Juho Laatu wrote:
Several cents might make a dollar.
There are many small problems that
together may make the system fall
short of the planned ideal state.
Or that together, might not.
In arguing that DD is probable, we brought in many factors. But we
also detailed how they interrelate, and
--- On Fri, 6/3/09, Michael Allan m...@zelea.com wrote:
Juho Laatu wrote:
Several cents might make a dollar.
There are many small problems that
together may make the system fall
short of the planned ideal state.
Or that together, might not.
In arguing that DD is probable, we
--- On Wed, 4/3/09, Michael Allan m...@zelea.com wrote:
... Are there any strong reverse
mechanisms, or blocks, that
would be likely to prevent a quorum?
- Having too many too uninteresting
elections
- Having several competing IT systems
- The opposite of novelty,
Juho Laatu wrote:
There may be several IT systems and
trust in one of them may not yet
mean quorum at society level.
Having several IT candidates may be
a sufficient reason in general not
to achieve quorum in any of them.
You could either make the numerous
alternative IT systems visible or
--- On Mon, 16/2/09, Michael Allan m...@zelea.com wrote:
I read A - B as if A is widespread
then also B is or will be widespread.
This could cover also cases B is
likely to be widespread...
Yes, it's a causal operator. So the relation A
- B means if A
then B. (It ought to be
The claim is that a direct democracy is probable. Based on Juho
Laatu's comments, I restate the argument in an expanded form. If it
stands, then we can accept it as a premise, and discuss the potential
danger of it.
What follows is a condensed summary of the original post and
discussion thread,
First some general comments.
Still the biggest question to me is how
to create a system that is dominant
(determines the de facto unquestioned
public opinion) and at the same time
remains in close contact and attracts
spontaneous participation of the
citizens and is out of the control of
the
