate 50%+1. Though,

as long as we are creating completely new approach towards politics, we can not take something arbitrary stuff for base. One more thing. There is a referendum in Monte Negro for independence. If 55% of population says YES, than MN will become independent. If there was 50%, as long as that is not big majority, those who loosy might use power to make that decision invalid.

-M: If a voter can elect a representitive, why can’t the representitive elect a representitive? Why can’t this process continue ad infinitum algorithmicly?

This is the basis for the PageRank algorithm which is the basis for SD2.

Eric, why do you think that first-order algorithms(in-degree, counting) are the only way to process voting data?

[Gale]:"But Eric. Why do you find this be democracy? Imagine next thing.

I own/control whole mass media. Something like Saddam had in Iraq (you know that Saddam is declaratively democratic leader of Iraq? People voted for him, etc.) So, as long as I can interpret political reality in a matter I want to, I can people make love me. Feel dependent on me. …."

-M: Agreed, there are a lot of lemmings and suckers out there.

[…]

I agree with what you say here, but the fault lies in the existing

political system that allows the incumbent President to create such a political reality with impunity and in keeping the majority of the people extremely ignorant of their political choices or effectively denying them such choices. Though, we have to dig it a little bit more deeply to see the whole structure of power that lies behind presidents decision. I belive that we will notice power base is not in the people, but somwhere else. :- )

-M: The people do have some power. The oligarchy is compomised.

[Gale]:"[…]Does it eventually mean that in that way America will

have to fight on its own land? How shall Jane vote about this question? What are the facts that make her vote so? Remember. She can not know everything. She can not have the whole picture. And she know that. So, she has to trust to the people she do not know. The people such as Bush is, Kerry is, Nader is, or some political assholes who are in the process. Those who are not in the process, can not know enough to be valid reference."

-M: Fortunately SD2 can be used to create a hierarchal statecraft community where the common person and the bottom ranks are not expected to be fully informed and competent politicians.

Fully agree with you that it is preposterous to have referendums

for every single political question or “policy” and that the average citizen does need a competent political representative to serve and not to rule.

Cool

-M: Again, SD2 is the model. Registered political activists would have ranks, and could have regular meet-ups with those of a similar rank. And the SD2 algorithm makes for rapid upward and downward mobility within the hierarchy.

[…]

The problem of poor quality voters making horrendous decisions on

important matters could only be resolved by the political education of the voters. Such political education with the overall functioning of the new political system must enable the voters to elect competent and trustworthy representatives to make good decisions on their behalf.

Personally, I find it totally unacceptable, on one hand to keep

the average citizens politically ignorant, confused and incompetent and on the other to rob them of their rights as co-owners of the country on the excuse that the average citizens are in “reality” politically ignorant and incompetent incapable of making big important decisions for the people and country.

So the political education of the voters is a core issue in the

new political system.

Do our views converge here at this point?

-M: No. Finding the right representitives algorithmicly makes the point of voter education MOOT.

I would rather that the citizenry be educated and informed than not. But if the right decision makers were in place, what would be wrong with the commoner imposing ignorance on themselves(as they usually do)?

What I do see is tat nobody knows everything. So, we need the

system that will make possible to those who know about some particular issue to make decisions for the societies best interest. That is the story about trust networks, influence networks, Marks SD- 2 and so on. That is the way I support.

M: :)

[Gale]:"So, is this democracy? Is democracy the idea that majority let

some informed man with reputation to make decision? Or is that false democracy, we have to eliminate? To eliminate anything between uninformed 50%+1 majority and political decision? What is so cool about that Eric? I do not find anything cool about it."

I do agree with you that there is nothing inconsistent in a

democracy where the majority let some informed and competent men with reputation to make decisions, PROVIDED THE DECISIONS ARE MADE IN ACCORDANCE TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

For the decisions to be made in accordance to the Will of the

People, at least the following conditions must be met:

a The political representative(s) must be freely elected or

chosen by the people;

What does it mean, freely?

-M: SD2 can be used to organize a political party, or an entire country. Either way, the participants would have a much wider variety of representitives to choose from. (With SD2, one could choose from most of the population.) This seems about as free as it gets.

b The decisions must be made for the good and benefits of the

people and country; and

Who is the one who decides something is good? What I can notice is

that we need new entity we will find be satisfactory for this.

-M: With SD2, everyone knows who the top ranked people are, and who their main competitors are. Debate at the top level over what is good would be complex, and I imagine that this would create rapidly changing ranks where the more trusted and competent would rise. Those waching the debates could shift their votes in real time.

c The decisions must not be made for the good and benefits of the

decision-maker or of his backer or controller at the expense of the people or country.

How to make it possible and sustainable? That is the question.

-M: It comes through accountability. Make those at the top accountable to the statecraft community as a whole. With SD2, a policy maker can lose rank for no apparent reason whatsoever.

This is where the core of the problems of the existing political

system lies. Otherwise, there is no need for a new political system.

__________________________________________________Agreed.

-M: Yes, and this core problem has a solution – SD2.

[Gale]:"Let me say something else. I do not link democracy to things like

50%+1. I do not link the concept of true democracy to numbers, but to the idea. What is that idea? I wont talk about the virtual concept of the people, as long as it does not make too much sense when we are dealing with concrete things. So, I will say this:

Democracy is the political system with completely decentralized

political power.[…]

-M: The legislation is somewhat decentralized(though voters don’t have all the choices that they should.)

But the administration can be very centralized.

SD2 has a feature that I call “adaptive decentralization”

1. If people vote mostly for those they know, this can lead to a highly distributed political structure – communitarianism.
2. If people vote for mostly those who are regional and/or mid- hierarchy, this creates a decentralized republic – confederacy.
3. If people vote mostly for the higly ranked(but not the top ranked) this creates federalism.
4. If people vote mostly for the top ranked, this creates a centralized unitary republic.

[…]

Would you like to elaborate on what you mean by "political

subjects" and “political objects”?

Are you advocating a political jungle where the fittest survives?I am advocating full transparency and opennes. Transparence

makes good be possible. Opennes makes the best fit to the position they are for. About those who are weak. The fact is that weak exist thanks to the empathy of powerful ones. It is directly related to political system, but to the culture. I belive that empathy and altruism are in our cores and what negates them is need for survival. If that need is acomplished, there is no big problem with weak ones.

-M: With SD2, a statecraft community would probably have its nose in almost every state of affairs in the government. I think that extreme transparency would evolve.

“[Gale]: "….. So, let me say what made me act. It was injustice and the

fact that I saw many bad people leading this world in bad direction. So, I want to open political market and to set some new political principles that will make the new leadership become responsible for their actions. ….."

[Eric Lim]:“In order to be successful in this endeavour, we need to

understand what makes leaders bad. What do you think are the reasons for this phenomenon?”

[Gale]:"It is the alopoietic, parasitic moral pattern, leaders have to

take in this system, if they want to get to the position of the power. We are talking about machiavellism. So, those who enter to the process, have no great chance to success if they do not obey to the rules of the system. And here comes the problem. They profilate in a manner that after a while they promote injustice as long as in the injust world, they have freer hands to do what they want, to make what is their will. In the just world, they can not do that. They have to give up from many freedoms and why? Why if they like the position they are at? Because of ideals?

Cmon. Ideals come and go, or better to say, after a while, they

have to give up from these ideals as long as they are to big burden for the political process that happens behind the curtain.

-M: Why even bother trying to understand it? Just create a system where those who do understand it could peer-review one another, and where the worthy could rise. SD2.

[…]

In the other hand, you can imagine good guys get to politics. But

after a while one gets a bullet, the other one gets back because he loves his family too much, the third one gets in the real game of trust and power. If there are some lunatics who are ready and big enough to fight the oligarchy (that is what we are talking about) will get tired, sooner or later. And when they get tired, they will want to keep the power they gained. After all, they did not fight for nothing. Oh. The lunatic could look for the people he will thrust to get into politics. But how much can you trust to somebody else? Ain’t these Bush/Kerry guys much better crew with a dark secrets that bind them?

Lunatic can get off of the politics? But why? After all, the

process has profilated him to what he today is. Why loose it? it is against his nature.

I hope you see the point."In other words, “dirty” politics is the politics of “dirty”

politicians who are spawned by the existing “dirty” political system. So we do need a new political system that is not “dirty”, right?

Right .

M: :)

“[Gale]: "…. I want to create the political system where the first wont

be so sure and the last one wont be discouraged. I do not want to see non touchable who do very unfair thing just because they have no natural enemy. I want to make feed back mechanism where responsibility will be encouraged and irresponsibility discouraged. This is oriented to the cattle also, as long as todays pseudo democracy works by the same principles that took socialism down. Where everybody was responsible and none was responsible. In that way, lower human emotions directed the system downward in the same manner todays pseudo democracy takes this system downwards."

-M: To add: The 50%+1 are not accountable the the 50%-1. If the 50%+1 makes the wrong decision, they drag down the 50%-1 with their error.

SD2 tries to represent 100% instead of 50%+1 by allowing as much of the voters voting power to extend as deeply into the network as possible.

shanti
Mark, Seattle

SPONSORED LINKS Politics American politics Opensource

---

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group “top-politics” on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: top-politics-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---

+1 New discussion Answer

• 29/03/06 02:50 <geoerdeaen>

  [top-politics] Re: How democratic is SD2? #01 + about defionition of democracy

  ---

  In top-politics@yahoogroups.com, lpc1998 <lpc1998@…> wrote:

  Thank you, Mark, for your interesting comments.You have stated, among other things, that "SD2 tries to

  represent 100% instead of 50%+1 by allowing as much of the voters voting power to extend as deeply into the network as possible." This is very interesting indeed as a democratic proposition.

  I absolutely agree.

  I have only a vague idea of how SD2 works or will work in

  practice. Would you like to explain how decisions are made through SD2 in a community of, say, 1,000 persons where 1% are very intelligent and capable, where 80% spend most time and energy on work, family and personal entertainment and where some of the aforesaid 1% and the rest are politically active?

  I am eager to comment, but it seems Mark has already find pretty cool formulations for promotion of sd-2. So, lets see whats up :-)

  Btw, are you agreeble to democracy being defined as the Rule by

  the People who are therefore sovereign and have the final say in all matters concerning the country and the people?

  Let me say I agree, but it does not mean too much as long as people is actually pretty vague term, considering the fact there is no somethig you can say it is peoples thought. So, what we can talk about is projections of the people minds such as 50%+1 or principles that enable these people make proper decisions for good of society.

  As long as first stuff is stuff of political decision that can be different in a matter of exact situation, I am more interesting in discusing of the common principles that we find to be platform for any system that can carry the name of democracy.

  Freedom of speach is one of those principles. Equal rights people gain by their birth is another one. And so on.

  Mark <parashakti108@…> wrote:—gale wrote:

  [Gale]:"I suppose it would be really good to find out, what we are

  actually looking for? I mean, talking about democracy without

  having

  in mind what is the whole thing about it, does not takes us far. …."

  [Eric Lim]: "Okay, I take democracy to mean its literal meaning: the

  sovereignty of the people, meaning the people have the highest

  level

  of authority in the country. Having the highest level of authority means the people have the final say on all matters concerning the country and people.-M: (interspirsed comments:) -—————————————————Merriam-Webster Online DictionarydemocracyMain Entry: de·moc·ra·cy Pronunciation: di-’mä-kr&-sEFunction: nounInflected Form(s): plural -ciesEtymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy[-M: dEmokratia = people + rule]1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority[-M: In practice, democracy has usually been majority rule because this is the algorithm easiest to impliment.]

  And it appears to be rightous.

  b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the

  people

  and exercised by them directly…[-M: Ancient Athenian democracy and FAILED French direct-democracy during the French revolution are examples of this.]…or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections[-M: I call this ‘democratic-republicanism’ and SD2 is an example

  of

  this.]2 : a political unit that has a democratic government[-M: A political unit organized by SD2 would be a ‘democracy’. It would also be a ‘democratic republic’.][…]4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority[-M: The source or authority in SD2 are the participants. SD2 is less sensitive to poorly informed participants voting for underqualified representitives, so I see no reason why even

  children

  and foreign visitors couldn’t vote. This is ‘common people’ to the extreme.]

  I agree. This system enables to people to penetrate to the whole system, instead of lousy touch based on every 4 years election between those who menaged to gain 10 000 000s of milions of $ for their marketing.

  5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges[-M: In many democratic-republics, class distiction does matter.

  In

  the USA, most elected federal officials are rich and/or of ‘high’-birth. SD2 is intended to remedy this problem.]———————————————————————

  E: The immediate question arising from this definition is that

  how

  do the people exercise their sovereignty and make decisions as the “people” is not a single organism with one brain, but made up

  of

  numerous individuals. So this implies majority decision which at

  the

  very least is 50% + 1 and the right to vote. So in practice, the sovereignty of the people = the sovereignty of the electoral majority.“M: This is how it has been, but it leads to Bushmonkeys getting elected. :(

  E: The reason is in the fact that people legitimate 50%+1.

  Though,

  as long as we are creating completely new approach towards

  politics,

  we can not take something arbitrary stuff for base. One more

  thing.

  There is a referendum in Monte Negro for independence. If 55% of population says YES, than MN will become independent. If there was 50%, as long as that is not big majority, those who loosy might

  use

  power to make that decision invalid. -M: If a voter can elect a representitive, why can’t the representitive elect a representitive? Why can’t this process continue ad infinitum algorithmicly?This is the basis for the PageRank algorithm which is the basis

  for

  SD2.Eric, why do you think that first-order algorithms(in-degree, counting) are the only way to process voting data?

  [Gale]:”But Eric. Why do you find this be democracy? Imagine next

  thing.

  I own/control whole mass media. Something like Saddam had in Iraq (you know that Saddam is declaratively democratic leader of Iraq? People voted for him, etc.) So, as long as I can interpret

  political

  reality in a matter I want to, I can people make love me. Feel dependent on me. …."-M: Agreed, there are a lot of lemmings and suckers out there.[…]

  I agree with what you say here, but the fault lies in the

  existing

  political system that allows the incumbent President to create

  such

  a political reality with impunity and in keeping the majority of

  the

  people extremely ignorant of their political choices or

  effectively

  denying them such choices. Though, we have to dig it a little bit more deeply to see the whole structure of power that lies behind presidents decision. I belive that we will notice power base is

  not

  in the people, but somwhere else. :- ) -M: The people do have some power. The oligarchy is compomised.

  Oligarchy is compromised, that is true. But the problem is that the whole system (Administration, Parties, NGOs, Media, Church, Academics, virtualy every single one who creates a body of government in any manner) is in deal to oligarchy. Most of the people are actually directly dependent on these centers, so there is a very small number of people who are willing to trully challenge oligarchy. This part, at least in Croatia is extremely though one, very hard to overide. Though, the fact is that the time is working for us :-)

  [Gale]:"[…]Does it eventually mean that in that way America

  will

  have to fight on its own land? How shall Jane vote about this question? What are the facts that make her vote so? Remember. She can not know everything. She can not have the whole picture. And

  she

  know that. So, she has to trust to the people she do not know. The people such as Bush is, Kerry is, Nader is, or some political assholes who are in the process. Those who are not in the process, can not know enough to be valid reference."-M: Fortunately SD2 can be used to create a hierarchal statecraft community where the common person and the bottom ranks are not expected to be fully informed and competent politicians.

  Yes. What I like in your idea is the fact of already existing trust and infulence network that can not be compromised by media as long as that network has a very hard societal base. It is pretty imune to todays ways of political dirty fight, at least some of them. For other ones we will have to find some solutions.

  Fully agree with you that it is preposterous to have referendums

  for every single political question or “policy” and that the

  average

  citizen does need a competent political representative to serve

  and

  not to rule.

  Cool

  -M: Again, SD2 is the model. Registered political activists would have ranks, and could have regular meet-ups with those of a

  similar

  rank. And the SD2 algorithm makes for rapid upward and downward mobility within the hierarchy.

  I like the idea of hard to gain, easy to lose. It makes people be responsible in order of protection of their political capital. Basic instinct stuff.

  […]

  The problem of poor quality voters making horrendous decisions

  on

  important matters could only be resolved by the political

  education

  of the voters. Such political education with the overall

  functioning

  of the new political system must enable the voters to elect competent and trustworthy representatives to make good decisions

  on

  their behalf.

  Personally, I find it totally unacceptable, on one hand to keep

  the average citizens politically ignorant, confused and

  incompetent

  and on the other to rob them of their rights as co-owners of the country on the excuse that the average citizens are in “reality” politically ignorant and incompetent incapable of making big important decisions for the people and country.

  So the political education of the voters is a core issue in the

  new political system.

  Do our views converge here at this point?

  -M: No. Finding the right representitives algorithmicly makes the point of voter education MOOT.I would rather that the citizenry be educated and informed than

  not.

  But if the right decision makers were in place, what would be

  wrong

  with the commoner imposing ignorance on themselves(as they usually do)?

  What I do see is tat nobody knows everything. So, we need the

  system that will make possible to those who know about some particular issue to make decisions for the societies best

  interest.

  That is the story about trust networks, influence networks, Marks

  SD-

  2 and so on. That is the way I support.-M: :-)

  ;-)

  [Gale]:"So, is this democracy? Is democracy the idea that majority let

  some informed man with reputation to make decision? Or is that false democracy, we have to eliminate? To eliminate anything

  between

  uninformed 50%1 majority and political decision? What is so cool about that Eric? I do not find anything cool about it."

  I do agree with you that there is nothing inconsistent in a

  democracy where the majority let some informed and competent men with reputation to make decisions, PROVIDED THE DECISIONS ARE MADE IN ACCORDANCE TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

  For the decisions to be made in accordance to the Will of the

  People, at least the following conditions must be met:

  a The political representative(s) must be freely elected or

  chosen by the people;

  What does it mean, freely?

  -M: SD2 can be used to organize a political party, or an entire country. Either way, the participants would have a much wider variety of representitives to choose from. (With SD2, one could choose from most of the population.) This seems about as free as it gets.

  b The decisions must be made for the good and benefits of the

  people and country; and

  Who is the one who decides something is good? What I can notice

  is

  that we need new entity we will find be satisfactory for this. -M: With SD2, everyone knows who the top ranked people are, and

  who

  their main competitors are. Debate at the top level over what is good would be complex, and I imagine that this would create rapidly changing ranks where the more trusted and competent would rise. Those waching the debates could shift their votes in real

  time.

  c The decisions must not be made for the good and benefits of

  the

  decision-maker or of his backer or controller at the expense of

  the

  people or country.

  How to make it possible and sustainable? That is the question.

  -M: It comes through accountability. Make those at the top accountable to the statecraft community as a whole. With SD2, a policy maker can lose rank for no apparent reason whatsoever.

  This is where the core of the problems of the existing political

  system lies. Otherwise, there is no need for a new political

  system.

  __________________________________________________Agreed.

  -M: Yes, and this core problem has a solution – SD2.

  [Gale]:"Let me say something else. I do not link democracy to things

  like

  50%1. I do not link the concept of true democracy to numbers, but to the idea. What is that idea? I wont talk about the virtual concept of the people, as long as it does not make too much sense when we are dealing with concrete things. So, I will say this:

  Democracy is the political system with completely decentralized

  political power.[…] -M: The legislation is somewhat decentralized(though voters don’t have all the choices that they should.)But the administration can be very centralized.SD2 has a feature that I call “adaptive decentralization”1. If people vote mostly for those they know, this can lead to a highly distributed political structure – communitarianism.2. If people vote for mostly those who are regional and/or mid-hierarchy, this creates a decentralized republic – confederacy.3. If people vote mostly for the higly ranked(but not the top ranked) this creates federalism.4. If people vote mostly for the top ranked, this creates a centralized unitary republic.[…]

  Would you like to elaborate on what you mean by “political

  subjects” and “political objects”?

  Are you advocating a political jungle where the fittest survives?I am advocating full transparency and opennes. Transparence

  makes good be possible. Opennes makes the best fit to the position they are for. About those who are weak. The fact is that weak

  exist

  thanks to the empathy of powerful ones. It is directly related to political system, but to the culture. I belive that empathy and altruism are in our cores and what negates them is need for survival. If that need is acomplished, there is no big problem

  with

  weak ones. -M: With SD2, a statecraft community would probably have its nose

  in

  almost every state of affairs in the government. I think that extreme transparency would evolve.

  "[Gale]: “….. So, let me say what made me act. It was injustice and the

  fact that I saw many bad people leading this world in bad

  direction.

  So, I want to open political market and to set some new political principles that will make the new leadership become responsible

  for

  their actions. …..”

  [Eric Lim]:“In order to be successful in this endeavour, we need to

  understand what makes leaders bad. What do you think are the

  reasons

  for this phenomenon?”

  [Gale]:"It is the alopoietic, parasitic moral pattern, leaders have to

  take in this system, if they want to get to the position of the power. We are talking about machiavellism. So, those who enter to the process, have no great chance to success if they do not obey

  to

  the rules of the system. And here comes the problem. They

  profilate

  in a manner that after a while they promote injustice as long as

  in

  the injust world, they have freer hands to do what they want, to make what is their will. In the just world, they can not do that. They have to give up from many freedoms and why? Why if they like the position they are at? Because of ideals?

  Cmon. Ideals come and go, or better to say, after a while, they

  have to give up from these ideals as long as they are to big

  burden

  for the political process that happens behind the curtain.-M: Why even bother trying to understand it? Just create a system where those who do understand it could peer-review one another,

  and

  where the worthy could rise. SD2.

  Hehe. It is not bad to apear that you know what is the todays problem, because in that way you can be more persuative when suggesting something different :-D

  […]

  In the other hand, you can imagine good guys get to politics.

  But

  after a while one gets a bullet, the other one gets back because

  he

  loves his family too much, the third one gets in the real game of trust and power. If there are some lunatics who are ready and big enough to fight the oligarchy (that is what we are talking about) will get tired, sooner or later. And when they get tired, they

  will

  want to keep the power they gained. After all, they did not fight for nothing. Oh. The lunatic could look for the people he will thrust to get into politics. But how much can you trust to

  somebody

  else? Ain’t these Bush/Kerry guys much better crew with a dark secrets that bind them?

  Lunatic can get off of the politics? But why? After all, the

  process has profilated him to what he today is. Why loose it? it

  is

  against his nature.

  I hope you see the point."In other words, “dirty” politics is the politics of “dirty”

  politicians who are spawned by the existing “dirty” political system. So we do need a new political system that is not “dirty”, right?

  Right .

  -M: :-)

  "[Gale]: “…. I want to create the political system where the first wont

  be so sure and the last one wont be discouraged. I do not want to see non touchable who do very unfair thing just because they have

  no

  natural enemy. I want to make feed back mechanism where responsibility will be encouraged and irresponsibility

  discouraged.

  This is oriented to the cattle also, as long as todays pseudo democracy works by the same principles that took socialism down. Where everybody was responsible and none was responsible. In that way, lower human emotions directed the system downward in the same manner todays pseudo democracy takes this system downwards.” -M: To add: The 50%+1 are not accountable the the 50%-1. If

  the

  50%+1 makes the wrong decision, they drag down the 50%-1 with their error. SD2 tries to represent 100% instead of 50%+1 by allowing as much

  of

  the voters voting power to extend as deeply into the network as possible.shantiMark, Seattle

  ATB,
  Gale

  Yahoo! Groups Links

  • To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/top-politics/

  • To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: top-politics-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

  • Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
• +2 New discussion Answer
  • 30/03/06 01:08 <Mark>

    [top-politics] Democracy- where 50%+1 vote.

    -“geoerdeaen” wrote:

    -lpc1998 wrote:

    L: Thank you, Mark, for your interesting comments.

    M: :)

    L: You have stated, among other things, that "SD2 tries to

    represent 100% instead of 50%+1 by allowing as much of the voters voting power to extend as deeply into the network as possible." This is very interesting indeed as a democratic proposition.

    G: I absolutely agree.

    -M: Thanx y’all.

    L: I have only a vague idea of how SD2 works or will work in

    practice. Would you like to explain how decisions are made through SD2 in a community of, say, 1,000 persons where 1% are very intelligent and capable, where 80% spend most time and energy on work, family and personal entertainment and where some of the aforesaid 1% and the rest are politically active?

    -M: Simple: the highest ranked three or five, that also want to be directors, would be directors.

    If the top-ranked do not want to be directors, their votes would still be extremely strong, and may strongly influence director selection.

    1% of 1,000 is 10. A board of five directors and five advisors could occur with SD2. Only one would be the executive with full- time expectations.

    G: I am eager to comment, but it seems Mark has already find pretty

    cool formulations for promotion of sd-2. So, lets see whats up :-)

    L: Btw, are you agreeble to democracy being defined as the Rule

    by the People who are therefore sovereign and have the final say in all matters concerning the country and the people?

    -M: Kind of.

    G: Let me say I agree, but it does not mean too much as long as

    people is actually pretty vague term, considering the fact there is no somethig you can say it is peoples thought. So, what we can talk about is projections of the people minds such as 50%+1 or principles that enable these people make proper decisions for good of society.

    -M: ‘Vague’ – agreed. What ‘will’ of ‘the people’ is seems less tangible then an actual mechanism, like voting.

    So I say ‘democracy’ is where 50%+1 are allowed to vote. Past this, its the variations of the centrality algorithms that make for the different ‘flavors’ of democracy and democratic-republicanism.

    This is a controversial definition because it means that the USA was not founded as a democratic-republic, but as an oligarchic-republic. It wasn’t a democratic-republic until women were allowed to vote.

    G: As long as first stuff is stuff of political decision that can

    be different in a matter of exact situation, I am more interesting in discusing of the common principles that we find to be platform for any system that can carry the name of democracy. Freedom of speach is one of those principles. Equal rights people gain by their birth is another one. And so on.

    -M: The common principle for democracy is voting. What else would it be? These other things are ideological(what democracy should be), not structural(what democracy is).

    Mark wrote:—gale wrote:

    [Gale]:"I suppose it would be really good to find out, what we are

    actually looking for? I mean, talking about democracy without

    having

    in mind what is the whole thing about it, does not takes us far. …."

    [Eric Lim]: "Okay, I take democracy to mean its literal meaning: the

    sovereignty of the people, meaning the people have the highest

    level of authority in the country. Having the highest level of

    authority means the people have the final say on all matters concerning the country and people.

    -M: (interspirsed comments:) -—————————————————Merriam-Webster Online DictionarydemocracyMain Entry: de·moc·ra·cy Pronunciation: di-’mä-kr&-sEFunction: nounInflected Form(s): plural -ciesEtymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy[-M: dEmokratia = people + rule]1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority[-M: In practice, democracy has usually been majority rule [50%

    +1]because this is the algorithm easiest to impliment.]

    G: And it appears to be rightous.

    b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the

    people and exercised by them directly…

    [-M: Ancient Athenian democracy and FAILED French direct-

    democracy during the French revolution are examples of this.]

    …or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections[-M: I call this ‘democratic-republicanism’ and SD2 is an

    example of this.]

    2 : a political unit that has a democratic government[-M: A political unit organized by SD2 would be a ‘democracy’.

    It would also be a ‘democratic republic’.]

    […]4 : the common people especially when constituting the

    source of political authority

    [-M: The source or authority in SD2 are the participants. SD2 is less sensitive to poorly informed participants voting for underqualified representitives, so I see no reason why even

    children and foreign visitors couldn’t vote. This is ‘common

    people’ to the extreme.]

    G: I agree. This system enables to people to penetrate to the whole

    system, instead of lousy touch based on every 4 years election between those who menaged to gain 10 000 000s of milions of $ for their marketing.

    -M: OK.

    […]

    I agree with what you say here, but the fault lies in the

    existing political system that allows the incumbent President to

    create such a political reality with impunity and in keeping the majority of the people extremely ignorant of their political choices or effectively denying them such choices. Though, we have to dig it a little bit more deeply to see the whole structure of power that lies behind presidents decision. I belive that we will notice power base is not in the people, but somwhere else. :- )

    -M: The people do have some power. The oligarchy is compomised.

    G: Oligarchy is compromised, that is true. But the problem is that

    the whole system (Administration, Parties, NGOs, Media, Church, Academics, virtualy every single one who creates a body of government in any manner) is in deal to oligarchy. Most of the people are actually directly dependent on these centers, so there is a very small number of people who are willing to trully challenge oligarchy. This part, at least in Croatia is extremely though one, very hard to overide. Though, the fact is that the time is working for us :-)

    -M: Fortuately the oligarchy can’t stop SD2. What are they going to do – outlaw mathematics and Social Network Analysis?

    Suckers! We are going to win. :-)

    [Gale]:"[…]Does it eventually mean that in that way America

    will have to fight on its own land? How shall Jane vote about this

    question? What are the facts that make her vote so? Remember.

    She can not know everything. She can not have the whole picture. And she know that. So, she has to trust to the people she do not know. The people such as Bush is, Kerry is, Nader is, or some political

    assholes who are in the process. Those who are not in the

    process, can not know enough to be valid reference."

    -M: Fortunately SD2 can be used to create a hierarchal

    statecraft community where the common person and the bottom ranks are not expected to be fully informed and competent politicians.

    G: Yes. What I like in your idea is the fact of already existing

    trust and infulence network that can not be compromised by media as long as that network has a very hard societal base. It is pretty imune to todays ways of political dirty fight, at least some of them. For other ones we will have to find some solutions.

    M: :)

    Fully agree with you that it is preposterous to have

    referendums for every single political question or “policy” and that the average citizen does need a competent political representative to serve and not to rule.

    Cool

    -M: Again, SD2 is the model. Registered political activists

    would have ranks, and could have regular meet-ups with those of a similar rank. And the SD2 algorithm makes for rapid upward and downward mobility within the hierarchy.

    G: I like the idea of hard to gain, easy to lose.

    -M: Yes, gains would be harder than the losses because to rise, the person would have to be competitive with those who already have established competitiveness.

    G: It makes people be responsible in order of protection of their

    political capital. Basic instinct stuff.

    M: :)

    […]

    Do our views converge here at this point?

    -M: No. Finding the right representitives algorithmicly makes

    the point of voter education MOOT. I would rather that the citizenry be educated and informed than not. But if the right decision makers were in place, what would be wrong with the commoner imposing ignorance on themselves(as they usually do)? […]

    For the decisions to be made in accordance to the Will of the

    People, at least the following conditions must be met:

    a The political representative(s) must be freely elected or

    chosen by the people;

    What does it mean, freely?

    -M: SD2 can be used to organize a political party, or an entire country. Either way, the participants would have a much wider variety of representitives to choose from. (With SD2, one could choose from most of the population.) This seems about as free

    as it gets. […]

    Cmon. Ideals come and go, or better to say, after a while,

    they have to give up from these ideals as long as they are to big burden for the political process that happens behind the curtain.

    -M: Why even bother trying to understand it? Just create a

    system where those who do understand it could peer-review one another, and where the worthy could rise. SD2.

    G: Hehe. It is not bad to apear that you know what is the todays

    problem, because in that way you can be more persuative when suggesting something different :-D

    M: OK. :)

    -M: To add: The 50%+1 are not accountable the the 50%-1. If

    the 50%+1 makes the wrong decision, they drag down the 50%-1 with their error. SD2 tries to represent 100% instead of 50%+1 by allowing as much of the voters voting power to extend as deeply into the network as possible.

    ATB, Gale

    shanti
    Mark, Seattle WA USA

    Yahoo! Groups Links

    • To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/top-politics/

    • To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: top-politics-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

    • Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  • +2 New discussion Answer
    4 messages...
    << Close

[top-politics] Re: ... The Future of this List ...

geoerdeaen wrote:

—- In top-politics@yahoogroups.com, “charles.opensource” <charles@…> wrote:

Well, i am comparatively new to this group;but i do have an opinion on this proposition; as follows:First, my smaller concerns are that:my open-source leanings are inherently opposed to big corporations,such as Google, Yahoo, MSN, or AOL.

OK. This means Yahoo=Google Right?

Yes.
I perceive them as being equal.

Further; there are numerous smaller domain-names & servers available which can very adequately facilitatethe email-list & bbs communications forums which we seek.For example, I can set up a phpbb BBS-system;with an automated email-list, all with fully functional thread-

searching,

and our own web space for this group, under either of these

domains.

http://directdemocraticgov.org/http://opensourcegov.us/

I have to say what worries me. Do not get me wrong. I do not know you. We do not have a common past together.

I am glad you are speaking your concerns plainly, Gale.

I did not realize you were the person in position of primary responsibility here. I thought it was Marcus, & i made similar offers to him earlier, privately. I am glad that mystery is now clear.

I do need to trust you about this issue. If you say do it, that I believe that is the real thing.

“Trust” is at the center of everything, yes. Nothing can be built in communities of people without “Trust”.

On the other hand, I have common past with Google and Yahoo. This gives me security I am looking for in this moment.

These are important decisions.
I would have the same concerns if i were in your position.

This is like “a form of warfare” we are involved with. This is “a battle for the minds & hearts of the people”. There are “powers that be” which desire to destroy us. I would be similarly apprehensive.

This gives me possibility to know you betterand to change my opinion during time.

If this is what you feel that you must do,
i will not attempt to veto it.
I will not block consensus.

With no rush. With many reason. I suppose you understand my concern about this proposal.

Agreed.

One more thing. Karl is looking for bigger integration of software for our further discussns. Involving wiki and stuff. I share this idea with him. I supose some other members share this vision with us.

Wikkis are good. I know this.
And i do not know if our server is capable of hosting Wikkis.

I believe it is very probable that they are;
but that would take at least a month to get set-up, probably. We are a linux-based server.

I suppose there is some work to do about that.

Can Google host Wikkis?
I did not think Wikkis were offered there.

Work we can peacefully continue after we move/or not move. Just do it steady, peacefully. That is all.

I suppose i comprehend & support your concerns.

Charles. Do you possibly agree that we move to Google /no big differecne to yahoo?/

Yes.

so we can easily discuss of what we excatly need on some bigger integration system that would be set to some new and secure domain?

Sure.

Me personaly think that we really need a domain and stuff, but to get something that is good, we need to go step by step.

Well; i do completely understand you concern for not trusting me fully.

But if that trust problem were out of the way,
i do not think it would serve any benefit to move slow; when most tools are immediately available.

Old systems can be left functional, for as long as is prudent; while everyone moves discussions to the new forums.

If problems happen soon,
then retreat is the best military strategy.
But that would probably be very rare.

Back-up copies of all past email or other files should be kept for insertion into any system which eventually we choose.

These files should be fairly generic/interchangeable so that they can be installed in what-ever systems we eventually choose.

But once the ground feels solid under our feet,
we can cut the ties to the old system.

I really like thinking of all of this in military terms. We are discussing very powerful issues,
which can benefit the common people of this planet immensely, if we can pull some form of process together soon.

The evil-empire feeds off of the fear they instill in the common people, and we have the potential power to destroy their ability to do that.

It may be good to keep the old Yahoo system in place; like for 6 months or so, just in case where we move to is under the control of people who hate our work.

But in the mean-time: we have been using a better forum, & we have accomplished better discussion, & we have gotten much smarter, wiser, & much closer to bringing our democratic empowerment process to the world.

In military terms, & keeping in mind that we are keeping back-ups of our files, even if the agents of evil destroy our forum; we can quickly find another forum, & plug-in our backed-up files there, so that in pragmatic/military terms our information-infrastructure would only be down for a few weeks at most.

On my server, we have programs which can automatically send an email to you with that days current copy of the entire email list.

Further, copies of the archives of all past emails to the list can can be regularly copied & saved by the administrator. Same with the PHP-BB BBS system.

If we go that way,we are reducing any possibility of doing wrong stuff pretty much.

Caution is very good at the appropriate times in all forms of warfare. And i will not break consensus on this point,
if that is the way the group decides to go.

But please remember,
we are in “a battle for the minds & hearts of the people”.

Our planet & its people pay significant prices
every day that workable solutions to the worlds problems are delayed.

Saying that, i leave the decision to you, & the others; respectfully.

And if we do it properly, we could build something pretty cool :-)

We all agree on that point, good sir.

I believe i have spoken my position adequately.

The decision is yours.

Respectfully;

Charles …

ATB,Gale

These are links which illustrate the email and bbs programs

available:

http://directdemocraticgov.org/mailman/admin/top-

politics_directdemocraticgov.org

http://directdemocraticgov.org/mailman/listinfo/top-

politics_directdemocraticgov.org

http://directdemocraticgov.org/pipermail/top-

politics_directdemocraticgov.org/

http://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/index.htmlhttp://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/features.htmlhttp://directdemocraticgov.org/top-politics/http://directdemocraticgov.org/generalassembly/http://www.phpbb.com/http://sourceforge.net/projects/phpbb/http://www.phpbbhacks.com/

-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

+1 New discussion Answer

• 15/04/06 13:13 <Magnus>

  I agree with those who point on Google’s commercial interest + their behaviour regarding censorship etc.
  But, we have to leave Yahoo..
  I also agree to the creation of a new, more proffesional site where we will use all the state of the art tools as PHPbb, tikiwiki, or whatever.
  Still I see many discussing the proper in moving to google for now. As I see it it is only a temporary solution!
  I’m convinced that we on this google list will be able to find concesus about the next step.
  Until then, I will only use this list. (Google).

  BR/
  Mange (Previous Karl)

  -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

  +1 New discussion Answer

[top-politics] How to improve communication on the list?

Many, many talk about it, nothing has been done about it. OK, almost nothing, as long as E is doing +1/o/-1 stuff in this moment. Yet, there is no organised manner of fighting non transparency of this group. So, let me start with it on this topic.

First of all, OFF TOPIC. If somebody makes some off topic, it would be rather good to open new topic about it if there is no already topic about it.

In that way, other members who do not lurk trough every single theme all the time, will have oportunity to see that and participate there.

Another thing is that I can notice many very simmilar topics all the way, in the last time usually about lemming stuff.

This random theme promotion is NOT GOOD. If we look this group, we can not find one single topic where several members decided to solve one single problem till the moment they succeed in that.

So, my first reccomendation about this is this procedure:

1. Articulate the topic
2. Start the topic
3. Invite other members you find would be interested in it
4. All the off topic that suits to that topic on the other themes, move there.
   5 If there come out the new questions, articulate them and open new topic or join it to existing topic about it.

Second reccomendation would be finding way of articulation of the procedure of how to get conclusions of the topic and conclusions themselves. Yet, first reccomendation is the first thing to do.

So, what do you think?

One more thing. If E, Mark, Magnus and Markus agree about this, Eric said he would do the same thing. So, is this a good way forward or not?

-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

+5 New discussion Answer

[top-politics] Comment to Eric from topic "What can 4 of us actually do?"

lpc1998 wrote:

+1[Eric]:Okay, so we have three topics for discussion:1 What does democracy mean to you?;2 What does TOP mean to you?; or3 What are the pros and cons of the delegated vote?I vote for Topic 2. As there are a total of 4 votes, the first topic that gets 3 or more votes shall be the topic selected for discussion. If none gets voted, then we shall have Round 2 of voting and vote on the first 2 topics that get the highest number of votes. If there are 2 topics with the same number of votes at the 2nd place, then Gale shall have the casting vote.

Hello Eric.

I have to give an objection up there. You are starting second turn a little bit before the rest of group actually made clear thought about what is up to us actually to do at all.

So please, lets set first thing first and than go forward.

ATB;
Gale

[echarp]:“The voting process could be continuous. That means that any bodyaccepted in the electoral list will have his votes counted, but alsothat any vote can be changed any time.”[Eric]:The continuous vote may not be appropriate for the voting of topics for discussion unless we want to change the discussion topic half-way when it loses the majority support.The pros and cons of the continuous vote for the election of a public officer could be another topic for discussion at some other time.[echarp]:“What do you think of the -1/0/+1 process to show if you accept orreject something?”[Eric]:What do I do when there are two major points in a message where I agree with one and not the other?Best RegardsEric Lim

-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

+1 New discussion Answer

• 29/06/06 17:57 <lpc1998>

  Okay, let us hold back the voting on the topics since you have some more things to say.

  Best Regards Eric Lim

  illegale <geoerdeaen@yahoo.com> wrote:

  lpc1998 wrote:

  +1[Eric]:Okay, so we have three topics for discussion:1 What does democracy mean to you?;2 What does TOP mean to you?; or3 What are the pros and cons of the delegated vote?I vote for Topic 2. As there are a total of 4 votes, the first topic that gets 3 or more votes shall be the topic selected for discussion. If none gets voted, then we shall have Round 2 of voting and vote on the first 2 topics that get the highest number of votes. If there are 2 topics with the same number of votes at the 2nd place, then Gale shall have the casting vote.

  Hello Eric.

  I have to give an objection up there. You are starting second turn a little bit before the rest of group actually made clear thought about what is up to us actually to do at all.

  So please, lets set first thing first and than go forward.

  ATB;
  Gale

  [echarp]:“The voting process could be continuous. That means that any bodyaccepted in the electoral list will have his votes counted, but alsothat any vote can be changed any time.”[Eric]:The continuous vote may not be appropriate for the voting of topics for discussion unless we want to change the discussion topic half-way when it loses the majority support.The pros and cons of the continuous vote for the election of a public officer could be another topic for discussion at some other time.[echarp]:“What do you think of the -1/0/+1 process to show if you accept orreject something?”[Eric]:What do I do when there are two major points in a message where I agree with one and not the other?Best RegardsEric Lim

  -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

  +1 New discussion Answer
  • 29/06/06 18:33 <illegale>

    Thank you Eric for your kindness.

    ATB,
    Gale

    -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

    +1 New discussion Answer
    • 10/07/06 11:33 <Magnus>

      I vote for no. 2. (Happily noting that we are run direct democratically from now..:-)

      -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

      +1 New discussion Answer
      • 11/07/06 11:15 <illegale>

        MG wrote:

        I vote for no. 2.(Happily noting that we are run direct democratically from now..:-)

        Your cast is noiced :-)

        ATB,
        Gale

        -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

        +1 New discussion Answer

[top-politics] FA/DP - some questions & comments

Dear Lomax,

I’ve now read some articles on http://beyondpolitics.org, and I find FA/DP a very interesting concept. It’s pretty interesting that we (TiAktiv, TOP) have come to some similar conclusions independently from each other which is another indication that we are on the right way.
FA-s if I understood right are (in organization theory terms) informal network organizations, e.g. organizations without hierarchy, based on information flow between participant. DP is a system (which kind of reminds me of SD-2 and CLD2) which allows the dynamic building of a hierarchy in a network of people, e.g. defines responsibility and decision rights (if I didn’t miss something).
So FA/DP seems to be another implementation of the fishnet organization (which Gale and my self like so much to point out :-D )
Also what I really wellcome is that you point out that the whole organizational processes in some FA/DP organization should be transparent, or better TOP which is one of the main points this group has reached concensus about.
An issue that seems to lack in this concept is (likewise SD-2 and CLD2) specialization, e.g. the concept is building a global hierarchy without focusing on special requirements of special problems. For example, a problem which is focused on a special part of humanity (e.g. ecology) should be best resolved by people who are professionals for this specific field, and not by some board which is “overall the best” e.g. the “top level board of proxies”. SD-2 and CLD2 have the same problem, and this is why I proposed multiple hierarchies to be formed autopoietically in form of a fishnet (which I’m trying to implement using an SourceForge like system, e.g. multiple projects/organizations forming multiple hierarchies by which everyone is specialized on a certain part of interest).
Another issue I’d like to point out is that a system like FA/DP on large scale is allmost not imaginable whitout an adequate information system to support it. There needs to be a way to keep track of all this different delegations, and if you have an organization of say 1 000 000 members, just think how many paperwork this is.
In the end, FA/PD is a good concept and should be taken into consideration. If you like (since if I understood right you aren’t a programmer) I would propose to use this concept in a possible TOP Information System for try out (other concepts should also be included and time should show which concepts are most usefull).

Best regards

— Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
e-mail: markus.schatten@foi.hr
http://www.tiaktiv.hr

-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

+1 New discussion Answer

• 08/09/06 23:09 <Mark Rosst>

  Markus Schatten wrote:

  mS: […] An issue that seems to lack in this concept is (likewise SD-2 and CLD2)specialization, e.g. the concept is building a global hierarchy withoutfocusing on special requirements of special problems.

  -M: SD2 is just an umbrella system, like DP, and there is overlap between the two umbrellas.
  SD2-Smartocracy, which is SD2 with my prefered defaults, is a form of DP where people are encouraged to select specialists.

  mS: For example, a problem which is focused on a special part of humanity (e.g. ecology) should be best resolved by people who are professionals for this specific field, and not by some board which is “overall the best” e.g. the “top level board of proxies”.

  SD-2 […] have the same problem,…

  -M: No, SD2 only has this problem if its a version that doesn’t have specialists.

  mS:…and this is why I proposed multiple hierarchies to be formed autopoietically in form of a fishnet (which I’m trying to implement using an SourceForge like system, e.g. multiple projects/organizations forming multiple hierarchies by which everyone is specialized on a certain part of interest).

  -M: Why does everyone have to be specialized on a certain part? Can’t someone:

  1. be a multiple specialist?
  2. be a generalist?
  3. be both a generalist and specialist?
  4. be neither?

  SD2-S allows for this flexibility.

  mS: Another issue I’d like to point out is that a system like FA/DP on large scaleis allmost not imaginable whitout an adequate information system to supportit. There needs to be a way to keep track of all this different delegations,and if you have an organization of say 1 000 000 members, just think how manypaperwork this is.[…]

  -M: Good point Marcus. See, Lomax, DP should be software based for the sake of scaleability.

  Well Markus, how would you like to program DP with SD2-Smartocracy defaults?

  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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

  +1 New discussion Answer
  • 08/09/06 23:26 <Markus Schatten>

    Dear Mark

    On Friday 08 September 2006 23:09, Mark wrote:

    Markus Schatten wrote:

    mS: […] An issue that seems to lack in this concept is (likewise SD-2and CLD2) specialization, e.g. the concept is building a global hierarchywithout focusing on special requirements of special problems.

    -M: SD2 is just an umbrella system, like DP, and there is overlapbetween the two umbrellas.SD2-Smartocracy, which is SD2 with my prefered defaults, is a form ofDP where people are encouraged to select specialists.

    Of course, I know that, and we discused that allready ;-)

    mS: For example, a problem which is focused on a special part of humanity(e.g. ecology) should be best resolved by people who are professionalsfor this specific field, and not by some board which is “overall thebest” e.g. the “top level board of proxies”.

    SD-2 […] have the same problem,…-M: No, SD2 only has this problem if its a version that doesn’t havespecialists.

    OK ;-)

    mS:…and this is why I proposed multiple hierarchies to be formedautopoietically in form of a fishnet (which I’m trying to implement usingan SourceForge like system, e.g. multiple projects/organizations formingmultiple hierarchies by which everyone is specialized on a certain partof interest).

    -M: Why does everyone have to be specialized on a certain part?

    No they don’t.

    Can’t someone:1. be a multiple specialist?2. be a generalist?3. be both a generalist and specialist?4. be neither?

    Yes (to all four).

    SD2-S allows for this flexibility.

    Yes it does.

    mS: Another issue I’d like to point out is that a system like FA/DP onlarge scale is allmost not imaginable whitout an adequate informationsystem to support it. There needs to be a way to keep track of all thisdifferent delegations, and if you have an organization of say 1 000 000members, just think how many paperwork this is.[…]

    -M: Good point Marcus. See, Lomax, DP should be software based for thesake of scaleability.Well Markus, how would you like to program DP with SD2-Smartocracydefaults?

    It is possible. BTW. have you made an SD2-S elaboration (as you did with SD2)? A certain formalization of SD2-S would be helpful, e.g. a document in which you describe how the system should work. Maybe the TOP wiki would be a nice place to publish it :-P
    For now I have the spreadsheet program (which I can use for a possible TOP system), but have to change some stuff to get it to work with SD2 and SD2-S.

    Best regards

    — Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
    e-mail: markus.schatten@foi.hr
    http://www.tiaktiv.hr

    -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

    +1 New discussion Answer
    • 10/09/06 18:37 <Mark Rosst>

      mS: […] An issue that seems to lack in this concept is (likewise SD-2and CLD2) specialization, e.g. the concept is building a global hierarchywithout focusing on special requirements of special problems.

      M: SD2 is just an umbrella system, like DP, and there is overlapbetween the two umbrellas.SD2-Smartocracy, which is SD2 with my prefered defaults, is a form ofDP where people are encouraged to select specialists.

      mS: Of course, I know that, and we discused that allready ;)

      -M: OK, I just wanted to be sure that you remembered. Also others benefit by this clarification.

      mS: For example, a problem which is focused on a special part of humanity(e.g. ecology) should be best resolved by people who are professionalsfor this specific field, and not by some board which is “overall thebest” e.g. the “top level board of proxies”.SD-2 […] have the same problem,…

      -M: No, SD2 only has this problem if its a version that doesn’t havespecialists.

      mS: OK ;-)

      -M: Even then it wouldn’t nessicarily be a problem because the directors could choose to use a specialist system.

      mS:…and this is why I proposed multiple hierarchies to be formedautopoietically in form of a fishnet (which I’m trying to implement usingan SourceForge like system, e.g. multiple projects/organizations formingmultiple hierarchies by which everyone is specialized on a certain partof interest).

      -M: Why does everyone have to be specialized on a certain part?

      mS: No they don’t.

      Can’t someone:1. be a multiple specialist?2. be a generalist?3. be both a generalist and specialist?4. be neither?

      mS: Yes (to all four).

      M: OK. :)

      SD2-S allows for this flexibility.

      mS: Yes it does.

      mS: Another issue I’d like to point out is that a system like FA/DP onlarge scale is allmost not imaginable whitout an adequate informationsystem to support it. There needs to be a way to keep track of all thisdifferent delegations, and if you have an organization of say 1 000 000members, just think how many paperwork this is.[…]

      -M: Good point Marcus. See, Lomax, DP should be software based for thesake of scaleability.Well Markus, how would you like to program DP with SD2-Smartocracydefaults?

      mS: It is possible. BTW. have you made an SD2-S elaboration (as you did with SD2)?

      -M: Yes, I have formalized most of the Dance-Monkey algorithm on a piece of paper but haven’t posted it yet. SD2-S would have further input constraints on this algorithm.

      mS: A certain formalization of SD2-S would be helpful, e.g. a document in whichyou describe how the system should work. Maybe the TOP wiki would be a niceplace to publish it :-P

      -M: I’ll do that!

      mS: For now I have the spreadsheet program (which I can use for a possible TOPsystem), but have to change some stuff to get it to work with SD2 and SD2-S.

      -M: OK. I was thinking of a wiki with SD2-S constraints. Pimki is similar to a wiki,
      http://pimki.rubyforge.org/
      and has network graphing capability
      http://www.graphviz.org/
      This could create collaborative writing projects with hierarchal control.

      Is this a good idea?

      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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

      +1 New discussion Answer
      • 11/09/06 04:36 <AbdLomax>

        [top-politics] FA/DP and TOP

        Somewhere above a comment was made that FA/DP appeared to be TOP, i.e., transparent, open politics — or does the P stand for “participatory?”

        In any case, FA/DP is not necessarily open. It has to be open to its members, but it is not necessarily open to the public at large. It depends.

        The massive FA/DP organization that would represent the ultimate transformation of politics would pretty much have to be fully open and transparent. But caucuses within it may still function privately, as they see fit.

        Yes, the special interests may still plan and plot. But it will become much more difficult — and dangerous — to deceive the public, and so those interests, I expect, will learn that it is far more efficient to plan and plot to provide solutions that are mutually beneficial, i.e., they benefit both the special interest and the public as a whole, or at least don’t harm the public. And once they are doing that, the need for secrecy may become less, depending on the rest of the system. If, for example, the system rewards innovation by rewarding the first to come up with an idea, i.e., it issues patents, then there remains a motive for secrecy. Frankly, I think that a problem, but not one that I’m going to address tonight!

        I’m not generally attempting to directly solve social problems, but rather to solve the metaproblem: how can we apply the best thinking, the best analysis, the widest experience, to our problems?

        -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

        +1 New discussion Answer
        • 02/10/06 14:23 <illegale>

          Abd ul-Rahman Lomax je napisao/la:

          I’m not generally attempting to directly solve social problems, butrather to solve the metaproblem: how can we apply the best thinking,the best analysis, the widest experience, to our problems?

          So, you are talking abotu great brain cluster, sort of modern Salomon? Isnt it completely and exclusively compatible to TOP?

          ATB;
          Gale

          -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

          +1 New discussion Answer
          • 03/10/06 05:45 <AbdLomax>

            At 08:23 AM 10/2/2006, illegale wrote:

            Abd ul-Rahman Lomax je napisao/la:

            I’m not generally attempting to directly solve social problems, butrather to solve the metaproblem: how can we apply the best thinking,the best analysis, the widest experience, to our problems?

            So, you are talking abotu great brain cluster, sort of modern Salomon?

            Indeed. I’m talking about another level of intelligence, beyond the individual. It already exists, but it is as if it were drugged or asleep. Perhaps having a bad dream…. (and sometimes a very nice dream!)

            Isnt it completely and exclusively compatible to TOP?

            Pretty close. However, because freedom is essential to it, it cannot be by obligation open at all levels. For example, meetings may set filters. Indeed, noise filtering is also essential.

            However, every input, before being filtered out, for maximum intelligence, should be “heard.” “Input” in this sense could represent the entire output of an individual.

            FA/DP maximizes the possibility that an individual - any individual - will have a relatively sympathetic channel for accessing the system. But the proxy relationship is a free one. Nobody can be forced to be a proxy.

            Much of the writing on liquid democracy seems to assume that there will be competition for proxies, which is based on a power model. In a communications model, being a proxy is a job, a task, and, in particular, one is responsible to one’s clients. Take on too many clients for the context and it becomes a quite burdensome task. The abstraction of communication from power in FA/DP means that there is not a great deal of advantage to holding a lot of proxies. Yes, you will have a certain amount of power as a result, but it is not direct power, it is indirect, depending entirely on your ability to persuade your clients to act in a certain way. Collecting empty proxies, i.e., the proxies of people who are not going to actually contribute anything, is simply collecting dead weight.

            This abstraction from power is seriously puzzling to many. It runs quite contrary to our expectations of how to engage in politics. Isn’t politics about trying to make things go our way?

            It is the great error. Following it, we try to control outcomes, instead of establishing intelligent process. Yes, there will be the application of power. But intelligence must come first. Or else we simply reproduce what has come before. With new faces.

            To continue examining the relationship with TOP (transparent, open, public): again, because FA/DP is free, it is free to be private and secret. However, the truly essential and expansive possibilities are with TOP systems. Within those systems, some caucuses will operate privately. Others will find secrecy a hindrance. They will find the balance.

            -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

            +1 New discussion Answer
            • 04/10/06 01:19 <illegale>

              Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

              At 08:23 AM 10/2/2006, illegale wrote:

              Abd ul-Rahman Lomax je napisao/la:

              I’m not generally attempting to directly solve social problems, butrather to solve the metaproblem: how can we apply the best thinking,the best analysis, the widest experience, to our problems?

              So, you are talking abotu great brain cluster, sort of modern Salomon?

              Indeed. I’m talking about another level of intelligence, beyond theindividual. It already exists, but it is as if it were drugged orasleep. Perhaps having a bad dream…. (and sometimes a very nice dream!)

              Hmh. I do not share this opinion, yet it is not so relevant :-)

              Isnt it completely and exclusively compatible to TOP?

              Pretty close. However, because freedom is essential to it, it cannotbe by obligation open at all levels. For example, meetings may setfilters. Indeed, noise filtering is also essential.

              TOP goes fine with filters. In other words one does not excludes the other one. Of course, filtering I am mentioning is only freedom of selecting relevant informations, not to disable free speech. An example of such software is first generation of Tiaktivs forum.

              However, every input, before being filtered out, for maximumintelligence, should be “heard.” “Input” in this sense couldrepresent the entire output of an individual.

              OK.

              FA/DP maximizes the possibility that an individual - any individual- will have a relatively sympathetic channel for accessing thesystem. But the proxy relationship is a free one. Nobody can beforced to be a proxy.Much of the writing on liquid democracy seems to assume that therewill be competition for proxies, which is based on a power model. Ina communications model, being a proxy is a job, a task, and, inparticular, one is responsible to one’s clients. Take on too manyclients for the context and it becomes a quite burdensome task. Theabstraction of communication from power in FA/DP means that there isnot a great deal of advantage to holding a lot of proxies. Yes, youwill have a certain amount of power as a result, but it is not directpower, it is indirect, depending entirely on your ability to persuadeyour clients to act in a certain way. Collecting empty proxies, i.e.,the proxies of people who are not going to actually contributeanything, is simply collecting dead weight.This abstraction from power is seriously puzzling to many. It runsquite contrary to our expectations of how to engage in politics.Isn’t politics about trying to make things go our way?

              Yes. Politics is menagment of societal power. No power, no politics.

              It is the great error. Following it, we try to control outcomes,instead of establishing intelligent process.

              Going our way does not exlude adoptation process. Especially not in the open systems.

              Yes, there will be the application of power. But intelligence mustcome first. Or else we simply reproduce what has come before. With new faces.To continue examining the relationship with TOP (transparent, open,public): again, because FA/DP is free, it is free to be private andsecret. However, the truly essential and expansive possibilities arewith TOP systems. Within those systems, some caucuses will operateprivately. Others will find secrecy a hindrance. They will find the balance.

              Hmh. So, what is the key thought that makes your model be working? What we see in Tiaktiv is actually TOP itself, complete overturn of existing political paradigm. Politics based on sharing instead of controling information. So, if that can make the World the better place, if that is what we believe it is (OpenSoruce in software development showed its efficiency already, and OpenSource is actually completelly compatible to politics we want to see functioning), than we have to ask ourselves, what are we going to start? New political paradigm, or alternative network based on internet?. One more thing. About networks. This is the project pretty many people tried to start. More precisely, if one sentient politican does not succeed in gathering political support, he turns to networking others in order of finding simmilar thinkers to work together or to support those with greater chance.

              Me personaly worked that way a while also. Yet, if you want to succeed in agitation, you have to have clear idea of why should someone join my network. And that is not so easy task. Especially in the moment people under pressure of mass media loose faith in humanity in general. So, what is that you can offer to regular person? Tool where he can delegate proxy? Why should he need such thing in this very moment? I understand that you have larger picture in your head, but that picture is simmilar to Marks intention of creating decision making procedure withouth feeling a pulse of others. And as long as others did not feel that pulse, your general thought with not so many irresistible proofs is actuallym just if/than/else story. If/then/else stories do not pass. At least, that is mine experience. Please, correct me if I am wrong or if I missed something important.

              ATB,
              Gale

              -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

              +1 New discussion Answer
              • 04/10/06 16:43 <AbdLomax>

                Some important points….

                At 07:19 PM 10/3/2006, illegale wrote:

                So, you are talking abotu great brain cluster, sort of modern Salomon?

                Indeed. I’m talking about another level of intelligence, beyond theindividual. It already exists, but it is as if it were drugged orasleep. Perhaps having a bad dream…. (and sometimes a very nice dream!)

                Hmh. I do not share this opinion, yet it is not so relevant :-)

                In more than one place, Gale disagrees without saying why, at all, not even to specify what specifically is being disagreed with. That an intelligence higher than that of the individual exists? That it is drugged or asleep (i.e., not functioning with full capacity)? That it is (as if) having a bad dream (i.e., wars, seeming powerlessness, etc.)? That sometimes it is a nice dream? (all the beauty of collective action that we experience)?

                Isnt it completely and exclusively compatible to TOP?

                Pretty close. However, because freedom is essential to it, it cannotbe by obligation open at all levels. For example, meetings may setfilters. Indeed, noise filtering is also essential.

                TOP goes fine with filters. In other words one does not excludes theother one. Of course, filtering I am mentioning is only freedom ofselecting relevant informations, not to disable free speech. An exampleof such software is first generation of Tiaktivs forum.

                Freedom of speech is oppression if there is no freedom not to listen, not to be able to function without wading through what happens when millions of people have free speech rights in a forum. Example: many usenet newsgroups, which gradually became, if unmoderated, extremely difficult to use.

                In another post I explain why a filtered transcript is important. If, to understand a decision made by those active at a certain level, I must wade through myriads of irrelevant posts, understanding becomes quite difficult. Yes, some kind of rating system might accomplish this, but if it is done automatically, under the hood, so to speak, it becomes vulnerable to corruption or systemic error. I prefer to make specific, known people — and chosen by proxy delegation — responsible for filtering. Because such a system is built from the bottom up, individuals do have access with whatever wacky or sound ideas they might generate. Low-level proxies might operate completely open forums for their clients, among other things. The DP system means that members of the organization, all of them who have chosen proxies and been accepted, have access to someone who is, presumably, better connected than they are. Acceptance of a proxy does signify willingness to consider input from the person, to at least read it. If I’m a low-level proxy and there is some person who writes compulsively, and it is too much for me, I can attempt to find a client or other member who is willing to at least look it over; that person becomes the direct proxy of the loquacious client. None of this need be a formal requirement. All that is needed at the formal level is a proxy list which includes three fields: member handle, designated proxy handle, acceptance. The rest is what can be expected to happen in an organization that actually starts using DP.

                Note that it is not necessary that DP be formally accepted for decision-making. It would merely be more convenient; instead of recommending that clients vote in a certain way, or otherwise exercise their personal power (which in, for example, standard corporate shareholder rights, would mean naming a formal proxy according to the rules of the corporation, perhaps a top proxy from the DP network), the delegated proxies could vote directly. It’s a small difference.

                Any organization which allows members to vote by proxy can thus effectively use Delegable Proxy.

                [on why I’m proposing a clean separation between communication and the exercise of power:]

                This abstraction from power is seriously puzzling to many. It runsquite contrary to our expectations of how to engage in politics.Isn’t politics about trying to make things go our way?

                Yes. Politics is menagment of societal power. No power, no politics.

                I think the point was missed. The question is rhetorical; politics is, at best, not about how to “make things go our way,” but about finding courses of action which benefit the whole society. There is a subtle but important difference. It becomes obvious in societies which are badly polarized, where “winning” an election can be a total disaster if the minority is thus motivated to rebel. The voters (the majority, or the plurality in systems which allow a plurality winner, such as the U.S., which is even more dangerous) “got their way,” that is, they chose their favorite, someone who perhaps has a platform that appeals to them, or pretends to, which is too often the case, but they lost the ultimate goal, which is a functional society.

                Politics is about “making things go our way,” not my way. “Our way” means “the greatest good for the greatest number,” and FAs learn to respect the views of even a single member, continuing debate long beyond the point where a majority can be obtained. Without a means of concentrating debate into a small forum, this would be completely impractical in large organizations. Thus the importance of DP, which theoretically makes it possible to concentrate debate into a small group. not open to all, that is, not directly open. Indirectly, FA/DP is maximally open, it collectively attempts to listen to everyone.

                And because it desires to do this, it cannot have an institutional bias, aside from that implied in the membership definition (and registration procedure). An FA/DP organization which is attempting to function as a communications network and consensus-generating mechanism for the whole society, thus, cannot take institutional positions. Once it does, it effectively excludes the minority.

                This does not stop it from reporting poll results; and people may do what they wish with a result that is “196,495,782 members, voting directly or by proxy, support Measure A, and 37 members, similarly voting, were opposed.”

                FA/DP organizations do make decisions, presumably by majority vote, regarding their own process. The protection against bias that can be introduced by this is the DP system, which makes it quite easy for a proxy to form a new organization that effectively becomes an opposing caucus, with an implied meta-organization which exists if any member from either caucus continues to participate in the other organizations. Only exclusion from self-defined membership blocks this, and thus an organization which is so exclusive cannot be more than a caucus within an open FA.

                Hmh. So, what is the key thought that makes your model be working? Whatwe see in Tiaktiv is actually TOP itself, complete overturn of existingpolitical paradigm. Politics based on sharing instead of controlinginformation.

                Good politics is. Power politics often is not….

                FA/DP is not about the overthrow of the status quo, except to the degree that the status quo depends upon the lack of independent organization of the people. It does not attack existing institutions, period.

                Now, this would be, in truth, a revolution. But, unless it is actively opposed with violence, a very gentle one. By definition, it solicits participation by all parties, including the “special interests,” including the oligarchs, and they lose nothing by participating, they only gain the opportunity to establish that their interest is actually the interest of society. If it is.

                And most groups believe this, that their way is the best way…..

                So, if that can make the World the better place, if thatis what we believe it is (OpenSoruce in software development showed itsefficiency already, and OpenSource is actually completelly compatibleto politics we want to see functioning), than we have to ask ourselves,what are we going to start? New political paradigm, or alternativenetwork based on internet?.

                I’d say new political paradigm! Internet is a tool, a device. The true problem is that people believe that they are powerless, so why bother organizing? Besides, every organization that they have known has ultimately failed them, has been corrupted. The entire intellectual class in Ethiopia supported the Mengistu Haile Maryam revolution. Which quickly became one of the most brutal dictatorships in modern history, murdering all opposition. And charging the families of the murdered for the bullets before allowing them to pick up the bodies….

                No, we don’t start with the exercise of power. We start with communication, with methods for seeking and finding consensus. This is, in my view, the only way to securely avoid those disasters.

                One more thing. About networks. This is theproject pretty many people tried to start. More precisely, if onesentient politican does not succeed in gathering political support, heturns to networking others in order of finding simmilar thinkers towork together or to support those with greater chance.

                Yes. But this is generally based upon a particular platform. FA/DP is metaplatform.

                Me personaly worked that way a while also. Yet, if you want to succeedin agitation, you have to have clear idea of why should someone join mynetwork. And that is not so easy task.

                Indeed, it is quite difficult. However, what is the standard of success? I consider my work successful over the last few years, but it started from nothing. Given that what I’m promoting is a wider understanding of certain concepts, this being the first step, I can see great progress. Delegable Proxy, for example, is now widely recognized among election methods experts as being an “ideal” system. They still think, mostly, that there is no way to get from here to there, because they still think in terms of official, legal systems, power structures. The FA concepts are much harder, they go quite against expectations.

                Especially in the moment peopleunder pressure of mass media loose faith in humanity in general. So,what is that you can offer to regular person? Tool where he candelegate proxy? Why should he need such thing in this very moment?

                He needs it, but he does not know that he needs it. He is, in Mark’s delicate language, a lemming. He is responsive to the opinions and views of those around him. Get enough people moving in this direction, he will join. Until then, he won’t give it the time of day.

                Rationally, everyone should register at
                http://beyondpolitics.org/wiki. What does it cost? The slogan is:

                “Lift a finger, save the world.”

                But most people won’t lift a finger. Why not?

                I know why, and I also know how to move around this. But it’s a huge topic. It will take time, is the bottom line.

                What is needed now is not for everyone to join. What is needed is for one more person to join, and to attempt to understand the concepts. We are at a point where each individual participant is worth a great deal.

                As there are more people participating, more again will come. The goal at this point is for enough people to understand the FA/DP concepts that the probability of them being implemented in a “real” organization reaches significance. This could happen at any time. We are working on this, all of us, I’d say, but the inertia is tremendous.

                Iunderstand that you have larger picture in your head, but that pictureis simmilar to Marks intention of creating decision making procedurewithouth feeling a pulse of others.

                I’m quite aware of the pulse. I’m not trying, at this time, to create a mass movement. I’m trying to create a small organization which can seed larger ones. It would be lovely to see any examples of DP in actual use. Demoex never really tried it sufficiently.

                And as long as others did not feelthat pulse, your general thought with not so many irresistible proofsis actuallym just if/than/else story. If/then/else stories do not pass.At least, that is mine experience. Please, correct me if I am wrong orif I missed something important.

                The problem at this point is not in convincing everyone. Indeed, I don’t want to convince anyone of anything, except that all this is worth examining. If it is wrong, how? Telling us would be a great public service!

                What the problem is now is getting one more active member, someone interested in understanding the concepts and in doing what I’ve been doing: encouraging broader discussion and understanding. There is one, Jan Kok, you saw him here. With three, putting in even a few hours a week, we would have, I believe, the core, and growth would accelerate.

                The solution in general is becoming supersaturated. The necessary understandings are beginning to appear everywhere. All it will take, I suspect, is a seed crystal and the whole picture will appear, quite rapidly.

                But getting that crystal together is astonishingly difficult. If this were a standard political cause, it would be relatively easy. People get fired up about causes. And then they burn out….

                -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

                +1 New discussion Answer
                3 messages...
                << Close
        • 13/09/06 15:48 <Markus Schatten>

          Dear Lomax

          On Monday 11 September 2006 04:36, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

          Somewhere above a comment was made that FA/DP appeared to be TOP,i.e., transparent, open politics — or does the P stand for"participatory?"

          TOP stands for Transparent Open Public.

          In any case, FA/DP is not necessarily open. It has to be open to itsmembers, but it is not necessarily open to the public at large. It depends.

          OK

          The massive FA/DP organization that would represent the ultimatetransformation of politics would pretty much have to be fully openand transparent. But caucuses within it may still function privately,as they see fit.

          What do you mean by still function privately?

          Yes, the special interests may still plan and plot. But it willbecome much more difficult — and dangerous — to deceive the public,and so those interests, I expect, will learn that it is far moreefficient to plan and plot to provide solutions that are mutuallybeneficial, i.e., they benefit both the special interest and thepublic as a whole, or at least don’t harm the public. And once theyare doing that, the need for secrecy may become less, depending onthe rest of the system. If, for example, the system rewardsinnovation by rewarding the first to come up with an idea, i.e., itissues patents, then there remains a motive for secrecy. Frankly, Ithink that a problem, but not one that I’m going to address tonight!I’m not generally attempting to directly solve social problems, butrather to solve the metaproblem: how can we apply the best thinking,the best analysis, the widest experience, to our problems?

          OK, this is a start. Do you think FA/DP could be further optimized through additional concepts (e.g. TOP, integral decision making process, fishnet organization etc.)?

          Best regards

          — Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
          e-mail: markus.schatten@foi.hr
          http://www.tiaktiv.hr

          -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

          +1 New discussion Answer
      • 13/09/06 15:43 <Markus Schatten>

        Dear Mark

        On Sunday 10 September 2006 18:37, Mark wrote:

        -M: Yes, I have formalized most of the Dance-Monkey algorithm on apiece of paper but haven’t posted it yet. SD2-S would have furtherinput constraints on this algorithm.

        Good, I’d love to take a look at it.

        mS: A certain formalization of SD2-S would be helpful, e.g. a document inwhich you describe how the system should work. Maybe the TOP wiki wouldbe a nice place to publish it :-P

        -M: I’ll do that!

        Great!

        -M: OK. I was thinking of a wiki with SD2-S constraints.Pimki is similar to a wiki,http://pimki.rubyforge.org/and has network graphing capabilityhttp://www.graphviz.org/This could create collaborative writing projects with hierarchalcontrol.Is this a good idea?

        Why not, looks neat to me ;-)

        Best regards

        — Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
        e-mail: markus.schatten@foi.hr
        http://www.tiaktiv.hr

        -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

        +1 New discussion Answer
• 20/07/07 09:52

  phentermine

  I have loved your site for its useful and funny content and simple design! [url=http://www.1234.com]Bill Geitz 1385903897[/url] +0 New discussion Answer

[top-politics] SV: [top-politics] (Karl) Re: Direct democary - a new era in Swedish politics

Hey Martin!

I decided to take focus on stuff that I find it matter the most. In that way, we wont loose a “thread” of discusion. If you find some stuff that matter and I did not focused to that, I will answer it in next mail. OK?

---

In top-politics@yahoogroups.com, Martin Gustavsson

<martinvaxjo@…> wrote:

I am asking this as long as I actually do notunderstand meaning ofthis phraze and this phraze is taken as regularjoker answer to allproblems. Say the people and it is all right, youknow.

Power to the people! Software to the people!Maybe you are considering the senile who are lojal tothe old corrupted system? Well, they are included.They will vote on the old system during the time ittakes to bring in the new. It will probably take about50 years to get rid of the old system.

Well, everybody who has worked in a project knows

that

is a lie. You can start processes parallell. Theambition is more important here. If you are

elected

you get funds to support programmers of the opencommunity WHO ACTUALLY DO deliver.

From whom do you get funds for support? Does it needto be a state, orwe are talking about organization itslef? Is thiswhat you havearticulated enough to support it without hesitationright here, rightnow, engaging 18 members of this group?

We do not need funds so much of if programmers deliverwithout funds. We have a law in Sweden that gives allparties above 4% a monstous financial support. I recona nice thing to do would be to give money to the peolewho helped us. That´s all.

No, we use phpBB. As soon as a program exists withopen source code better than phpBB including

priority

voting and budget voting. We will use it and

support

the programmers.

But, what is a decision making model you use? Isthat concensus? Thatis the way we in Tiaktiv work + you need to beproductive member whorespects procedure to get right to be a part ofdecision making body.

I do not know why you are still sceptical. Are youvery old? Democracy is respected by people and we useall kinds of ways to make sure it is as democratic aspossible. Priority voteing, budget voteing etc.Everybody respects to follow some basic rules set bythe members or are locked out. It has happened to oneperson of about thirty people.

Too few, and probably because of the fact that we

have

a membersfee.

Is that 10? 15? Anyway, what is a trend of yourparty? Are youstagnating? Growing? What are the projections basedon current state?I know these questions are not too popular in mostof the parties, butthese questions are good base for solving problemsthat young andprogressive political options of the World allwayshas.

Stagnating from 30 to 9 when we decided to usemembersfee. I will now suggest that we take that partaway.

OK. This is what matters talking from our experience. You see. Tiaktiv had many members and it is actually only two of us. I found out the number of two on action way, as long as passive members I do not find be the members.

So, a while ago it was 7 of us and after that the number went down, down, down. A little bit up and then down again.

It makes me ask next thing. What are we doing wrong, as long as something we are obviously doing wrong. We might say that we are working for the future, but the future might never come. We are stagnating and Tiaktiv is loosing its reputation amongst its supporters.

So, this is the stuff I want to solve. To see what we are doing wrong, what we can do to make these nembers rise and make our organisation become relevant. What we need to change, as long as it is obvious stuff we need to change.

I believe this core problem is the same to your organisation. Because we can talk about great systems and everything, but if we have 10 supporters the most, then we belong to bad SF writers, nothing more.

Do you find this stuff be your major problem? Or? Anyway, even if you do not find this to be a major problem, do you have exact plan of how to get create bigger numbers, how to become more relevant, how to actually create a movement (I suppose that big optimisation of political process as all of us do is actually creating global political movement)?

These are the questions Id like to get answer through all of our discussions.

Well, we would love such an attempt and the

attention

and sympathy it would give us.

Yet, talking from my experience, people have to feelsome process be anatural thing to protect their interests if theywork properly (suchas amway :-)) if you want them bite your idea.In this moment you have a model that is not used byanyone, the modelthat doesnt have no guarantees. That is notstimulating for others, I bet.

You speak like you are employed by the establishedpolititians. You could as well be mocking Edison,Bell, and Einstein with those words. I laugh at thosewords. :oD Edison, Bell, and Einstein all changed theway we see things. Why can we not do the same?

OK. But we can not use that as an argument as long as every idiot can say the same thing. We need better arguments. For ourselves and for others!

make them sign a legal document binding them to

the

peoples descisions or to leave or to pay

personally

for the damage done.

When you say democracy, you mean to decision makingsystem youpromote, right?

I mean democracy, not politocracy, not aristocracy,not oligarchy, not dictatorship, not unrepresentativepolitocracy. I mean one person one voice, I mean oneperson to decide what the mandate should do for him orher in as much detail that the person wants. Democracyas it was once meant to be in Greece, but added withthe inclusion of as many people of society aspossible.

How do you mean?

Exact products that promise is a good way. Moreconcrete resultspeople generaly agree too, you get stronger.Concrete, that is the keyfor wider population. Abstract, that is interestingonly for severalpeople of the world. Not even to philosophers orother fanatasyorinteted individuals.

Yes you are right, we are working on making a snapshotof the party opinion in diffrent issues so that theparty will have a concrete opinion.

Is this your strategy in this time? So, you need softvare first? Though, what do you think, is it possible to create fictive model in this time, as long as 9 members is not too big number to play it “virtualy”?

Well, my dear fellow :-), I guess you did not read

our

partyprogram (www.aktivdemokrati.se – Englishsection)with any seriousness, did you?I will still answer our questions.

I am sorry. I usually scan documents and than I ask.

Granny, will most probably delegate to a

polititan,

organisation or a relative she trusts. Bullshit oragressive behaviour will be moderated and some

people

will naturally be excluded from democracy

according to

rules set by the people themselves.

OK. This is if/then/else answer.

Payed Pete, will rat on spookey polititian Joe

who

payed him, if he does not get more and more money.

Yet. Your organisation would probably collapse afterseveralpromiscutated decision, unless you have much moremembers who with nohesitiation legitimate this model in no matter what.But, thesenumbers are pretty rare. Not big enough to beinteresting. Of course,good way for you is to start working this way, tooptimise yoursystem, to get concrete results out of yourorganization. This leadssomewhere.

Responsability is a word often used in a faulty

way.

Response – abiliy. Think! :-) The persons who have

the

ability to respond. Polititians use these words tomake their salaries higher, but in real life theability to respond is often slim. The people are

often

much better. A clear example is the recent tsunamidisaster, where polititians acted like shy people

in

an eldery institution.puh…that is where my time ends.Anyway, if you are not part of the solution you

are

part of the problem.With a positive, creative and open mind all

problems

can be solved.

Yet, you need much faith also :-)

To believe it must be believable.

So let´s take off (maybe crash andlearn) and eventually will fly and even go to the

moon!

Absolutely!Gale

I you do reply, Gail please cut out the essentilas!

Though, what means this Gail? I do not get it?

ATB,
Gale

Ps. This is c/p of its original you can see on:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/top-politics/message/277

-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

+1 New discussion Answer

• 17/04/06 13:19 <Magnus>

  [top-politics] Re: (Karl) Re: Direct democary - a new era in Swedish politics

  To keep thing short here:
  Please answer as I do now…;
  Most of us seesm to have been falling in numbers of interested. OK, good to see that we are not alone with this problem! The major reason for it I beleive is that progess is too slow. People want to see some results, not just deabtes over and over again. When it comes to the debate on how democracy should look like this is one of the most overdiscussed area there is.
  Many loses steam when some typical represantative politician is interfering and the debate have to take 10 steps back just to explain what’s a known fact to the current group.
  During this interference a lot of energy is wasted and many just don’t have enough left to continue afterwards.
  To avoid this it is important to get enough momentum OR, to create something on your own that is likely to be accepted by a larger group later.
  I beleive that what we are discussing here is such a large step from todays politics that we can’t just expect more that a few to really find interest in it.
  It’s just too big of a step for them.
  So, the logic conclusion is that we should be sorry if there are few of us as long as w are making progress. It may take one year or 20, but finally we would be ready to promote our more ready solution which should be applicable on everydays poltics all over the world. Once we are there, people can start use it and improve it further as well as adpat is for their own needs.
  For the reasons above I see this group top-politics as a way of gathering enough interested people to get the important progress. We have all proven a lot of patience so not so many of us should leave hopefully.
  We are all skilled debaters and should be able to cope about and towards concensus.
  If we can’t reach concensus we are willing to accept democratic decisions as long as the results are not too far away from our final intentions.

  So, we need now to focus on the principles on how out proposed system should look like.
  Some part are there, AD, SD", Tiaktiv etc.
  What can be used as is, what has to be modified?
  Also remember that some parts may be used locally and some other somewhere else.
  This will be no problem if we moduluraze the system well. I put forward again the best example in modern time, Linux! Look how many functions there are, and look how new are evolving all the time.

  BR/
  Mange

  -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

  +1 New discussion Answer
  • 23/04/06 11:26 <illegale>

    Hello Magnus.

    Mange wrote:

    To keep thing short here:Please answer as I do now…;Most of us seesm to have been falling in numbers of interested.OK, good to see that we are not alone with this problem!The major reason for it I beleive is that progess is too slow.People want to see some results, not just deabtes over and over again.When it comes to the debate on how democracy should look like this isone of the most overdiscussed area there is.Many loses steam when some typical represantative politician isinterfering and the debate have to take 10 steps back just to explainwhat’s a known fact to the current group.During this interference a lot of energy is wasted and many just don’thave enough left to continue afterwards.To avoid this it is important to get enough momentum OR, to createsomething on your own that is likely to be accepted by a larger grouplater.I beleive that what we are discussing here is such a large step fromtodays politics that we can’t just expect more that a few to reallyfind interest in it.It’s just too big of a step for them.

    So, we should make people interested in this stuff. But, what is that stuff we are talkng about what is the essence of it? Let me say my opinion. It is actually new political paradigm ,used to be called open politics, eventhough top politics seems to sound better due to its articualation.

    What is essence of it in your opinion? Is that voting procedure? My personal opinion is that voting procedure by itself is just out come of completely new approach as long as todays procedures are probably non compatible (we can discuss concrete reasons for this assumption)

    So, the logic conclusion is that we should be sorry if there are few ofus as long as w are making progress. It may take one year or 20, butfinally we would be ready to promote our more ready solution whichshould be applicable on everydays poltics all over the world.Once we are there, people can start use it and improve it further aswell as adpat is for their own needs.

    Once :-)

    For the reasons above I see this group top-politics as a way ofgathering enough interested people to get the important progress.We have all proven a lot of patience so not so many of us should leavehopefully.We are all skilled debaters and should be able to cope about andtowards concensus.If we can’t reach concensus we are willing to accept democraticdecisions as long as the results are not too far away from our finalintentions.So, we need now to focus on the principles on how out proposed systemshould look like.Some part are there, AD, SD", Tiaktiv etc.

    You think strategy you are wokring on is the good one? But, do you have any other possible strategy on your mind?

    In Tiaktiv, we are oriented towads promotion of basic principles that differ us from everybody else. TOP principles. We use interface (public forums, groups.. that link over 30 000 people) as our media of action. This media has completely different characteristics in contrary to conventional mass media and we learn to swim in that media, to articulate and respect its principles. I can notice that these forums are mayby not so direct such as tv, but its openess, possibility to see problem from all sides, having possibility to fight desnformation by concrete valid data, make these forums much more valid and thrust worthy in eyes of its users. This means that these forums are actual place of informirng and creating forum and indirectly public opinion.

    We also promote this media among young politicians who want to differ, we teach them out of or experience about principles and ways of using these places most eficienty, we are creating new origin of public opinion that is due to its info superiority becoming openstanding trust worthy media that has grreat deal of objectivity in creating public opinion.

    Those young politicians who are willng to use this media create relatively narrow but strong support of form members which is eventually enough to stat flying towards political relevance. These men create proper carma and use the way that can defend themself from public mass media lynh which is usual method of destroying oposition.

    We are also discovering and promoting open organisation principles that need new voting proceducers that are compatbile to top principle and dynamic s of internet. Yet. I n this moment as said thing is that eventualy one young politician is willing to start new approach in politics, this makes voting procedure irrelevant in this moment.

    Of course, let me say something more. Our origin vision was vision of Internet democracy you could already seen. This origin vision is open standing vision that by theoretical model is in no collision with our findings. Yet. We can notice that good visions do not mean anything if they are not obviously grounded and effective in Real time, not in some future.

    That is the reason we actually give up from pretendous practically push of our vision in second, maybe even tird plan and making grounds of it vision obvious to everyone. Yet, that ground we are not making on theory, but in practice.

    OK. These are my 2 cents about strategies and ways of our action in this moment.

    What can be used as is, what has to be modified?Also remember that some parts may be used locally and some othersomewhere else.This will be no problem if we moduluraze the system well.I put forward again the best example in modern time, Linux!Look how many functions there are, and look how new are evolving allthe time.

    Yet. Software has some big advantage. It is concrete and software develpers are concrete also. So, there is no need to discuss about thrust worthines, about theoretical models that might seem different in minds of each one, making them eventually hard to be a base of grouping, etc. Another thing is that we need to see who are actual users of the models we eventually develop? Are there actually any?

    BTW, some people say that communism got down as long as its creators thougt that all people are like them. They did not have any clue about true relations making that system eventualyl collaps after sodomy it created.

    To finish this reply with some off topic and blabish talk from me, let me ask you concrete things. What do you think it is a reason you move so slow? Is it people, or you? What can you do to be better, more efective? What are things you already tried and showed to be wrong? Do you hav any questions for me, eventually?

    ATB,
    Gale

    ATB,
    Gale

    BR/Mange

    -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

    +1 New discussion Answer
    • 25/04/06 01:03 <Magnus>

      Dear Gale,

      Thanks for your long answer.

      The essens:
      Ofcourse it is not only a voting process. It’s about democracy in the right and unfiltered way.
      Without personal bindings and corruption,
      Without quickies in the night (budget discussions…). Without stupid media fooled to cover a stupid politician instead of real political issues.
      Without the old values from the class society.
      Just with issue-politics.
      And to you I would say, it is all not about the ultimate forum either. My conclusion since day one (and nobody has been able to convince me of being wrong( is that the changes neede are so big and so painful for the power stuctures in place today that we can only rely on the people. Why? Because they are the ones that suffer under the current system. So, how to get the support from the people?
      Well, to start with there must be a real and thruthworthy alternative, there must be answers on how directdmocracy could work even in the danger of an attack on a directdemocratic nation for instance. To create the neccessary infrastucture over internet is needed, but so is also the voting process and even the software.
      Not until ALL this is in place, there is any more than a microscopic chance that more than 2-3% of a population would choose to vote for it in any way for a parliament.
      To me this is very simple, go to your self and ask: Will I vote for a SF-system that nobody not even have demonstrated?

      If I understand Tiaktiv right, the goal after creation of the ultimate infrastructure is that people (the users) shall cooperate and take power from the established power structures, am I right? My question then is how shall they take power? Is this to be decided later?
      Obviously, not so many can see the clear vision there. I would guess that they see it too far away and that they fear endelss discusions of what democracy is etc etc (seen it here to…)

      The reson of beeing slow:
      The short answer for AD is: no finished software due to no skilled programmer.
      As long as this is failing, there is nothing to demonstrate! As simple as that.
      Reason for no programmer should not be my fault since the party was founded by programmers…
      Some reason for the programmers to leave might have been some personal opinions which they didn’t want to abandon even if the majority wanted so. But I don’t really think that’s the reason. Probably we have never reached critical mass so the programers never felt inspired enough (they have said to me that they are such a weird people so I couldn’t beleive it..), and the most creative programmers never felt attracted or never have seen us.

      Potential users of a software:
      Lots of them, all organisations not driven by corrupt politicians. There are at least there directdemocratic partys in Sweden including AD and two of them inside local governemt (communities). They are currently using commercila software with blackbox voting. This group.
      Open source people.

      What has been made wrong in AD?
      Good question. If you not a part of the solution you might be part of the problem…
      Well, I see myself as a man with strong integrity, without need for personal vendettas or campains.
      This I (and the rest currently in the party) have survived from others and it can be hopefully be handled better next time it occurs. There must alway be a defense ready for infiltrators and lunatics. Both we in AD and Mikael Nordfors(now member, former founder of the voting software Vivarto,
      http://vivarto.com/tiki-print.php?page=the+Vivarto+Story) ,have been attacked from within by established politicians or supporters. Attacks like that only make us stronger in the end. And as long as we are soo few there is not enough facts to point out any specific reason really for slow progress.
      I have for a long time been dreaming of the growing OS-project so thats why I’m here now…maybe I should have started in this end before everything else..

      -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

      +1 New discussion Answer
      • 09/05/06 19:28 <illegale>

        Hey Magnus! Sorry for not answering this mail. It came over my sight.

        MG wrote:

        Dear Gale,Thanks for your long answer.The essens:Ofcourse it is not only a voting process. It’s about democracy in theright and unfiltered way.Without personal bindings and corruption,Without quickies in the night (budget discussions…).Without stupid media fooled to cover a stupid politician instead ofreal political issues.Without the old values from the class society.Just with issue-politics.And to you I would say, it is all not about the ultimate forum either.My conclusion since day one (and nobody has been able to convince me ofbeing wrong( is that the changes neede are so big and so painful forthe power stuctures in place today that we can only rely on the people.Why? Because they are the ones that suffer under the current system.So, how to get the support from the people?

        Yes. There are parts of establishment who benefit too much by this power disporportion. Parties, NGOs, academics, they are all on the position of the power thanks to good relationship to the structure. On that scale the only fight that is happening on the world of politics is the fight between the fractions tending to control more. Practivcally all other publicly exposed ones are playing their games and there is no process of democratisation in this story as long as these structures are closed and rigid by people and y ideas.

        Well, to start with there must be a real and thruthworthy alternative,there must be answers on how directdmocracy could work even in thedanger of an attack on a directdemocratic nation for instance.

        TOP politics (used to call it open politics) as new paradigm creates new power centeres. Open, transparent and public oriented. These power centers have an option to take over the power of todays political power centers thanks to the superiority of organsiations based on the new principles. Something like Mozilla vs. Explorer.

        To create the neccessary infrastucture over internet is needed, but sois also the voting process and even the software.

        What I see is to articualte exact idea /not even set of ideas!/ we stand for and to create world consolidation based on that something like GNU and free software foundation. I supose that is actually freedom of information. Something todays hypocritical power centers who have no true relationship to the people, but use them as consumers of their lie factory can not do, as long as freedom of info eliminates difference between declarative and true attitudes. Those who play game of todays politicians, have no chance in TOP. We do have if we learn to use it.

        Not until ALL this is in place, there is any more than a microscopicchance that more than 2-3% of a population would choose to vote for itin any way for a parliament.

        What I see is common political party who deals with best buy political problems getting majority. People in general need product, not essence. Yet, it is the essence that makes true difference and workd good in long term investment. But people, I do not expect from the people to understand completely what does new aproach actually mean.

        So, there is no need for creating great political model, as long as political models can be created by ad hoc principles thanks to dynamics of internet. All we need in that moment is power to make those who are not satisfied acknowledge that. And it is not a matter of mere numbers, as long as I can guarantee you that if we won 50%+1 and tried to start great political reform, if those who do not like that reform found out they could eliminate us, they would do it. Coup is regular mechanism to eliminate it. So, it is only the matter of power. Of course, is you are doing shitty thing power ratio will hit you back pretty soon, so it does not worth too much to play only power, no rightness game

        To me this is very simple, go to your self and ask: Will I vote for aSF-system that nobody not even have demonstrated?

        I would not.

        If I understand Tiaktiv right, the goal after creation of the ultimateinfrastructure is that people (the users) shall cooperate and takepower from the established power structures, am I right?

        We do not need ultimate infrastucture to promote TOP. We can do it right now and we are doing it right now. Of course, documentation system, forums that enable openness, transparency and equality are needed as long as todays forums do not do such thing and so on. Yet, we do not need all these tools to start doing what we do. And we have started doing it with no ultimate software. It is the idea that matters, the software is only support.

        My question then is how shall they take power? Is this to be decidedlater?

        There are many ways, yet some people say as granted that today political system is based on media wars. And who win the media war, takes all. Internet as part of media is not direct and does not penetrates as TV does, yet it is superior as long as people trust internet related things basedon TOP more than what they see on TV thanks to possibilitiy to get familiar to other side making them feel objective. And people like objecitivy as long as objectivity gives them certainty whic is existential need in every single being. This all means that we can win wars over TV, and TV can not win war over us. It is only matter of time since the whole power gets transfered to TOP.

        Talking about exact manners, there are many, yet political party and existing legitimated political process is natural way of getting to rule position.

        Obviously, not so many can see the clear vision there. I would guessthat they see it too far away and that they fear endelss discusions ofwhat democracy is etc etc (seen it here to…)

        I agree. There is no too much need to do this stuff as long as abstract concepts connected to other abstract concepts lacking in exact ground do not help us move on. This is the ground we need and it is the ground that help us see if we share basic thoughts that can create stretegic partnerships.

        The reson of beeing slow:The short answer for AD is: no finished software due to no skilledprogrammer.As long as this is failing, there is nothing to demonstrate! As simpleas that.Reason for no programmer should not be my fault since the party wasfounded by programmers…Some reason for the programmers to leave might have been some personalopinions which they didn’t want to abandon even if the majority wantedso. But I don’t really think that’s the reason. Probably we have neverreached critical mass so the programers never felt inspired enough(they have said to me that they are such a weird people so I couldn’tbeleive it..), and the most creative programmers never felt attractedor never have seen us.

        We had a pretty big problems with programers too. Yet, now I understand them. 4 years ago I felt as I touched God. And now I see than I actually knew nothing. So, from my perspective everyone should give his 200% and everything is going to get right.

        4 years later I understand that it is the programer who matters, not me. If programer is going to create the software. It is up to me to get interest some programr to create that software. I failed in that mission. Now, Tiaktiv by exact deeds is showing what we are doing, making people easier to understand our ideas.

        So, the whole point is that it does not matter what I think about something, it matters what other think about it. If otehr people are assured this is great thing, I am becoming relevant. If not, than I am just BS, whatever I think about it.

        This is actually the thing I tried to explain to Mark as long as it seems to me that he is still selfreferencing guy on his mission, which leads nowhere. It took me about 2-3 years to realise that and now we can start doing smart things. I am that this group gathers several people who have passed their “political puberty”.

        Potential users of a software:Lots of them, all organisations not driven by corrupt politicians.There are at least there directdemocratic partys in Sweden including ADand two of them inside local governemt (communities).They are currently using commercila software with blackbox voting.This group.Open source people.What has been made wrong in AD?Good question. If you not a part of the solution you might be part ofthe problem…Well, I see myself as a man with strong integrity, without need forpersonal vendettas or campains.This I (and the rest currently in the party) have survived from othersand it can be hopefully be handled better next time it occurs.There must alway be a defense ready for infiltrators and lunatics.

        Do not worry about lunatics. We are not interesting to them right now. Infiltrators, that is another story.

        Both we in AD and Mikael Nordfors(now member, former founder of thevoting software Vivarto,http://vivarto.com/tiki-print.php?page=the+Vivarto+Story) ,have beenattacked from within by established politicians or supporters.Attacks like that only make us stronger in the end.And as long as we are soo few there is not enough facts to point outany specific reason really for slow progress.I have for a long time been dreaming of the growing OS-project so thatswhy I’m here now…maybe I should have started in this end beforeeverything else..

        That is possible. We are based on internet. Internet has no boundaries. That is the strong point of the internet. We should use it in our advantage.

        ATB,
        Gale

        -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

        +1 New discussion Answer
        • 10/05/06 09:27 <Magnus>

          Dear Gale,

          Not until ALL this is in place, there is any more than a microscopic

          chance that more than 2-3% of a population would choose to vote for itin any way for a parliament.

          What I see is common political party who deals with best buy political problems getting majority. People in general need product, not essence.

          Yet, it is the essence that makes true difference and workd good in long term investment. But people, I do not expect from the people to understand completely what does new aproach actually mean.

          So, there is no need for creating great political model, as long as political models can be created by ad hoc principles thanks to dynamics

          of internet. All we need in that moment is power to make those who are

          not satisfied acknowledge that. And it is not a matter of mere numbers,

          as long as I can guarantee you that if we won 50%+1 and tried to start great political reform, if those who do not like that reform found out they could eliminate us, they would do it. Coup is regular mechanism to

          eliminate it. So, it is only the matter of power. Of course, is you are

          doing shitty thing power ratio will hit you back pretty soon, so it does not worth too much to play only power, no rightness game

          To me this is very simple, go to your self and ask: Will I vote for aSF-system that nobody not even have demonstrated?

          I would not.

          -Your last answer is contradictionary. You would not vote. I would not either. So why should we care?
          No vote, no power within years.
          So, there you have reason for lack of interest.

          We do not need ultimate infrastucture to promote TOP. We can do it

          right now and we are doing it right now. Of course, documentation system, forums that enable openness, transparency and equality are needed as long as todays forums do not do such thing and so on. Yet, we

          do not need all these tools …

          -Without the tools you don’t even give people the possibility to evaluate them. They are wating for that.
          They might find the visions greta but need something to relate to and to show others that is not only SF.

          …this all means that we can win wars over TV, and TV can not win war over us. It

          is only matter of time since the whole power gets transfered to TOP.

          -In SF yes, in real life, probably no. At least not in our life time. Progress will be too slow and people sees that.
          So they go and watch TV instead.

          Talking about exact manners, there are many, yet political party and

          existing legitimated political process is natural way of getting to rule position.

          -Yes, I would say almost the only one. In enough open and transparanet countries this would work! And thats why we need all the tools, now.

          Obviously, not so many can see the clear vision there. I would guess

          that they see it too far away and that they fear endelss discusions ofwhat democracy is etc etc (seen it here to…)

          I agree. There is no too much need to do this stuff as long as abstract

          concepts connected to other abstract concepts lacking in exact ground do not help us move on. This is the ground we need and it is the ground

          that help us see if we share basic thoughts that can create stretegic partnerships.

          -Now we’re talking!

          4 years later I understand that it is the programer who matters, not

          me. If programer is going to create the software. It is up to me to get

          interest some programr to create that software. I failed in that mission. Now, Tiaktiv by exact deeds is showing what we are doing, making people easier to understand our ideas.

          -In the case of new democray system, the programmers are the ones to feed and keep happy, no wuestion about it.

          So, the whole point is that it does not matter what I think about something, it matters what other think about it. If otehr people are assured this is great thing, I am becoming relevant. If not, than I am just BS, whatever I think about it.

          -It’s all about attracting more and more. But you have to start with a magnet..

          This is actually the thing I tried to explain to Mark as long as it seems to me that he is still selfreferencing guy on his mission, which leads nowhere. It took me about 2-3 years to realise that and now we can start doing smart things. I am that this group gathers several people who have passed their “political puberty”.

          -So true…

          I have for a long time been dreaming of the growing OS-project so thats

          why I’m here now…maybe I should have started in this end beforeeverything else..

          That is possible. We are based on internet. Internet has no boundaries.

          That is the strong point of the internet. We should use it in our advantage.

          So here my vison has been right for at least three years..;)

          BR/
          Magnus

          -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

          +1 New discussion Answer
      • 05/05/06 19:39 <Markus Schatten>

        [top-politics] Re: (Karl) Re: Direct democary - a new era in Swedish politics

        Dear Magnus

        On Tuesday 25 April 2006 01:03, MG wrote:

        If I understand Tiaktiv right, the goal after creation of the ultimateinfrastructure is that people (the users) shall cooperate and takepower from the established power structures, am I right?My question then is how shall they take power? Is this to be decidedlater?

        ;-) In the same manner Linux takes power from Microsoft and other similar organizations. Through participation, involvement and fun of use ;-)

        But I do agree to the rest of the posting.

        Best regards

        -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

        +1 New discussion Answer
        • 10/05/06 09:33 <Magnus>

          [top-politics] Re: (Karl) Re: Direct democary - a new era in Swedish politics

          My question then is how shall they take power? Is this to be decided

          later?

          ;-) In the same manner Linux takes power from Microsoft and other similar
          organizations. Through participation, involvement and fun of use ;-)

          -Yes, but think of it, would Linux be of any interest before the first alfa version ever where available and found some users seeing it’s potential?
          If Linus would have been debating over internet or mail on how the ultimate operative system should be designed without showing some programming on his own or by some other programmer to show others, he would probably be debating even today..
          It’s all about ability to relate and to give feedback in order to develop better and better solutions.
          You can’t talk yourself to the moon.

          BR/
          Magnus

          -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

          +1 New discussion Answer
  • 21/04/06 02:46 <Markus Schatten>

    Dear Magnus

    This is why I do not engage such discusion since it’s highly unproductive. Let’s try to create a system with various concepts allowed (e.g. as options a user can choose from). In this way different concepts can be tested, evaluated and improved.

    I allready agreed to implement the system in Ruby on Rails (as Emmanuel would like it to be). So it depends on him now if he wants to engage into this implementation.

    Since I studied Information and Organization Systems I know a pretty good framework for integration of programmers and non-programmers in a software engineering project. It’s called strategic planning of information systems. It’s starts of with some charts which are understandable to the end-user (non-programmer). From this charts the programmers can later generate the architecture of the system and thus implement it. If there’s interest we could go through this procedure (we allready did this in TiAktiv), so everyone could be involved in in the system design.

    Best regards

    — Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
    e-mail: markus.schatten@foi.hr
    http://www.tiaktiv.hr

    -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

    +1 New discussion Answer
    • 21/04/06 11:59 <echarp>
      

      On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 02:46:50AM +0200, Markus Schatten wrote:

      I allready agreed to implement the system in Ruby on Rails (as Emmanuel would like it to be). So it depends on him now if he wants to engage into this implementation.

      Great, technologically wise, it is a great tool.

      Since I studied Information and Organization Systems I know a pretty good framework for integration of programmers and non-programmers in a software engineering project. It’s called strategic planning of information systems. It’s starts of with some charts which are understandable to the end-user (non-programmer). From this charts the programmers can later generate the architecture of the system and thus implement it. If there’s interest we could go through this procedure (we allready did this in TiAktiv), so everyone could be involved in in the system design.

      I’m interested in that methodology, any doc about it?

      What would you recommend at this stage of the project?

      Personally I would tend to speak about features, general concepts. From it we can generate the “question” to which this project would be the “answer”.

      Questions would go like:

      • who can propose issues?
      • how are organised issues?
      • who can vote?
      • what are the delays in the system?
      • quorums?
      • security?
      • transparency?
      • anonymity?
      • … ?

      Then I would devise modules, each one concentrating on one part. Ideally those modules would directly be translated into database structures, programming constructs and web pages.

      For example:

      • electoral list
      • issues
      • votes
      • delegations
      • history
      • statistics
      • presentation
      • …

      echarp

      -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

      +1 New discussion Answer
      • 21/04/06 20:32 <Markus Schatten>

        Dear Emmanuel

        Please find the paper about SPIS attached. But be aware that it is probable a little bit hard to read and needs some extra knowledge to understand. And, also I have to mention that this is the full procedure, but we only need to use 5 or less methods described; since this procedure is intended for accurate information systems for big corporations and their BPR. We only need a part of it.

        Your questions are good and should be examined!

        Best regards

        — Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
        e-mail: markus.schatten@foi.hr
        http://www.tiaktiv.hr

        -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

        +1 New discussion Answer

[top-politics] Social Decision Support System

People,
Apparently Rodriguez has been googling around and he stumbled accross my thread.
He has since sent me this paper for us to read:
http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/grammar-decision-hicss2007.pdf

Rodriguez,
since Brad and Victor have been slow about getting me onto Smartocracy, I would like to critique a few points about its current form, both theoreticly and how it is implimented, here at this site instead of waiting to get onto Smartocracy:

1. Smartocracy started as a generalist system, then became a specialist system.
   By contast, SD2 is generalist umbrella system. SD2-Smartocracy has the best of both worlds by defaulting the specialist selections to the general trustees.

1. Smartocracy has ten choices. By contrast, SD2-Smartocracy would have only two semi-manditory choices, and would allow for upto ten. Semi-manditory, meaning that the algorithm would choose default reps if none are chosen – PageRank would be directed to gaps in the rank distribution, to the lower ranked node to help to linearize the rank distribution. This gap could be defined by actual numerical value and by relative value.
   This would allow for direct democracy-like voting inputs which may be useful for newcomers who don’t know the players.

1. From your Humancollective paper you wrote this: “DecisionError = NetworkDeci sion – PerfectDeci sion (4)”

What the hell is a ‘perfect’ decision? Its as if you were using DD as the ideal by which to measure your(also our- SD2 is augmented too) RD system.
If so, why not just have DD?
My approach is this: some centrality algorithms(when used democraticly) are more predictive of the future outputs of competing algoithms then vice-versa. This ties into the idea that RD is for leadership selection, and real leaders are pre-emptive of knowing what policies should be popular in the future.
So any good centrality algorithm should find such people, making their output more pre-emptive than competing outputs.

1. Should I trust Brad? I asked him directly if Smartocracy was open-source. And Victor didn’t seem to know.
   Shouldn’t the program be on Rubyforge?

Rodriguez, these are only nit-picks, and I am jazzed Smartocracy. I would love to get involved.

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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

+2 New discussion Answer

[top-politics] Definition of TOP - need to finish our goal

Dear members of Group of 5.

3 months ago 5 of us decided to join forces in order of moving forward together. We set our first goal, which was definition of TOP, which is not so easy task, yet rather important for our future work.

In last month we lost some interest in moving forward, probably due to holiday season which is now over.

I believe we can go on and finish our first goal. I understand that some of you did not gain interest back to finish our first work, but I have to mention that the worst thing that can happen is to leave things non-finished. If we did agree to enter this process and finish our first task, we have to do that, even if most of us would not enjoy that much anymore.

But, if we leave this task non-finished, instead of gaining more trust among each other, we will actually loose trust, which makes this be creation of non-trust network, something highly demotivating for further work and cooperation that all of us will actually need if we want to succeed in our political work.

So, Markus and I are moving on, I hope other members will find some strenght to endure to finish of our first goal. After that we can separate.

ATB,
Gale

PS. Whoever including persons who are not origian members of group of 5 is willing to participate in continuing of this process, please read previous mail from definition of TOP in order to get fully informed before moving on.

-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

+2 New discussion Answer

• 08/09/06 23:20 <Markus Schatten>

  +1

  I have a little suggestion. Since through intensive communication we weren’t able to formulate a concise definition I propose that we take the text on http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/TOP as a starting point, and see what is good, and what is bad in such a definition. Maybe through an OpenSource approach we can optimize this definition, e.g. write new versions and track down bugs until we are all satisfied with the definition.

  Best regards

  — Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
  e-mail: markus.schatten@foi.hr
  http://www.tiaktiv.hr

  -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

  +2 New discussion Answer
  • 09/09/06 16:11 <Serge>

    +1 Hey,
    Just registered on the TOP website, I agree editing the Wiki is probably the simplest and fastest option to get the definition agreed on. Also it seems to me that if the mechanisms of TOP require a lot of thought and experimentation, defining TOP seems actually pretty straightforward. Probably deceptively since you appear to have had extensive discussions on it. I know that when talking to some friends about the concept of transparency there is no misunderstanding as to what is meant (ie, when you want to have a look, things are clear). I’ll try making some edits to the wiki, and then you’ll cut or keep depending on what you think and off we go.
    Have a good weekend,
    Serge

    -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

    +1 New discussion Answer
    • 09/09/06 18:38 <illegale>

      Hello Serge.

      If you think that would be the finest manner of realising this work, then I am proud to say we have set first competition in project menagement.

      IMO, thorough brain stream is really needed for setting proper basic shell for this, where wiki is not as usefull as regular discussion group. Of course, my assumption might be wrong.

      ATB,
      Gale

      -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

      +1 New discussion Answer
      • 12/09/06 13:53 <Serge>

        Hey,

        Modified the wiki over the weekend, tried to keep the elements while adding some and making it more concise overall. Any comments or reaction?

        Best regards,

        Serge

        -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

        +4 New discussion Answer
        5 messages...
        << Close
  • 09/09/06 15:13 <illegale>

    This is the current process we adopted, based on three basic questions:

    Now, we are in the phase 1 called:

    “Where are we now?”

    In this moment we do share some thoughts about TOP and how do we understand it. In this very moment, as long as we just gathering new thoughts and perspectives, there is some need for free communication withouth too concrete bindings.

    When we do share some thoughts, or at least when Serge gives his shot as long as others might be satisfied with they current participation in this very moment, next thing we can do is to take thoughts of OTHER participiants.

    By pointing out thoughts of others, we can notice how penetrating are these thoughts in general public that is not based on our micro contexts that are not politically relevant.

    Then we are entering to second stage which is:

    “Where would we like to be?”

    In second stage we share our expectations of future definition. What do we actually want from it? What are our desires and needs?

    When we realise our needs, we can develop basic shell on xwiki and start filling it.

    The last stage:

    “How do we get there?”

    Might be based on xwiki as recomended, yet the whole process is openstanding and can be changed if we realise there current process is not satisfactory.

    Now, we can also set general dead lines and my suggestion is that we set next generation of TOP definition in 2 months in order of not letting this project die due to no time expectations.

    ATB;
    Gale

    -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

    +1 New discussion Answer
    • 09/09/06 16:16 <echarp>
      

      Transparency

      Open

      Public

      Personally I love and appreciate transparency, I propose a criteria to determine if an organisation is strongly transparent => if it publishes enough data so as to be able to setup a duplicate organisation of itself.

      This is particularly useful in democratic settings, where a duplicability criteria would help in order to audit any process and its data.

      echarp – http://leparlement.org

      -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

      +1 New discussion Answer
• 09/09/06 01:21 <Serge>

  Hey Gale,

  Can’t find again that page I had seen with all your votes and the results, but from what I understand the aims are, I’d very much like to participate.

  Best regards,

  Serge

  -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

  +1 New discussion Answer
  • 09/09/06 14:17 <illegale>

    Hello Serge.

    I am really glad you are interested in participation.

    Let me share links: What does TOP mean to you?

    http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/browse_frm/thread/01463d9906483418/#

    In this part above we generally discuss over TOP.

    http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/browse_frm/thread/4a54bfb6539f7049/#

    In this part we did set some thoughts of a way how are we going to discuss over TOP.

    http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/browse_frm/thread/2e36b043403287ec/#

    This is actually extra literature (:)), text I translated about TOP from Croatian. It was not originally part of the discussion, but it might be usefull.

    http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/TOP

    This is current definition of TOP from Tiaktiv, yet we do not think it has satisfying value, so that is the reason we from Tiaktiv actually show big interests in redefinition of the whole oncept.

    ATB,
    Gale

    Serge wrote:

    Hey Gale,Can’t find again that page I had seen with all your votes and theresults, but from what I understand the aims are, I’d very much like toparticipate.Best regards,Serge

    -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

    +1 New discussion Answer

[top-politics] Content added to Wiki

I have clarified the mathematics for AD-algo.
Please let me know if something is unclear.
http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Voting_Methods

-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 New discussion Answer

• 21/11/06 16:36 <echarp>
  

  A = A* /(dxZ)

  Any clean examples?

  “Everybody voting yes on the first day”, what happens?

  “Everybody voting yes on the first day, then half changing their mind on the second day and voting no”?

  Is there no other way to describe “d” but as a constant. Does it correlate with the number of days it would require for a proposal to be accepted if everybody voted yes? (A time buffer of sorts)

  Or “d” is a threshold above which should reach the number of “yes” minus the number of “no” divided by the total population?

  (yes-no)/population > d => proposition accepted.

  Personally I have no troubles with a threshold but I find arbitrary “constants” rather unsettling :)

  If d is set at 7, and 1/7th of the population votes “yes” on the first day while nobody votes “no”, will the proposal get passed after 7 days?

  echarp – http://leparlement.org

  -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 New discussion Answer
  • 21/11/06 17:34 <Magnus>

    No, “d” is the "democarcy constant.

    If it’s 7, and all votes, say 100 persons, yes the first day, second day A* will be calculated:
    A* = M* + A = 100 + 0 = 100 And then A = A* /(dxZ) = 100 / (7 × 100 ) = 100/700 = 1/7

    As you conclude, after 7 identical calcultations, A* = 7/7 = +1 , and the proposal is approved after 7 days.
    If the majority would switch, though, a new 7 day minimum period would start.

    The good thing with “d” is that is can be used to tune the speed of the system in relation to how many of the total number of voters that’s normally attend the votings.

    In smaller organizations maybe there have to be a quicker flow, than in a big party running a country.
    AD has previously manually adopted the algo and used 7 as factor for “d” with good results. With more active members and more votes to work with, we probably would change to 30 or 60.

    -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 New discussion Answer
    • 21/11/06 17:52 <echarp>
      

      Can it be concluded that there are in fact two constants?

      “d” and “t” which are both time periods.

      In our examples d is 7 days and t is a day.

      “d” could possibly be described as “the minimum period required for a proposal to pass”. “t” the period between each recalculation. What do you think?

      I’m wondering: any background reasons for those 2 constants?

      For example, do you want to design a political system with time buffers at its center because you consider time periods a critical political factor?

      echarp – http://leparlement.org

      -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 New discussion Answer
      • 22/11/06 11:05 <Magnus>

        echarp skrev:

        Can it be concluded that there are in fact two constants?

        -Well “d” is the constant, t is the number of calculations in fact. If you want, the repeated calculations can have another period than 24 hours.

        In our examples d is 7 days and t is a day.

        -Yes. Maybe I should clarify and rewrite the formulas with t, t+1 etc.

        “d” could possibly be described as “the minimum period required for aproposal to pass”. “t” the period between each recalculation. What doyou think?

        -Yes, that is correct. In the case of no switches in majority.

        I’m wondering: any background reasons for those 2 constants?For example, do you want to design a political system with time buffersat its center because you consider time periods a critical politicalfactor?

        -Please read our manifesto. The idea is that the AD algo gives legitimacy to an issue in relation to how many actually are voting for or against.
        The idea is to be able to sort out those lunie-proposals or proposals that cannot attract large enough parts of the electors list. This is important both to the individual citizen but also to the all other players in todays political life.
        The burden of having to constantly check that no unwanted proposals are voted in is by the AD-algo eased a lot since there will be filtering on this accumulated support. (And of course also on other things such as area of interest, field or author or wahtever)
        By the AD-algo all users have only to concentrate on the proposals that are close to be over (with a high accumulated support).

        In case of an important issue but too slow progress in the vote (due to too few voting on it), the author, or anyone that finds the issue important, can start to build opinion if there are valid arguments. In case of a too narrow issue, maybe a road lightning issue in a village that someone puts up as a proposal in a countrys general parliament, the conclusion is to take the issue to the more appropriate level, such as the county or city parliament. (Just as today) I say parliament but this is meant inside the AD-party in the case of the AD strategy to get elected in all existing parliaments and from within have this own DD way of ruling. (One day maybe some or all parties will stop their traditional work and switch over to the AD-algo..)

        As you also conclude, the time factor itself has also a buffer effect. Many DD sceptics are constantly complaining that DD on the internet will lead to hour democracy where all sorts of non-democratic decisions can be taken before even media or more than a few of the voters have seen it at all.
        All this is solved by the AD-algo since all interested and media will be able to easily sort out the real threats to socitey and our democracy and to highlight it if things seems to go an unwanted way. When people sees these highlights they can go in and vote against such proposals and also raise their voice and build even more opinion against the proposal. (The rest of the narrow/stupid proposals can be lying for years adn will not bother anyone at all)

        So, the main reason for the AD-algorithm is to be able to use it for filtration on the proposals that matters and have legimiticy.

        BR/
        Magnus

        echarp – http://leparlement.org

        -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 New discussion Answer
        • 22/11/06 15:04 <echarp>
          

          On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 10:05:35AM -0000, MG wrote:

          echarp skrev:

          Can it be concluded that there are in fact two constants?

          -Well “d” is the constant, t is the number of calculations in fact.If you want, the repeated calculations can have another period than 24hours.

          In our examples d is 7 days and t is a day.

          -Yes. Maybe I should clarify and rewrite the formulas with t, t+1 etc.

          Don’t you fear the need for a rather complex mathematic equation? Some kind of integral over time?

          “d” could possibly be described as “the minimum period required for aproposal to pass”. “t” the period between each recalculation. What doyou think?

          -Yes, that is correct. In the case of no switches in majority.

          OK, I think I have some grasp of what you have in mind. It seems to be what I’m designing into parlement, but for the “t” constant (t being the period of time between each iteration).

          Without t, it means participants can simply vote +1/0/-1, when the sum of those votes gets above a given threshold (1/d in other terms), then the proposal is accepted.

          (number of yes – number of no)/(number of participants) > 1/d

          I’m wondering: any background reasons for those 2 constants?For example, do you want to design a political system with time buffersat its center because you consider time periods a critical politicalfactor?

          -Please read our manifesto.

          I have.

          Is t only there to generate a time buffer?

          Are there other secondary consequences you have considered? Good or bad.

          What do you think of a democracy using simple majority? Is it less appropriate? Less legitimate?

          The idea is that the AD algo gives legitimacy to an issue in relationto how many actually are voting for or against….So, the main reason for the AD-algorithm is to be able to use it forfiltration on the proposals that matters and have legimiticy.

          This is what any democratic system would hopefully do :)

          echarp – http://leparlement.org

          -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 New discussion Answer
          • 22/11/06 16:58 <Serge>

            Don’t you fear the need for a rather complex mathematic equation? Somekind of integral over time?

            It is an integral though it isn’t a truly continuous calculation but on the contrary has increments at each interval t. So nothing out of this world, and the underlying logic is simple enough for a formula such as the finish condition A = A* /(dxZ) to be explained in plain English (or French or Swedish) and therefore gain a form of legitimation. So I don’t see what you are worried about here echarp, or maybe you meant an issue with actually writing the code for it?

            This is going to sound a bit like a late question, but does AD have a system using this algorithm online already? (all I could see now are classic phpBB forums)

            Is t only there to generate a time buffer?Are there other secondary consequences you have considered? Good or bad.What do you think of a democracy using simple majority? Is it lessappropriate? Less legitimate?

            Simple majority is more immediately legitimate but becomes inefficient very quickly as scale increases, therefore our intention to implement delegable proxy. I think this is a process of a similar nature, aiming at prioritizing issues and ensuring a balance bewteen efficiency and legitimacy. In my understanding, it is recognizing that some specialist issues may not gather much attention or interest but may be needed just as well (think of EU directives transposition in national laws), in which case to prevent abuse this constant d would make validation of such proposals with less involvment longer, but would at least avoid for a whole raft of not-so glamourous votes to simply become stuck.

            For the purpose of checks and balances, and to solve the drawback of losing legitimacy by passing votes without a majority, such accepted proposals with less than a simple majority should be subjected to special scrutiny in a systematic manner, once voted, so that if a sufficient enough opposition to the proposal was raised it would have to be reconsidered. A sort of ratification if you will.

            Besides this, I have one point I’d like to clarify. Continuous voting would be activated once delierations on a proposal are over and a final proposal is “frozen” for voting, just as in the case of a more classic formulation of vote, is that correct? Or do you envision a kind of range voting that could be coupled with deliberations and continuous voting to orient deliberations towards consensus?

            Best regards,

            Serge

            -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 New discussion Answer
            • 23/11/06 14:14 <echarp>
              

              On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 03:58:57PM -0000, Serge wrote:

              Don’t you fear the need for a rather complex mathematic equation? Somekind of integral over time?

              It is an integral though it isn’t a truly continuous calculation but onthe contrary has increments at each interval t. So nothing out of thisworld, and the underlying logic is simple enough for a formula such asthe finish condition A = A* /(dxZ) to be explained in plain English (orFrench or Swedish) and therefore gain a form of legitimation. So Idon’t see what you are worried about here echarp, or maybe you meant anissue with actually writing the code for it?

              The code will be slightly complex, but it will be even more difficult to manage, because time will be an important part of the process.

              For example, if a recalculation fails, it will be difficult to simply relaunch it a few hours later.

              On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 08:40:56AM -0000, MG wrote:

              I’m a engineer, we tend to use math for our work as any tool, CAD,wrench or pencil.But I’m not a math fan, never more than average in math classes.Still I see the benefits of these very simple formulas since they sonaturally improves the simple vote to something rather sophisticated,which is needed if we will succed with the idea of DD.

              I’m also an engineer, and I did manage to understand the Navier Stokes equations at one time :) But an equation with 5 elements, 2 of which are constants with no direct relation with reality, seems complex to understand.

              (To me Condorcet is also complex, too much for a realistic usage)

              Anyway, MG, can d be expressed not as a dividing constant, but as a threshold? Maybe a % of participants, or a number of accumulated (yes-no)?

              => (yes-no)0 + (yes-no)1 + (yes-no)… + (yes-no)t > d ?

              In English, we could say that a proposal is accepted if its supporters constantly outnumbers its detractors by a certain margin.

              This does not address the reversal of opinion which automatically “resets” the left part of the equation.

              Is that reversal really important? Considering your orientation, is it not logical that a proposal on which the general opinion changes so radically takes more time to be approved or refused?

              Is t only there to generate a time buffer?Are there other secondary consequences you have considered? Good or bad.What do you think of a democracy using simple majority? Is it lessappropriate? Less legitimate?

              Simple majority is more immediately legitimate but becomes inefficientvery quickly as scale increases, therefore our intention to implementdelegable proxy.

              I totally agree.

              Besides this, I have one point I’d like to clarify. Continuous votingwould be activated once delierations on a proposal are over and a finalproposal is “frozen” for voting, just as in the case of a more classicformulation of vote, is that correct? Or do you envision a kind ofrange voting that could be coupled with deliberations and continuousvoting to orient deliberations towards consensus?

              Who decides if and when a proposal is to be frozen? :)

              echarp – http://leparlement.org

              -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 New discussion Answer
              • 23/11/06 14:48 <Magnus>

                For example, if a recalculation fails, it will be difficult to simply

                relaunch it a few hours later.

                -Why? It is only to use the number of yes/no votes casted on the original time for summation and redo the division. >(To me Condorcet is also complex, too much for a realistic usage)

                -To me too.

                Anyway, MG, can d be expressed not as a dividing constant, but as a

                threshold? Maybe a % of participants, or a number of accumulated (yes-no)?

                -Well, if 60% have voted yes, the formulas A* = M* + A and A = A* /(dxZ) could be expressed: A=(M* + A(index:t-1=former A)) / dxZ

                Which is the same as :the percentage of all yes votes (or no votes if negative) out of all, divided by a small number f.i. 7 or a large f.i.

                1. , making it 1/7 of the total or 1/356 of the total percentage.

                It is quite simple to explain to everyone on the street that if we then repeat this and no more votes are comming in, after 7 (or 356) times of adding another 1/7 (or 1/356) part, the vote is over because then we have 7/7 (or 356/356) =1

                => (yes-no)0 + (yes-no)1 + (yes-no)… + (yes-no)t > d ?

                In English, we could say that a proposal is accepted if its supporters constantly outnumbers its detractors by a certain margin.

                -But then there need to be a certain margin, and this migth never occur.

                This does not address the reversal of opinion which automatically

                “resets” the left part of the equation.

                Is that reversal really important? Considering your orientation, is it not logical that a proposal on which the general opinion changes so radically takes more time to be approved or refused?

                -Yes it is important, because if there is a majority switch, those voted on the first side might want to consider their first vote (which can be cahnged ofcourse, or start to drive opinion again, which takes time.
                In this way there is little risk that those voting in the beginning with well built arguments will miss if there comes in arbitary arguments of other unfair opinions.
                One could also thing of a function where you would be able to filter on majority switches due to this.

                Who decides if and when a proposal is to be frozen? :)

                -Exactly, this is a problem so AD want to keep open the possibility to put up your own proposals without limits.

                -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 New discussion Answer
                • 23/11/06 17:21 <echarp>
                  

                  For example, if a recalculation fails, it will be difficult to simplyrelaunch it a few hours later.

                  Why? It is only to use the number of yes/no votes casted on theoriginal time for summation and redo the division.

                  Participants can vote and revote at any time, the last one being the valid one. If you relaunch the calculation 10 hours later, you will have to find out the last votes of all participants at the time of the original calculation.

                  This is not simple SQL, it is not a simple recalculation.

                  And it has to be done for all proposals.

                  Anyway, MG, can d be expressed not as a dividing constant, but as athreshold? Maybe a % of participants, or a number of accumulated(yes-no)?

                  Well, if 60% have voted yes, the formulas A* = M* + A and A = A*/(dxZ) could be expressed:A=(M* + A(index:t-1=former A)) / dxZ

                  A proposal would be accepted if:
                  A=(M* + A(index:t-1=former A)) / Z and A > d ?
                  d a fraction of the total population

                  Or, without division or multiplication:
                  A=M* + A(index:t-1=former A) and A > d’ ?
                  d’ a margin or threshold

                  Which is the same as :the percentage of all yes votes (or no votes ifnegative) out of all, divided by a small number f.i. 7 or a large f.i.356., making it 1/7 of the total or 1/356 of the total percentage.It is quite simple to explain to everyone on the street that if we thenrepeat this and no more votes are comming in, after 7 (or 356) times ofadding another 1/7 (or 1/356) part, the vote is over because then wehave 7/7 (or 356/356) =1

                  The accumulation of a difference over time did leave me puzzled. And I’m not sure it is that easy to explain to the layman.

                  => (yes-no)0 + (yes-no)1 + (yes-no)… + (yes-no)t > d ?

                  The sum of all (yes-no) votes over days.

                  Is this equation an equivalent representation of yours?

                  _t \ / (yes-no) > d ’-0

                  This does not address the reversal of opinion which automatically"resets" the left part of the equation.Is that reversal really important? Considering your orientation, is itnot logical that a proposal on which the general opinion changes soradically takes more time to be approved or refused?

                  Yes it is important, because if there is a majority switch, thosevoted on the first side might want to consider their first vote (whichcan be cahnged ofcourse, or start to drive opinion again, which takestime.In this way there is little risk that those voting in the beginningwith well built arguments will miss if there comes in arbitaryarguments of other unfair opinions.

                  Is that “reset” a required part of your system?

                  echarp – http://leparlement.org

                  -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 New discussion Answer
                  • 24/11/06 13:20 <Magnus>

                    Why? It is only to use the number of yes/no votes casted on the

                    original time for summation and redo the division.

                    Participants can vote and revote at any time, the last one being the

                    valid one. If you relaunch the calculation 10 hours later, you will have
                    to find out the last votes of all participants at the time of the original calculation.

                    This is not simple SQL, it is not a simple recalculation. And it has to be done for all proposals.

                    -Well, if the system goes down so no calculation can be made, the possibility to vote should also go down?
                    But if not, it is only reuse the day before value and send out a message to re-vote.
                    But you could also wait to next day and use the latest ballots from all if they are existent. (If so, there could be a rule that the vote is proplonged with the time the sytem has been down.)
                    The same could happen to any internet based voting system, that it breaks down.

                    Well, if 60% have voted yes, the formulas A* = M* + A and A = A*

                    /(dxZ) could be expressed:A=(M* + A(index:t-1=former A)) / dxZ

                    -Sorry for my writing about 60%, it should only be: The formulas A* = M* + A and A = A* /(dxZ) could be expressed: A=(M* + A(index:t-1=former A)) / dxZ

                    A proposal would be accepted if:

                    A=(M* + A(index:t-1=former A)) / Z and A > d ? d a fraction of the total population

                    Or, without division or multiplication:
                    A=M* + A(index:t-1=former A) and A > d’ ?
                    d’ a margin or threshold

                    -Maybe…I’m not a matemathician…what is your angle?

                    The accumulation of a difference over time did leave me puzzled. And I’m

                    not sure it is that easy to explain to the layman.

                    -The only complex part as I see it, is how thing are affected in the case thats normal; not all are voting yes, but only say 54%. In this case the accumulation to A* will go slower. The day when there is exactly 54% yes-votes and 46% no, the addition to A will be exactly 54% of the addition if we had 100% yes votes, meaning a slower progress.

                    The sum of all (yes-no) votes over days.

                    Is this equation an equivalent representation of yours?

                    _t \ / (yes-no) > d ’-0

                    -I think so yes..

                    Yes it is important, because if there is a majority switch, those

                    voted on the first side might want to consider their first vote (whichcan be cahnged ofcourse, or start to drive opinion again, which takestime.In this way there is little risk that those voting in the beginningwith well built arguments will miss if there comes in arbitaryarguments of other unfair opinions.

                    Is that “reset” a required part of your system?

                    -Sorry for another error of mine… It’s the other way around, the accumulated support should be set to zero in order to avoid that the voting time streches out too much just because there is a switch of majority..
                    It can be díscussed if this resetting is needed but for practical reasons we think it’s a good feature.
                    The argument for it is that the issue is well known by the voters and majority switches might happen many times in even issues, 49/51 to 51/49 etc. This might lead to very long voting times thus impractical.

                    -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 New discussion Answer
                    • 24/06/07 01:32 <anon> Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! dxrjaegvnqn +0
                    • 24/11/06 16:35 <Serge>

                      Hey,

                      About recalculations, couldn’t a duplication step be included ahead of the counting? This would ensure a snapshot of the voting position remains available for reference should a malfunction / delay occur.

                      About formulas and making d and the process of accumulation over time more intellegible, if I get this right, the basic logic is that for proposals with a high proportion of the population voting and agreeing, a proposal can be passed fairly quickly. Equally, if not many people are voting or agreeing, then a proposal will drag on.

                      Explaining this in layman’s terms therefore seems pretty straightforward. You could define d=7 as corresponding to a period of one week for ratification of a vote if 100% of the population votes in favour. Accordingly, as the proportion of participation / support drops, the time for ratification increases in proportion, which ensures no loonie proposal can be passed discreetly and quickly without proper participation and scrutiny. That would probably make it more understandable than calling it a democratic constant.

                      The argument for it is that the issue is well known by the voters andmajority switches might happen many times in even issues, 49/51 to51/49 etc. This might lead to very long voting times thus impractical.

                      In regards to close calls without a clear majority, wouldn’t it actually make sense for these to drag on until a proposal is satisfactory enough for a larger support to gather and tip the balance?

                      Regards,

                      Serge

                      -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 New discussion Answer
                      3 messages...
                      << Close
            • 23/11/06 09:40 <Magnus>

              Echarp, Serge:

              Don’t you fear the need for a rather complex mathematic equation? Some

              kind of integral over time?

              -I’m a engineer, we tend to use math for our work as any tool, CAD, wrench or pencil.
              But I’m not a math fan, never more than average in math classes. Still I see the benefits of these very simple formulas since they so naturally improves the simple vote to something rather sophisticated, which is needed if we will succed with the idea of DD.

              This is going to sound a bit like a late question, but does AD have a

              system using this algorithm online already? (all I could see now are classic phpBB forums)

              -We have used in manually before the PHPbb-time. (Now we just have simple majority over one month of voting period.)
              And we have tested a system where the algo was implemented. Sorry to say, the programmer got a job and felt tired..He aslo needed feed back from other non existent programmers.
              Currently we try to get the programming going by anyone interested.

              What do you think of a democracy using simple majority? Is it less

              appropriate? Less legitimate?

              Serge:-Simple majority is more immediately legitimate but becomes inefficient

              very quickly as scale increases, therefore our intention to implement delegable proxy. I think this is a process of a similar nature, aiming at prioritizing issues and ensuring a balance bewteen efficiency and legitimacy. In my understanding, it is recognizing that some specialist

              issues may not gather much attention or interest but may be needed just

              as well (think of EU directives transposition in national laws), in which case to prevent abuse this constant d would make validation of such proposals with less involvment longer, but would at least avoid for a whole raft of not-so glamourous votes to simply become stuck.

              For the purpose of checks and balances, and to solve the drawback of losing legitimacy by passing votes without a majority, such accepted proposals with less than a simple majority should be subjected to special scrutiny in a systematic manner, once voted, so that if a sufficient enough opposition to the proposal was raised it would have to be reconsidered. A sort of ratification if you will.

              -Couldn’t have put it better myself!!

              Besides this, I have one point I’d like to clarify. Continuous voting

              would be activated once delierations on a proposal are over and a final

              proposal is “frozen” for voting, just as in the case of a more classic formulation of vote, is that correct? Or do you envision a kind of range voting that could be coupled with deliberations and continuous voting to orient deliberations towards consensus?

              -The most effective way once the system in place for governmental use is to run it on relativley “ready” proposals.
              This will probably be the only way of getting the proposals voted upon in reasonable volumes.
              So we envison use of document evolution, where a wiki could be used for democratic version handling.
              When more or less a consensus is reached about a proposal worked out by a number of engaged citizens, the document is turned into a proposal to vote for.
              In this way time is won since there are much debate already written, possible to read and comment by all voters not been engaded before. But also the plain and sinple proposal from the little man should have a chance.
              So it will be up to the oroginator of a proposal to decide whether he wants to engage more than himself in the work of writing good proposals.
              Some will, some not, and evolution will make all proposals better and better until they finally can be voted upon within a reasonable amount of days. (If you feel frustrated because of slow progress of your vote, you either try to raise more opinion, or rewrite you proposal so it can attract more.)

              -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 New discussion Answer

[top-politics] Smartocracy

From:
http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/smartocracy-hicss2007.pdf -———————————————————————————————————— Smartocracy:
Social Networks for Collective Decision Making
Marko A. Rodriguez
Daniel J. Steinbock
Jennifer H. Watkins

ABSTRACT
Smartocracy is a social software system for collective decision making. The system is composed of a social network that links individuals to those they trust to make good decisions and a decision network that links individuals to their voted-on solutions. Such networks allow for a variety of algorithms that convert the link choices made by individual participants into specific decision outcomes. Simply interpreting the linkages differently (e.g. ignoring trust links, or using them to weight an individual’s vote) provides for a variety of outcomes fit for different decision making scenarios. This paper will discuss the Smartocracy network data structures, the suite of collective decision making algorithms currently supported, and the results of two collective decisions regarding the design of the system. -——————————————————————————————————————— Comments please.

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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

+1 New discussion Answer

• 09/06/06 20:02 <illegale>

  Thank you Mark for sending this to the group.

  It is nice thing to notice that the whole work is avaliable to the public.

  BTW, why did you send it, actually? Is there any thing we could differ about this work and ideas it mentions?

  ATB;
  Gale

  -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

  +1 New discussion Answer
  • 09/06/06 21:35 <Mark>

    [top-politics] Smartocracy + SD2

    G: Thank you Mark for sending this to the group.

    M: :)

    G: It is nice thing to notice that the whole work is avaliable to the

    public. BTW, why did you send it, actually?

    -M: I like it because it seems SD2 compatible.(Almost any system can work under SD2, but Smartocracy seems to seemlessly be integratable with SD2 methods and philosophy.)

    G: Is there any thing we could differ about this work and ideas it mentions? ATB; Gale

    -M: Its not a complete system. Whenever a decision is made, a new trust network is formed – this creates only a temporary trust-nucleus.

    By contrast, if it operated under SD2, a stable body of generalists would be formed also, who would be experts in asking the right questions and would know how to frame issues in their correct context. This body would also oversee the physical implimentation and upgrades of the Smartocracy system.

    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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

    +1 New discussion Answer
    • 09/06/06 23:17 <illegale>

      Actually it is the same network having different outputs due to different inputs. I am saying that as long as I consider social network one and only and what I am looking for are just mechanisms that empower it as long as bottom up decision making process needs one.

      ATB,
      Gale

      -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

      +1 New discussion Answer
      • 09/06/06 23:49 <Mark>

        illegale wrote:

        G: Actually it is the same network having different outputs due to different inputs.

        -M: Same and different – the mix would differ based on the voter turnout.
        I think that effectively it would be the ‘same’ network.

        G: I am saying that as long as I consider social network one and only and what I am looking for are just mechanisms that empower it as long as bottom up decision making process needs one. ATB, Gale

        -M: OK, agreed and understood.

        I will also add that SD2-based general rank would be good for organizing an administrative hierarchy.

        So SD2 would be ‘above’ and ‘below’ a Smartocracy system.

        Cool? Comments anyone?

        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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

        +1 New discussion Answer
        • 10/06/06 13:15 <illegale>

          It might be, for an example for selection of top
          judge/arbiter/president or something like that. Yet, I am not willing to create models that need pretty tough legitimation process in a moment we do not have event network to make it.

          ATB,
          Gale

          -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

          +1 New discussion Answer
          • 11/06/06 17:29 <Mark>

            [top-politics] Screenshot

            illegale wrote:

            G: It might be, for an example for selection of top judge/arbiter/president or something like that. Yet, I am not willing to create models that need pretty tough legitimation process in a moment we do not have event network to make it. ATB, Gale

            M: Screenshot: -—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

            Name [_______________________________]

            Manditory representitives: [(default), (default)]

            Optional additional representitives: [___________________________] [________________________________________________________]

            Issue X Y Z
            Vote:
            Yes [ ] No [ ] Pass [ ]

            Optional delegate(s) (will default to representitives if none are selected): [____________________________________________]

            ---

            Just filling out one’s name makes one a registered voter and a candidate.
            And filling out ANY point in the issue section makes one an active voter on the issue.

            The idea here is to give maximum choice and opportunity to the voter.

            What do you all think?

            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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

            +1 New discussion Answer
            • 13/06/06 17:32 <Mark>

              M: Screenshot: -—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

              Name [_______________________________]

              Manditory representitives: [(default), (default)]

              Optional additional representitives: [___________________________] [________________________________________________________]

              How many people do you want to be in the trustee board? 1[ ], 3[ ], or 5[ ]? (Chaired by those with the highest general rank.)

              Issue XYZ
              Vote:
              Yes [ ] No [ ] Pass [ ]

              Optional delegate(s) (will default to representitives if none are selected): [____________________________________________]

              ---

              Just filling out one’s name makes one a registered voter and a candidate.

              And filling out ANY point in the issue section makes one an active voter on the issue.

              The idea here is to give maximum choice and opportunity to the voter.

              What do you all think?

              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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

              +1 New discussion Answer
              • 13/06/06 19:35 <illegale>

                Do we need it right now? If not, when we gonna need it?

                ATB;
                Gale

                -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

                +1 New discussion Answer
                • 13/06/06 20:00 <Mark>

                  G: Do we need it right now? If not, when we gonna need it? ATB; Gale

                  -M: Smartocracy seems like the best current operational model, which can be improved with SD2 and TOP.

                  So I am not proposing it for TOP specificly.
                  I am proposing it as an improvement for Smartocracy.

                  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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

                  +1 New discussion Answer
                  • 13/06/06 20:06 <illegale>

                    Do you see anybody interested in Smartocracy around?

                    It seems to me group has died. Probably no interest in group projects.

                    So, what might be interest, if not group projects, are comments of exact things, as long as there is more then plenty of non checked models that are not too interesting for discussions any more. People got tired of them, if I may notice.

                    ATB;
                    Gale

                    -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

                    +1 New discussion Answer
                    • 13/06/06 20:19 <Mark>

                      illegale wrote:

                      G: Do you see anybody interested in Smartocracy around?

                      -M: You? I would like to give Karl and Markus time to comment.

                      G: It seems to me group has died. Probably no interest in group projects. So, what might be interest, if not group projects, are comments of exact things, as long as there is more then plenty of non checked models that are not too interesting for discussions any more. People got tired of them, if I may notice. ATB; Gale

                      -M: Smartocracy is the most promising thing that I have seen, and I want to give it a chance.(If few/no one here is interested, this is then revealing about the group.)

                      And it is advanced enough where few modifications by an INDIVIDUAL could yield a distinct program.

                      And I just e-mailed them and told them that I want access to their site and software.
                      Hopefully they will be responsive.

                      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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

                      +1 New discussion Answer
                      • 14/06/06 00:14 <illegale>

                        There are two things I like to seperate. Visions and strategies.

                        We as a group as I can notice do not have big problems with visions, that are actual motivators for an action and directions, but with strategies.

                        I do not see how Smartocracy can become important in this part , so as long as I miss this part, I have to say I am not interested into one of actual dozens of informatical models based on network measiring.

                        Of course, as long as I miss some stuff as everybody does, if you find something promising about strategy part, please give us some notice.

                        ATB,
                        Gale

                        -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

                        +1 New discussion Answer
                        • 14/06/06 06:49 <Mark>

                          illegale wrote:

                          There are two things I like to seperate. Visions and strategies.We as a group as I can notice do not have big problems with visions,that are actual motivators for an action and directions, but withstrategies. I do not see how Smartocracy can become important in this part , so aslong as I miss this part, I have to say I am not interested into one ofactual dozens of informatical models based on network measiring.Of course, as long as I miss some stuff as everybody does, if you findsomething promising about strategy part, please give us some notice.ATB, Gale

                          -M: How about this?:

                          A political party organized with SD2-Smartocracy.

                          People would choose those they trust the most as general trustees, and they would choose the most competent people for specific issues.

                          It could be global scale or it could be for a village, or any scale inbetween.
                          And since its built with Ruby on Rails, it is on the most versitile and user friendly OpenSource platform that I am aware of.

                          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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

                          +1 New discussion Answer
        • 10/06/06 00:25 <Mark>

          From: http://smartocracy.net/ -————————————————————————————————————————- […] Each participant gets an equal number of votes (initially 10) for each decision to be made, to be exercised not by them but by their proxies. That simple change, from voting to delegating your vote, creates meritocracy in an equitable, natural way. The most highly respected participants are by definition on more people’s lists.

          Any unexercised votes (e.g. if a participant doesn’t have time or doesn’t feel qualified) cascade to the proxies of the non-voter, until they hit an actual voter, who exercises them all.[…] -—————————————————————————————————————————-

          -M: People, sounds like Emmanuel’s accumulative delegable proxy system. I also think that they are using PageRank like I told Emmanuel that he needed to.

          Emmanuel, I told you so. :-P

          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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

          +1 New discussion Answer
    • 09/06/06 23:15 <Mark>

      Markus,

      How easy would it be to convert/translate/compile this software to Ruby on Rails?:
      http://smartocracy.net/

      The idea here is to make meritocratic decision making software as user friendly as possible and in the best language possible.

      (Not directly related, and to continue from above, I said:)

      -M: if it operated under SD2, a stable body of generalists would be formed also, who would be experts in asking the right

      questions and would know how to frame issues in their correct context. […]

      -M: To add, SD2-director choices could be the voters’ default delegates on issues.
      This one point alone would seemlessly integrate SD2 with Smartocracy.

      This integration alone would satisfy me(a complete system, not just an umbrella(SD2 ideally is an umbrella, but could be used alone)) but an idea that I would add would be default SD2 reps – an indescisive voter would be made SD2 compliant(therefore could become a rep) by sending voting power to gaps in the rank distribution curve.

      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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

      +1 New discussion Answer
      • 12/06/06 20:45 <Mark>

        M: Markus, How easy would it be to convert/translate/compile this software to Ruby

        on Rails?: http://smartocracy.net/ The idea here is to make meritocratic decision making software as user friendly as possible and in the best language possible.

        -M: Markus, disregard. This site is written with ‘Typo’, which appears to be a Ruby on Rails blogging implimentation.

        But I am still trying to find the Smartocracy software to download.

        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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

        +1 New discussion Answer
• 12/06/06 20:11 <Mark>

  Here are more thesis papers:
  http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/particle-modeling.pdf -—————————————————————————————————————— Simulating Network Influence Algorithms Using
  Particle-Swarms: PageRank and PageRank-Priors
  Marko A. Rodriguez Johan Bollen
  Abstract
  A particle-swarm is a set of indivisible processing elements that traverse a network in order to perform a distributed function. This paper will describe a particular implementation of a particle-swarm that can simulate the behavior of the popular PageRank algorithm in both its global-rank and relative-rank incarnations. PageRank is compared against the particleswarm method on artificially generated scale-free networks of 1,000 nodes constructed using a common gamma value, = 2.5. The running time of the particle-swarm algorithm is O(|P| + |P|t) where |P| is the size of the particle population and t is the number of particle propagation iterations. The particle-swarm method is shown to be useful due to its ease of extension and running time. -—————————————————————————————————————- M:http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/thesis.pdf -—————————————————————————————- Advances Towards a
  Societal-Scale Decision-Support System
  Marko Antonio Rodriguez
  ABSTRACT
  Collective intelligence has been defined as the ability of a group to provide more effective solutions to problems than could be otherwise provided by any of its individual members working alone. Social structures are the means by which humans are able to synergistically combine their efforts to provide high quality solutions to the problems facing the group. Over time, these structures have grown in scale and complexity to encompass political institutions that span vast landscapes of heterogeneous individuals to militaristic forms capable of orchestrating effective large-scale behavioral feats. With computer and network technologies, the potential for more advanced societal-scale information-processing systems is now possible such that a general-purpose societal-scale decision-support system may begin to be
  envisioned. Unlike typical group decision-support research, a societal-scale system is faced with both a heterogeneous user population and problem-space. In designing such a system it is important to understand how the ’collective’s mind’ is modeled via a shared mental map of the group and how the ’collective’s mindset’ is maintained over fluctuating participation levels of its constituent members. Methods in both
  problem-space partitioning and group preference modeling are presented within a theoretical and design framework to further the potential development of a societal-scale decision-support system capable of providing synergistically derived solutions to any representable problem. In concert, all of these ideas provide the foundation for the implementation of societal-scale decision-making system in a real-world context. -————————————————————————————————————————- M:http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/humancollective-smc-hdm2004.pdf -—————————————————————————————————————————- Advances towards a General-Purpose Societal-Scale
  Human-Collective Problem-Solving Engine
  Published in the International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics Proceedings, IEEE SMC, 2004
  Published in the 23rd European Annual Conference on Human Decision Making and Manual Control Proceedings, 2004
  Marko A. Rodriguez
  Computer Science Department
  University of California, Santa Cruz
  Santa Cruz, CA, U.S.A
  okram@soe.ucsc.edu
  Abstract – Human collective intelligence has proved itself as an important factor in a society’s ability to accomplish large-scale behavioral feats. As societies have grown in population-size, individuals have seen a decrease in their ability to actively participate in the problem-solving processes of the group. Representative decision-making structures have been used as a modern solution to society’s inadequate information-processing infrastructure. With computer and network technologies being further embedded within the fabric of society, the implementation of a general-purpose societal-scale
  human-collective problem-solving engine is envisioned as a means of furthering the collective-intelligence potential of society. This paper provides both a novel framework for creating collective intelligence systems and a method for implementing a representative and
  expertise system based on social-network theory. -——————————————————————————————————————————— comments please.

  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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

  +1 New discussion Answer
  • 16/06/06 13:12 <Magnus>

    -Give me the basic facts/opinions abstracted that you wan’t to discuss, we have limited amount of time..

    -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

    +1 New discussion Answer
    • 17/06/06 00:50 <Mark>

      MG wrote:

      -Give me the basic facts/opinions abstracted that you wan’t to discuss,we have limited amount of time.

      -M: They are obviously supporters of RD. Find where thay are critical of DD, and we can discuss that.

      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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

      +1 New discussion Answer
      • 03/07/06 17:40 <Magnus>

        http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/particle-modeling.pdf

        -Hey, all I see is theoretical stuff about the power of pageranking in the internet?

        http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/thesis.pdf

        -OK, nothing here against individual participation. If all are participating, the decision errors are zero.
        And it is good that non particpaters delegate their voting power. Can’t argue with that either.
        What are you takling about???

        http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/humancollective-smc-hdm2004.pdf

        -Same story again, what in it is against the AD-model?

        All I see in these thesises is that the current system with representation is ineffective and that participation on the indivdual level is better.
        Delegation is god but should be dynamic instead of static. No news here.

        -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

        +1 New discussion Answer
        • 04/07/06 20:48 <Mark Rosst>

          MG wrote:

          http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/particle-modeling.pdf-Hey, all I see is theoretical stuff about the power of pageranking inthe internet?http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/thesis.pdf

          -M: No, its not PageRanking the internet, its PageRanking human networks.

          mG: -OK, nothing here against individual participation. If all are participating, the decision errors are zero. And it is good that non particpaters delegate their voting power. Can’t argue with that either. What are you takling about???

          -M: Marko Rodriguez(the writer) is a participant on Smartocracy. As soon as I get admission to the group, I will be challenging him on this point. He is a techie who doesn’t understand republicanism.

          http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/humancollective-smc-hdm2004.pdfmG: -Same story again, what in it is against the AD-model?

          -M: Because its not DD, its RD.

          mG: All I see in these thesises is that the current system with representation is ineffective and that participation on the indivdual level is better. Delegation is god but should be dynamic instead of static. No news here.

          -M: Yes, SD2-Smartocracy would be participatory.

          1. There would be an option for a direct vote.
          2. There would be an option to choose delegates.
          3. If no delegates are chosen, delegate representation would be defaulted to one’s general trustee choices.
          4. If no general trustees are chosen, the algorithm chooses trustees.

          Since leaders/representitives are needed even in a DD system, the only difference here is in the centrality algorithm of choice.(I said from the begining that the centrality algoritm is the main issue.)

          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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

          +1 New discussion Answer
          • 10/07/06 10:55 <Magnus>

            Ju can call AD whatever you like but to mee smartocracy looks a lot like AD. Point.
            Let us know your success with Rodriquez…

            -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

            +1 New discussion Answer
            • 11/07/06 00:33 <Mark Rosst>

              MG wrote:

              Ju can call AD whatever you like but to mee smartocracy looks a lotlike AD. Point.

              -M: ‘looks a lot like AD’ – vague. Parlement/EC-D looks a lot like AD.
              Any system under SD2 ‘looks a lot like AD’.

              So? Now lets talk about important details:

              Initally, Smartocracy only selected general reps with PageRank.(like SD2)
              Then it was changed to have specific issues with reps. My proposed SD2-Smartocracy would have both, with even a DD-like input option.

              Well? Do you like this?

              mG: Let us know your success with Rodriquez…

              -M: OK.

              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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

              +1 New discussion Answer
    • 17/06/06 00:46 <Mark>

      -M: They are obviously supportes of RD.

      Find where they are critical of DD.

      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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

      +1 New discussion Answer
  • 16/06/06 14:08 <illegale>

    Hey Mark. Would you eventually paste these articules you are quoting to wiki in order to create nice base for such projects?

    ATB,
    Gale

    -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

    +1 New discussion Answer
    • 17/06/06 00:47 <Mark>

      illegale wrote:

      Hey Mark. Would you eventually paste these articules you are quoting towiki in order to create nice base for such projects? ATB, Gale

      -M: OK, unless someone posts thes articles there first.

      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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

      +1 New discussion Answer

[top-politics] Direct Democracy Portal - New screenshot avaible

Done some work with the user interface and change the look & added some more icons..

Screenshot avaible below.

https://sourceforge.net/project/screenshots.php?group_id=115046

Still on target to release the alpha-release later this month.

Pether

-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 New discussion Answer

• 19/12/06 18:29 <Gordan Ponjavic>

  pether.sorling@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

  Done some work with the user interface and change the look & added somemore icons..Screenshot avaible below.https://sourceforge.net/project/screenshots.php?group_id=115046Still on target to release the alpha-release later this month.Pether

  Hey Peter!

  Do you have public filters in your software integrated?

  ATB,
  Gale

  -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 New discussion Answer
  • 19/12/06 19:11 <pether.sorling@yahoo.co.uk>

    Hi Gale,

    Gordan Ponjavic wrote:

    pether.sorling@yahoo.co.uk wrote:Do you have public filters in your software integrated?

    Not sure what you mean with public filters, but don’t have any filters implemented except security filters
    for the web requests.

    Only admin screens an a few others that will be protected by security.

    Pether

    -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 New discussion Answer
    • 19/12/06 22:37 <Gordan Ponjavic>

      So, how are you going to enable transparent communication on the larger scales with no filters? Or you base your software on top-down hierarchy?

      -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 New discussion Answer
      • 20/12/06 13:51 <pether.sorling@yahoo.co.uk>

        So what do you mean with filters ? Still don’t understand your question.

        Pether

        -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 New discussion Answer
        • 20/12/06 15:34 <Gordan Ponjavic>

          I assume your software is developed for large organizations with hundreds of members. I assume your software is developed for bottom-up, grassroots principle where elected leaders are direct product of ad hoc group decision which is possible thanks to internet.

          OK. There is probably too many assumptions, that are even not important ones. What I find important is: Is your party based on rigid, hard to diminish hierarchies or on fluid ones where no one can be to certain? If your organization is based on fluid hierarchies, how do you enable mass communication of hundreds of members without having too much non-appropriate material which is regular when you deal with hundreds?

          I understand that I have no clue what exact political model you had in mind when you started developing this software, so maybe, if these questions are too abstract, we could start in that way?

          ATB;
          Gale

          -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 New discussion Answer
          • 27/12/06 16:10 <pether.sorling@yahoo.co.uk>

            Gordan Ponjavic wrote:

            I assume your software is developed for large organizations withhundreds of members. I assume your software is developed for bottom-up,grassroots principle where elected leaders are direct product of ad hocgroup decision which is possible thanks to internet.

            It’s developed almost purely as a propaganda project with the main objective to increase political awareness and increase survelliance of existing politicians.

            OK. There is probably too many assumptions, that are even not importantones. What I find important is: Is your party based on rigid, hard todiminish hierarchies or on fluid ones where no one can be to certain?If your organization is based on fluid hierarchies, how do you enablemass communication of hundreds of members without having too muchnon-appropriate material which is regular when you deal with hundreds?

            I currently don’t have any issues like the ones you describe above, normally I prefer to solve problems when I actually got them. But would be interesting to know how filters would solve this problem ?

            I understand that I have no clue what exact political model you had inmind when you started developing this software, so maybe, if thesequestions are too abstract, we could start in that way?

            A paradigm shift to some sort of direct democracy, and I belive that a portal for political parties that can lets them make decisions online can result in many different poltical models.

            Kind regards
            Pether

            -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 New discussion Answer
          • 21/12/06 04:31 <AbdLomax>

            At 09:34 AM 12/20/2006, Gordan Ponjavic wrote:

            If your organization is based on fluid hierarchies, how do you enablemass communication of hundreds of members without having too muchnon-appropriate material which is regular when you deal with hundreds?

            Obviously, you don’t, that is, if everyone can present everyone else with a message, and the group is large enough, everyone is overwhelmed with traffic.

            There are obvious solutions in common use, but we think that it is very important to develop solutions that don’t depend so much on a benevolent dictator, i.e., a group moderator.

            Moderators there will be, but, as it is stated in the AA Traditions, “Our leaders are but trusted servants, they do not govern.” If the whole group could walk and quickly reassemble, a rogue moderator would do no harm.

            So we envision hierarchies of lists, if it is mailing lists we are talking about.

            There are base lists, with relatively few subscribers, few enough that traffic does not overwhelm subscribers. These base lists may be moderated by proxies; there would be many of them in a large organization. Essentially, you can name a proxy and the proxy admits you to his or her list. And maybe even to a list above that, i.e., the list of your proxy’s proxy. This latter list you may read, but you don’t have the right, necessarily, to post to it without approval.

            There is a top level list in an organization. Actually, there can be more than one, but I won’t go into that complication. A top level list would typically be open for subscription by any member of the organization. It may conduct polls and any member may vote in them. But the list is moderated; the only people who can post without moderation are high-level proxies, proxies representing a certain minimum number of members, directly or indirectly. There may also be other list members who may post, having been granted the privilege by vote, without being high-level proxies.

            The point is that this high-level list is rather closely moderated. If members with posting privileges abuse them, any member who likewise has such privileges may object. Standard Robert’s Rules meeting process has procedures for this…. and members can lose their privileges; they can lose them administratively (i.e., as a decision ad-hoc by a moderator) and it remains democratic if they have the right of appeal. Appeal is to the whole “meeting,” but it might be on a separate list maintained for that purpose. Generally, if the organization is TOP, members would know if censorship was going on. It is not censorship, per se, which is the problem, it is hidden censorship, censorship without due process.

            Standard democratic process exists for all this; the trick is to make that process scalable; and delegable proxy is the only solution I’ve seen which does not involve excluding large groups of people from participation and from representation. In theory. We have not seen large-scale DP yet. Soon, hopefully!

            -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 New discussion Answer

[top-politics] TOP oriented to individual, not organisation

Seems to me it makes much more sense as long as can without any speculation state what is right ad what is wrong.

After all, heterarchy (and true democracy is heterarchy) always needs code of action in order of being effective.

Seems to me we should look at such definition, not in a definition of some fictive model that does not exist. This thing, this code of action would empower us and enable distinction based on regular person, which means no place for compromitation of such code.

ATB;
Gale

-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 New discussion Answer

• 21/11/06 13:20 <Magnus>

  But, as you say:
  After all, heterarchy (and true democracy is heterarchy) always needs code of action in order of being effective.

  Being effective in this case means having a code of action on all actors in politics.
  And if we take away organizations, it will be very easy for individuals to hide behind organizations..

  Or how do you mean..?

  -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 New discussion Answer
  • 21/11/06 17:29 <illegale>

    You can easily set code of action where you deny possibility of hiding behind organization.

    ATB,
    Gale

    -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 New discussion Answer
    • 21/11/06 17:38 <Magnus>

      But isn’t there a need for people to be able to rely on that a complete organization is behaving according TOP?
      How want’s to check up all members of a party for instance? And how shall I value that 30% of the members in a party is TOP-certified?

      illegale skrev:

      You can easily set code of action where you deny possibility of hidingbehind organization. ATB,Gale

      -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 New discussion Answer
      • 21/11/06 19:03 <illegale>

        Magnus. How many politicians are in AD, except you? How many of those are willing to run TOP? If all are, than I suppose the whole organization can accept such a policy all of you obey to.

        Of course, you can accept those who are not willing to run TOP, but in that case AD is not TOP anymore.

        ATB,
        Gale

        -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 New discussion Answer
        • 22/11/06 11:37 <Magnus>

          This is my point, AD should be an organization to rely on. I would probaly have no problem having all members to sign that the will obey TOP.
          A more pratical way of doing it is to write the TOP rules into the statutes of the party.
          I will propose that the day there is a certification on the table. I see the certification as a quality mark and by such, there cannot be changes constantly to it, improvements has to be decided upon in steps, after TOP-discussions ofcoruse.
          And after such decision of improvemnt or change, there need to be a certain time for the before certified organizations to implement it and rewrite their statutes or other important rules.
          If the organization do not implement the new TOP, the certification will be cancelled after this implementation time.
          Just as it works with ISO9000 (yes,yes we engineeers hate it…but in the democary business I really see the need for certification) or similar certifications in the industry.

          -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 New discussion Answer
          • 24/11/06 17:54 <Gordan Ponjavic>

            MG wrote:

            This is my point, AD should be an organization to rely on.I would probaly have no problem having all members to sign that thewill obey TOP.A more pratical way of doing it is to write the TOP rules into thestatutes of the party.

            AD might be based on TOP politicians indeed.

            I will propose that the day there is a certification on the table.I see the certification as a quality mark and by such, there cannot bechanges constantly to it, improvements has to be decided upon in steps,after TOP-discussions ofcoruse.And after such decision of improvement or change, there need to be acertain time for the before certified organizations to implement it andrewrite their statutes or other important rules.If the organization do not implement the new TOP, the certificationwill be cancelled after this implementation time.Just as it works with ISO9000 (yes,yes we engineeers hate it…but inthe democary business I really see the need for certification) orsimilar certifications in the industry.

            Do you want to earn verification of Tiaktiv? Do you want Tiaktiv become certificator?

            -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 New discussion Answer
            • 27/11/06 12:56 <Magnus>

              AD might be based on TOP politicians indeed.

              -But since all citizens are allowed to get membership and to decide in all issues, this would meann to TOP-crtifty all citizens participating..
              More practical to have the party certifed as I see it.

              Do you want to earn verification of Tiaktiv? Do you want Tiaktiv become

              certificator?

              • :-) Why not? Or if we form a more self standing organization, called TOP.
                The idea of that is that all TOP certified all over the world could participate and together withhold (keep) the values and basic ideas of TOP.

              -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 New discussion Answer
              • 04/12/06 19:39 <illegale>

                MG wrote:

                AD might be based on TOP politicians indeed.

                -But since all citizens are allowed to get membership and to decide inall issues, this would meann to TOP-crtifty all citizensparticipating..More practical to have the party certifed as I see it.

                Hmnh. There is a fundamental problem between our aproaches. You want to make certificate for an average Joe who is not even interested in politics in this very time and I want to enable those who are politically active right now to empower them with this certification. So, as long as we have different focus groups, it seems we will have different products too.

                Do you want to earn verification of Tiaktiv? Do you want Tiaktiv become

                certificator?- :-) Why not? Or if we form a more self standing organization, calledTOP.The idea of that is that all TOP certified all over the world couldparticipate and together withhold (keep) the values and basic ideas ofTOP.

                Whoever makes it, it will be some good progress from this very moment :-) ATB,
                Gale

                -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 New discussion Answer
                • 05/12/06 23:52 <Magnus>

                  More practical to have the party certifed as I see it.

                  Hmnh. There is a fundamental problem between our aproaches. You want to

                  make certificate for an average Joe who is not even interested in politics in this very time and I want to enable those who are politically active right now to empower them with this certification. So, as long as we have different focus groups, it seems we will have different products too.

                  -Well, there is no need to certify all members expressing their will in an AD-system.
                  For delegates or more powerful adminstrators there is indeed. But all working inside an AD-organization on a higher level that zero (citizen) should be obliged to follow TOP-principles. The only difference I see is that you rely more on todays politicians and organizations and I more on a competing organization, aimed to take ower in the future.
                  So, sure, there can be different options in this, too.

                  Whoever makes it, it will be some good progress from this very moment

                  -Yes! Shall we now form a formal, international organization TOP, to which all certified organizations can connect and be connected as long as they fulfill TOP as upheld and defined by this international organzation?
                  Can Tiaktiv be this international org?

                  -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 New discussion Answer
                  • 10/12/06 23:28 <illegale>

                    MG wrote:

                    More practical to have the party certifed as I see it.

                    Hmnh. There is a fundamental problem between our aproaches. You want to

                    make certificate for an average Joe who is not even interested inpolitics in this very time and I want to enable those who arepolitically active right now to empower them with this certification.So, as long as we have different focus groups, it seems we will havedifferent products too.-Well, there is no need to certify all members expressing their will inan AD-system.For delegates or more powerful adminstrators there is indeed.But all working inside an AD-organization on a higher level that zero(citizen) should be obliged to follow TOP-principles.The only difference I see is that you rely more on todays politiciansand organizations and I more on a competing organization, aimed to takeower in the future.So, sure, there can be different options in this, too.

                    Indeed. And it should be, actually. We are far from the moment when we sould reach concensus based on experience and wider knowledge.

                    Whoever makes it, it will be some good progress from this very moment

                    -Yes!Shall we now form a formal, international organization TOP, to whichall certified organizations can connect and be connected as long asthey fulfill TOP as upheld and defined by this internationalorganzation?

                    Maybe we should reach Stallman to help us out about creating such organisation. The problem I see in this very moment (in Tiaktiv) is the statute that has too many gaps not to be easily overtaken by the people that might be far from TOP. As long as this problem is not solved, I am not willing to link organisation directly to any decision we might find correct.

                    Can Tiaktiv be this international org?

                    We in Tiaktiv are oriented towards creating structure for TOP politics. In that manner it might be good think. Yet, Tiaktiv as formal organisation is rather weak and I do not trust to its form. So, I hope we will get into contact to Stallman (he developed GNU licence) to see how could we svolve our issue in the best manner we could.

                    BTW. In this very time I believe we do not need any organisation for development of any TOP definition. For an example, Tiaktiv might support one definition AD develops, or vice versa. I believe this way might solve the potential problem.

                    ATB,
                    Gale

                    -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 New discussion Answer
          • 22/11/06 16:08 <Serge>

            The birth of political ISO certification. Talk about what a kick in the anthill that would be…

            Joke aside, I agree that a certification makes sense for organizations. And I must say I find the idea of certifying individuals quite incongruous. Most if not all certifications of individuals today are done following some kind of training and standardized form of exam or assessment (thinking of doctors, lawyers, techniciancs, assermented public officers, etc).

            A method that could be used to certify someone – a political figure I assume – as TOP is something I have a lot of trouble imagining. Where do you start? How can you be sure you are not only being given access to the records that go in favour of the applicant? Would it take a long time (high costs likely if so) to audit an applicant and after that to check compliance? Gale, could you give a description of how you see this in practical terms?

            Best regards,

            Serge

            -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 New discussion Answer
            • 24/11/06 18:08 <Gordan Ponjavic>

              Serge wrote:

              The birth of political ISO certification. Talk about what a kick in theanthill that would be…Joke aside, I agree that a certification makes sense for organizations.And I must say I find the idea of certifying individuals quiteincongruous.

              Hmh. I am thinking about manifest, not certification. Thing that explains why I as a politician accept TOP in my work.

              Most if not all certifications of individuals today aredone following some kind of training and standardized form of exam orassessment (thinking of doctors, lawyers, techniciancs, assermentedpublic officers, etc).

              In some time, it makes sense to make trainings for TOP politicians, as long as todays politician schools are based on regular politics where use of Internet is practically not existent. Doctors who teach young politicians in those schools regularly ignore internet. I do not blame them, as long as free info flow means completely new approach which eliminates big part of traditional doctrine.

              A method that could be used to certify someone – a political figure Iassume – as TOP is something I have a lot of trouble imagining. Wheredo you start? How can you be sure you are not only being given accessto the records that go in favour of the applicant? Would it take a longtime (high costs likely if so) to audit an applicant and after that tocheck compliance? Gale, could you give a description of how you seethis in practical terms?

              So. Why do I think about individual, not organization? In that way we do not have to make no speculations. All I need is my gut and feeling of what is right and what is wrong. I can write manifest for my name. It will be probably the same thing as other people who understand TOP philosophically will adopt. I know that some people who agree with that only at declarative level wont accept it and that is actually the point, as long as it is very popular among politicians to think that people are cattle/lemmings who do not deserve truth who can not respect truth, so that todays politics is just an image of what works fine. And these same people on declarative level are for free speach, freedom of information, public has the right to know and similar stuff. When I get oriented to myself only and what i feel, I do not have to think about these speculations of what other people think, which is rather importnat thing, I belive.

              How does it look like? Like regular manifest. Saying what is not existing right now, what I am pissed off at, what I believe it is important and why I do things in a way I do them. Of course, to make some better thing, stuff needs to be passed through many more brains, but this is the start that makes sense to me. It has nothing to certification houses, but mere explanation why TOP anyway? What I want to do with TOP, why do I work in a TOP manner even when it is not so opportunistic and why it pays off.

              In that way some other “maybe” thinkers might make final decision and become TOP which is rather important thing.

              ATB,
              Gale

              Best regards,Serge

              -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 New discussion Answer
              • 25/11/06 14:20 <Serge>

                Hey Gale,
                Emmanuel knew about this already, so maybe you do too, but is the following pledge what you had in mind?
                http://www.vpsystems.net/Nevada/?page_id=50
                by the way, from what I could gather, I think this guy has lost to a republican.
                Regards,
                Serge

                -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 New discussion Answer
                • 04/12/06 19:40 <illegale>

                  Thx Serge.

                  I did not now for him.

                  ATB,
                  Gale

                  -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 New discussion Answer
                • 25/11/06 22:52 <Mark Rosst>

                  [top-politics] collective action management system / inroads

                  S: […]but is the following pledge what you had in mind?http://www.vpsystems.net/Nevada/?page_id=50by the way, from what I could gather, I think this guy has lost to arepublican

                  -M: *R*epublican not *r*epublican. example: I am a republican but not a Republican.
                  Proper noun vs. common noun.

                  S: Regards, Serge

                  -M: I haven’t promoted this before, but I do like the idea of individual politicians using SD2-S.

                  In American politics(or other non-parlimentary systems), this would probably be quite useful for the Speaker of the state or federal house or senate. Citizens Forum? Maybe it could be a parallel to City Council, State Legislature, or Federal Legislature.

                  People , from the beginning I have promoted SD2/SD2-S as not a replacement of current political processes, but as a collective action management system that can be used for political purposes among many other purposes.
                  And the political purposes are meant to suppliment and parallel current constitutional processes without the need of change of these.

                  Inroads are:

                  1. SD2 for political parties
                  2. SD2-S for municipal government and above, via sympathetic elected politicians
                  3. SD2-S for large scale administration, via sympathetic appointed politicians

                  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 New discussion Answer

[top-politics] Little report from Croatia

Hello everybody.

In last time things where rather intense in Croatian cyber politics. Yet, I have to notice it is 2:0 for forums of Croatia :-)

First thing.

Faculty of philosophy with about 5 000 students has rather developed internet community that estimates about 800 nicks with 100 or more posts. Some profesors post there, and they can se open critics from virtual users. At that internet community, as I do remember, all initiatives that came from students, came form that forum excatly. There was a typical example, when history teacher wrote at media some rather suspicious article about Izrael last occupation and when the topic was started, people started to wonder about credibility of that teacher, so he had to come up to that forum (even he ignored it for a while) and try to give arguments for that writings. All in all, we are talking about powerful and influentive network that can not possibly be ignored.

So, administration tried to close forum for anonyimus users and all those who are not from that faculty, aka they tried to establish control over things that where wrote. But, reaction of people from forum was rather explosive and precise. In continous deliberation process leaders of this ad hoc initiative where adopting arguments from all, some more experienced members obtain important (legal, media tactics, direct action organisation, info about beraucracy, keeping koherence of initiative etc.), so all forum was very fast about delegations, about exact steps and so on. There was some media articles at newspapers, media started pushing this topic more and more, petition was orgnised etc. I was pretty impresed by the whole process where about 100 people succeed to be that organized without any training, nor ad hoc organizational experience, which was really awesome.

This strong reaction of forum rather soon (I think it was 5-6 days from announcement) made administration give up from the whole thing. What I am talking about is that forum came up to the RL succeeding in protection of its own right to exist!

So, it is 1:0 for Forum.

Second thing.

In the same time at fmsdp.org (youth socialists party) there was a try of media lynch of a user who said she admires Hitler’s power and domination. So, there where several articles, party leader said some things, major TV news had report about it, etc. What I can notice in that story was somebodies interest to quiet up TOP communication and force up autocensorhips that are rather important part of keeping current oligarchical power structure. What is interesting also, a few days before I mentioned to them that media can be interested only into lame scandals, not into things that make people suffer (corruption apheres that come up from forum, very strong oposition to current party leader at TOP, etc) as long as their leader is in good contact to the media owners, so he can watch out what to let go (in oreder of his own personal interests, of course) and that thing excatly happened.

Though, when this thing started, all forum showed strong support to Moca as long as nobody noticed non legitimate attitude (after all, someones capabilities are not moral category) plus obvious madia/political lynch over that user. Forum stood up and now Moca has full support to press charges to those who started this hoax. What I have to notice is that president of organisation did not stood up for the Moca (who is actually high functioner of fmsdp), but he decided to relativise, instead of standing up for just action, especially as long as his own member was attacked. Racan (president) got down in this all aphere, which means it is

2:0 for Forum.

Seems as forums got pretty strong thing in political life, especialy as they notice untouchability for current political tactics that is tradicionaly used. It all leads me to think that TOP decision can be eliminated only by other TOP decision as long as TOP decisions are far more superior and legitimate that non-TOP decisions that still run the political process. It might even seem to be that our politicians and corrupted parts of social establishment got pretty endangered by forum. So, what to say, but that it was actual time.

Of course, there is a lot of more things to do, but forums reputation in our political life got pretty much up. And nobody actually knows is it possible otherwise due to autopoitetic principle of society :-)

ATB;
Gale

-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 New discussion Answer

• 05/12/06 23:09 <Magnus>

  Very interesting, Gordan!
  I think the same story could occur anywhere in the “free” world in fact.
  And it puts really the finger on how powerful a TOP-certified forum/organization can be.
  And how endangered some establishments must feel..
  Thanks for the encouraging words!

  -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 New discussion Answer
  • 10/12/06 18:59 <illegale>

    Hey Magnus!

    There have been many more campaigns to put Internet under control over these days, yet, I havent noticed such effective response of the users to keep it free.

    It is really encouraging moment, indeed.

    ATB;
    Gale

    -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 New discussion Answer

[top-politics] Parlement Version 0.9

Improved look, particularly the voting and writing part. Long posts and lists now truncated. Permanent login. Positioned elements. Search form (though google).

• now asking to choose a pseudo
• focus now on the login box
• anonymous mails can also be received
• correcting personal page
• choices now on the right bottom side of elements
• elements can now be positioned
• new elements are directly placed under their parent
• long posts and lists only display their n first paragraphs or items
• google search form
• position text is hidden
• the >> link now more closely associated associated to the choices
• images for vote and write
• anonymous users now have their subscription link hidden
• login is permanent over browser sessions
• some font encoding corrections in mails

Anybody willing to test?

You all already have a login, your pseudo is your mail’s name!

echarp – http://leparlement.org/Features_request

-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

+1 New discussion Answer

[top-politics] Origins of the power

• Little intro *

Politics is menagment of societal power. Those who are at position of power set and enforce policies as long as they are only capable to set rules for all. Though, principles that made such structures powerfull are the principles that lead and orient them and their hiden/unhiden policies.

The major principle of any such structure to remain alive is its survival and for survival the structure needs to remain its power. Whoever wants to participate in these structures, needs to accept rules that gain him power in order to politically prosper.

• Comparisons *

Todays politics which is non TOP is based on Machiavliestic principles. Many standards for such structures are non moral for wider audiences though, due to non transparency and imposibility to publicly judge such moves enables them to remain as a power base. Assasinations, public lynch, media missleadings, mass deception and other non ethical political weapons are in core of these strucutres.

Though, when we discuss over origins of power, we have to notice influence of such origins on the whole society.

Dictatorships that are based on brutal force and hegemony apreciate these origins before reason, morality, intelectual independency. In order to survive, dictatorships need to create represion over dangerous values which decreases human freedoms. Due to the fact that intelectual independency enables many solutions that lead society forward, these systems during the time become replaced by those that enable more political freedoms.

Todays pseudodemocracies in other hand do not enable global public participation which is base of true democracy. Origins of power of these structures are closed lobbies that control public through control of mass media pasivising it and disabling creation of exact political competition. This pseudodemocracy leads to global hypocrisia and decandency. In order to adopt to society, individuals actually accept widely promoted values which means lost of morality that is core of any society survival.

TOP based politics due to its completeley public, open and transparent action sets all of «injust» or hypocritical actions non legitimate, so the political base is much more carefull about crearting power structures that might go against their basic human values. TOP politics thanks to its fundamental features is moral in its core the only product of open system has to be autopoietic in order to survive so these strucutures set moral policies also as long as they are only able to legitimate such decisions.

• conclusion *

By enabling new political paradigm called TOP politics, origins of the power are not based in hypocrycy any more, nor any other form of misleadingbased of non informed structures that enable their legimacy. As long as the strongest power centers do set global policies in favor to their survival and empowerment, the new society standards are expected to be globaly accepted. What are these standards going to be excatly, we can notice by evaluating sets of behaviour and their relevance to political position of their protagonists.

-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

+3 New discussion Answer

[top-politics] Direct Democracy Portal - Snapshot release

Hello everyone,

Link to last project news :
https://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=638032 — Done some major refactoring since last file release, changed the .ear file deployment and simplified into
a .war file to simplify development.

Improved test quality by using HtmlUnit for acceptance testing and DbUnit for integration testing of DAO:s and the services layer.

Not much new features but getting happy with the general infrastructure & added security using acegi security.

Also upgraded some dependencies to like spring framework to 1.2.8 and hibernate annotations to 3.2.0ga to support EJB3 development.

Since last project news the TOP discussion group have now moved to http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics and is
still active with other political initiatives sharing ideas & participating in discussions.

Last code snapshot available from :
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=115046 —

Just been chilling for a while to let some technologies i use mature, also prepared
the bundle of the application with latest version jboss application server & hsql database but feel
I need to add some actual features before I will do the first alpha-release.

Planned Road map:

Dec 2006 : First version 1.0 alpha-release

Q1 2007 : 1.0-Milestone1

Q2 2007 : 1.0-Milestone2

Q3 2007 : 1.0-BETA

Q4 2007 : 1.0 release.

Will switch to use Spring Framework version 2.0 as soon as acegi security version 1.1 is released with support spring 2.0.

Sorry for not being more active in the group lately, are actually looking at the http://top.xwiki.com and looking at the progress made. One of my goals are to achieve the same regular releases that http://rubyforge.org/projects/parlement are making which shows good progress.

Best regards
Pether Sorling

-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 New discussion Answer

• 27/11/06 10:36 <Magnus>

  Progressing! :-)

  Looking forward to test the alpa release!

  BR/
  Magnus

  -~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 New discussion Answer

[top-politics] Secret votes

I find this a must in a democratic system used by TOP. It seems to be a contradiction to TOP principles but nothing is without exception, right?
The reason is that we don’t live in a perfect world and that the risk of being attacked in any way, physically, psycoligically or monetary, due to a certain way of voting, can harm the democratic process by having voters to vote “as expected” or to abstain voting. So let’s discuss it in this thread without any details about other stuff.
My hope is that we can unite about this single exception for TOP-openess.

Once we can agree on this the next question will be how secrecy should be kept in a internet based votingsystem. And this we can discuss in a further thread in the future.

-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ 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 ~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-

+1 New discussion Answer