Frank and Ronald, (cc Henry) My own reply to Henry is here: http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?A2=NCDD-DISCUSSION;3915ad12.1208d So I would side with Frank against a phased approach:
(a) deliberation -----> voting'a In favour of something more bi-directional or simultaneous: (b) deliberation <----> voting'b Note however that Ronald has called the left side "opinion forming" and not "deliberation". So I think he pictured something like this: (c) opinion forming ---> voting'a I agree with this, too. But opinion forming (together with mutual understanding) is the purpose of (b). I think this equation holds: (d) opinion forming == deliberation <----> voting'b Now combine (b), (c) and (d) to give a fuller technical picture: (e) deliberation <----> voting'b ----> voting'a The two voting facilities (a and b) differ in structure and function. Voting'a is mass voting. It does the heavy lifting. It turns over the power heavy offices of government, and that's about all it does. It is the political equivalent of an earth mover, or a plough, and is largely incompatible with deliberation. It cannot be joined directly with a fine-grained deliberative process. But it can be joined directly with voting'b, and voting'b is compatible with both. [1] Moreover, the deliberative process depends on the structural support of voting'b. Without voting'b, there cannot be much in the way of deliberation or public opinion. In fact, this is the status quo: (f) ? ----> voting'a The left side may be characterized in different ways, but not as deliberative opinion formation (b). I think Mills draws the pertinent distinction (e vs. f) best in this famous passage: [2] In a *public*, as we may understand the term, (1) virtually as many people express opinions as receive them. (2) Public commununications are so organized that there is a chance immediately and effectively to answer back any opinion expressed in public. Opinion formed by such discussion (3) readily finds an outlet in effective action, even against - if necessary - the prevailing system of authority. And (4) authoritative institutions do not penetrate the public, which is thus more or less autonomous in its operation. When these conditions prevail, we have the working model of a community of publics, and this model fits closely the several assumptions of classic democratic theory. At the opposite extreme, in a *mass*, (1) far fewer people express opinions than receive them; for the community of publics becomes an abstract collection of individuals who receive impressions from the mass media. (2) The communications that prevail are so organized that it is difficult or impossible for the individual to answer back immediately or with any effect. (3) The realization of opinion in action is controlled by authorities who organize and control the channels of such action. (4) The mass has no autonomy from institutions; on the contrary, agents of authorized institutions penetrate this mass, reducing any autonomy it may have in the formation of opinion by discussion. So (e) is the diagram of a public society in Mills' terms, (f) is a mass society, and voting'b is the hinge on which the difference turns. The technical problems are therefore on the left side of (e). Recall: (e) deliberation <----> voting'b ----> voting'a (1) Voting'b is an extension of the human voice. It has all the freedom and ubiquity of ordinary speech, and none of the restrictions of voting'a. (2) When an opinion is expressed in voting'b, anyone can immediately answer back with arguments for or against. Likewise when an argument is expressed during deliberation, opinion can immediately shift in response. This is the meaning of the bi-directional arrow <----> on the left. (3) The outlet for action is election day. The results of voting'b are carried to voting'a, voter by voter, and power is restructured according to public opinion. This is shown by the uni-directional arrow ----> on the right side. (4) Autonomy follows from the preceding conditions. It is also shown by the independence of the left side from the right. Compare this to the status quo (f), which might be drawn as: (f) +--> money ---> mass media ---> voting'a | | +-------------------- power <----------+ We engineers have no control over the structure of voting'a on the right side, which is constant in both (e) and (f), nor do we need any. Voting'a is controlled purely by content, not by form. Technically all that matters, therefore, is the left side of (e). This brings us back to the process of opinion formation (b): (b) deliberation <----> voting'b With Votorola, we're currently working on the problem of visualizing this process. How do we show it where and when it is actually happening? What should it look like in the user interface? [3] [1] Technically I label the two essential voting processes (a and b) as "authoritative" and "normative": http://zelea.com/project/votorola/d/theory.xht#conclusion [2] C. Wright Mills. 1956. The power elite. Oxford University Press, New York. pp. 303-304. [3] Here are some mockups we've drawn: http://zelea.com/project/votorola/s/gwt/scene/vote/_/ http://whiletaker.homeip.net/mockups/ http://zelea.com/project/votorola/s/gwt/stage/_/mock/ Here's a precise problem (2) that needs solving: http://mail.zelea.com/list/votorola/2012-August/001402.html -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ fragro said: > Ronald, > > Open Assembly employed a similar system with a phased system. First users > could prepare information, comments, arguments, or solutions, and after a > period of time voting begins. However this structure was not well > appreciated in testing because users found that it was stifling. > Implementing it correctly is the hardest problem, and a static time did not > work. There needs to be a dynamic way to determine when the right amount of > information or arguments has formed that does not stifle the ability to > vote. > > For instance many of the concepts brought over to Open Assembly had a long > history and users had a pre-defined notion of their opinion which often did > not change, as they were already educated on that specific issue. > > So for such a structure to work it must be individual and personalized. > This means that employing some level of machine learning is necessary, or > else users will quickly become disengaged from the inability to actually > express their preference. > > Frank Grove > > On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Ronald Grindle <ron...@grindle.de> wrote: > > > Hello Henry, > > > > regarding your question about solutions to inform voters: in my concept, > > the "Architecture for a Democracy > > 2.0"<http://www.metagovernment.org/wiki/Architecture_for_a_Democracy_2.0>, > > (among other solutions) I am suggesting to extend the political process > > with a phase that precedes the voting, called "Opinion Forming". In this > > phase Information is collected, statements are prepared and a first draft > > of the citizens' opinion is established. These results are then passed on > > to the actual voting. > > > > It allows comrade citizens to prepare information on an issue and offer a > > recommendation how to vote to the other citizens. > > > > The english translation of the concept should be available soon. > > > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen > > > > Ronald D. Grindle > > __________________ > > Tel: +49 (0)89-43573610 > > Mobil: +49 (0)177-3775162 > > E-Mail: ron...@grindle.de > > Am 22.08.2012 23:33, schrieb Michael Allan: > > > > -- > Libertas et Patria ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info