Discussion:
[MG] Global Challenges- Abstract portion of contest
Patrick Millerd
2017-06-15 21:34:16 UTC
Permalink
Not sure how many of you are attempting to enter this thing but I figured
I'd put up my first draft of the abstract to gauge reaction. Any comment is
appreciated. This is what my entry is supposed to cover-
https://www.globalchallenges.org/en/the-prize/criteria
*1. Abstract *(no more than 1000 words)
The abstract must summarize the design of the model, including the
institutions, regulations, decision-making paths and control mechanisms it
involves, as well as how key individuals and other decision-making bodies
are to be appointed.

My model is verifiable direct democracy powered by the internet. Any
decision-making system of the future needs to utilize our capabilities for
connected communication between the general public and the mechanisms used
in creating decisions. The necessity for the public to be able to trust in
their ability to influence changes in their society has many advantages and
challenges, this paper will attempt to address the significant areas of
this outcome.


The main challenge in a Direct Democracy is to allow everyone a voice but
to have those voices organized in productive dialogue. The internet, more
specifically a fully threaded forum on the internet is a great tool to
organize discussions. An internet forum paired with a categorizing system
for any changes within the governing body makes a comprehensive system of
direct democracy where ideas can be brought up, discussed, voted and
implemented all in one area.


Ensuring everyone an equal voice means one account per individual, identity
association between the user of the site and the physical person posting
under that user. The forum's posting rules become enforceable with
authentication and can ensure discussions are productive. A core tenant to
posting on the forum is that any post is an amendment to the post it's
replying to. Unless starting a new topic, a post is always an attempt to
correct the post above. Any general agreement to a post can be expressed
through a prop (upvote), props help posts gain visibility and legitimacy.
Failure to follow established forum rules can result in a temporary
suspension from posting.


The identity of users, as well as other sensitive information, can be
hidden, still available, but difficult to access without also raising flags
on your own profile. In a true direct democracy, all information is
accessible and verifiable, this is achievable with current computing power,
the challenge is organizing it properly. Possible to have a physical
building, a section in existing libraries, where users can log in to look
up sensitive information, monitored and secured should be enough to deter
people with malicious motives.


Another aspect of a direct democracy is in its ability for everyone to have
their vote counted. Even if they don't directly vote it's important that
every user gets represented so as to not allow extremists to control
things. With a proxy voting system that's run through a matching mechanism,
everyone will have a vote counted for them based on their perceived
preference. Unless they cast a direct vote, their vote will be an average
of the 5 closest matched users that did cast a direct vote. The matching
will be done through a variety of questions designed to predict voting
patterns. This way if only 15% of the population cast votes, 100% will
still be represented, offsetting the extremists.


Starting a new topic on this fully threaded forum is to create a proposal
for a change in government, whether it be a policy, priority, hiring or
budgeting change. Proposals are able to be created by anyone but like the
discussions, there are certain rules to posting. Each proposal needs to
fill out structured criteria, sections to help organize and place their
idea for change. This gives familiarity to all new topics so other users
can easily navigate what's being proposed. Associated forms and links can
be attached by computer algorithms or employees in order to legitimize a
proposal. Every section of a proposal, as well as the proposal as a whole,
is able to be discussed in a dedicated thread, further keeping discussion
organized and on track.


Proposals will fall into categories that the submitter can choose.
Location, from any individual neighborhood to a global scope. Sections such
as housing, transportation, healthcare, etc are also selected. From there
sub-section categories can be chosen, bicycle law for instance in the
transportation section. Proposals may fall into many sections and can be
chosen and searchable through keywords, concentrating the scope of
interested parties.


Proposals and posts can not be edited mid-discussion to keep exchanges
authentic. However, the original proposer may amend the proposal through
adoption. If a post from another user makes a legitimate reply to the
proposal and it's widely accepted by other users through propping, it is a
good indication that the original proposer should adopt that post in order
to gain acceptance from voters when that time comes. This adoption is done
through a simple check mark beside the post from the proposal creator, this
post will now be included in the final version of a proposal to be voted
on.


There will be employees responsible for helping in drafting proposals
before and after the discussion process. The finished version of a proposal
will be a concise breakdown of exactly what the proposal is proposing so as
to encourage as many votes as possible. There may be a number of iterations
before one is chosen by approval from users who have adopted posts in the
proposal as well as the original proposal creator, it then goes to a
general vote.



The current departments used in the government stay functioning. The
public, however, will now have the ability to direct the functioning of
them, with respect to replacing heads and setting annual budgets. All
changes and expenses by the department will be categorized for the public.
This limits the amount of micromanaging needed from the public, without
jeopardizing integrity. Department heads will have criteria they need to
meet before being considered for the position, these criteria may also be
established by the people.


Computing efficiency will continue to improve, helping users utilize the
system and familiarity with processes will encourage activity. Using
technology follows the global trend in reducing the man hours required to
run a functional system. Political bureaucracies are the hardest to adapt
to global shifts because they are their own governing body. That's why this
competition is so important, we need to reel in the excessiveness of
government and make it more efficient, stifling corruption in the process.
Anthony Dunn
2017-06-16 01:49:07 UTC
Permalink
Haha you're writing for this too eh? Have you been able to figure out
anything about who's actually reading these things? I feel like it'd be
pretty good to know a few things about the target audience... I especially
wonder what they're asked to look for, and if they'll automatically see all
net gov proposals as the same.

I think you have a lot of strong lines in this piece, like the beginning of
the second paragraph, although I suspect you might wanna try running this
paper by someone who doesn't already believe in direct democracy, I'm not
sure it establishes an imperative for the UN to embrace DD before
explaining what it is, or how it'd help the UN.
Post by Patrick Millerd
Not sure how many of you are attempting to enter this thing but I figured
I'd put up my first draft of the abstract to gauge reaction. Any comment is
appreciated. This is what my entry is supposed to cover-
https://www.globalchallenges.org/en/the-prize/criteria
*1. Abstract *(no more than 1000 words)
The abstract must summarize the design of the model, including the
institutions, regulations, decision-making paths and control mechanisms it
involves, as well as how key individuals and other decision-making bodies
are to be appointed.
My model is verifiable direct democracy powered by the internet. Any
decision-making system of the future needs to utilize our capabilities for
connected communication between the general public and the mechanisms used
in creating decisions. The necessity for the public to be able to trust in
their ability to influence changes in their society has many advantages and
challenges, this paper will attempt to address the significant areas of
this outcome.
The main challenge in a Direct Democracy is to allow everyone a voice but
to have those voices organized in productive dialogue. The internet, more
specifically a fully threaded forum on the internet is a great tool to
organize discussions. An internet forum paired with a categorizing system
for any changes within the governing body makes a comprehensive system of
direct democracy where ideas can be brought up, discussed, voted and
implemented all in one area.
Ensuring everyone an equal voice means one account per individual,
identity association between the user of the site and the physical person
posting under that user. The forum's posting rules become enforceable with
authentication and can ensure discussions are productive. A core tenant to
posting on the forum is that any post is an amendment to the post it's
replying to. Unless starting a new topic, a post is always an attempt to
correct the post above. Any general agreement to a post can be expressed
through a prop (upvote), props help posts gain visibility and legitimacy.
Failure to follow established forum rules can result in a temporary
suspension from posting.
The identity of users, as well as other sensitive information, can be
hidden, still available, but difficult to access without also raising flags
on your own profile. In a true direct democracy, all information is
accessible and verifiable, this is achievable with current computing power,
the challenge is organizing it properly. Possible to have a physical
building, a section in existing libraries, where users can log in to look
up sensitive information, monitored and secured should be enough to deter
people with malicious motives.
Another aspect of a direct democracy is in its ability for everyone to
have their vote counted. Even if they don't directly vote it's important
that every user gets represented so as to not allow extremists to control
things. With a proxy voting system that's run through a matching mechanism,
everyone will have a vote counted for them based on their perceived
preference. Unless they cast a direct vote, their vote will be an average
of the 5 closest matched users that did cast a direct vote. The matching
will be done through a variety of questions designed to predict voting
patterns. This way if only 15% of the population cast votes, 100% will
still be represented, offsetting the extremists.
Starting a new topic on this fully threaded forum is to create a proposal
for a change in government, whether it be a policy, priority, hiring or
budgeting change. Proposals are able to be created by anyone but like the
discussions, there are certain rules to posting. Each proposal needs to
fill out structured criteria, sections to help organize and place their
idea for change. This gives familiarity to all new topics so other users
can easily navigate what's being proposed. Associated forms and links can
be attached by computer algorithms or employees in order to legitimize a
proposal. Every section of a proposal, as well as the proposal as a whole,
is able to be discussed in a dedicated thread, further keeping discussion
organized and on track.
Proposals will fall into categories that the submitter can choose.
Location, from any individual neighborhood to a global scope. Sections such
as housing, transportation, healthcare, etc are also selected. From there
sub-section categories can be chosen, bicycle law for instance in the
transportation section. Proposals may fall into many sections and can be
chosen and searchable through keywords, concentrating the scope of
interested parties.
Proposals and posts can not be edited mid-discussion to keep exchanges
authentic. However, the original proposer may amend the proposal through
adoption. If a post from another user makes a legitimate reply to the
proposal and it's widely accepted by other users through propping, it is a
good indication that the original proposer should adopt that post in order
to gain acceptance from voters when that time comes. This adoption is done
through a simple check mark beside the post from the proposal creator, this
post will now be included in the final version of a proposal to be voted
on.
There will be employees responsible for helping in drafting proposals
before and after the discussion process. The finished version of a proposal
will be a concise breakdown of exactly what the proposal is proposing so as
to encourage as many votes as possible. There may be a number of iterations
before one is chosen by approval from users who have adopted posts in the
proposal as well as the original proposal creator, it then goes to a
general vote.
The current departments used in the government stay functioning. The
public, however, will now have the ability to direct the functioning of
them, with respect to replacing heads and setting annual budgets. All
changes and expenses by the department will be categorized for the public.
This limits the amount of micromanaging needed from the public, without
jeopardizing integrity. Department heads will have criteria they need to
meet before being considered for the position, these criteria may also be
established by the people.
Computing efficiency will continue to improve, helping users utilize the
system and familiarity with processes will encourage activity. Using
technology follows the global trend in reducing the man hours required to
run a functional system. Political bureaucracies are the hardest to adapt
to global shifts because they are their own governing body. That's why this
competition is so important, we need to reel in the excessiveness of
government and make it more efficient, stifling corruption in the process.
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_
metagovernment.org
Scott Raney
2017-06-17 15:25:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick Millerd
Not sure how many of you are attempting to enter this thing but I figured
I'd put up my first draft of the abstract to gauge reaction.
Coincidentally I had just started on this today, too. I'm probably not
the best reviewer (I'm competition, but also probably know a lot more
about the issues than any of the actual judges), but think I can offer
a reasonable simulation of a devil's advocate.

(snip)
Post by Patrick Millerd
The main challenge in a Direct Democracy is to allow everyone a voice but to
have those voices organized in productive dialogue. The internet, more
specifically a fully threaded forum on the internet is a great tool to
organize discussions. An internet forum paired with a categorizing system
for any changes within the governing body makes a comprehensive system of
direct democracy where ideas can be brought up, discussed, voted and
implemented all in one area.
My perception of the general conception is that the problem with DD is
that people are idiots and you can't trust them to make good
decisions. This of course is not the real problem, which is that DD
with low participation rates is exactly the same as misrepresentative
democracy because the same types of people (the SDAPs) end up making
the decisions. Still, I think you ought to address the popular
perception right here in the first paragraph.
Post by Patrick Millerd
Ensuring everyone an equal voice means one account per individual, identity
association between the user of the site and the physical person posting
under that user. The forum's posting rules become enforceable with
authentication and can ensure discussions are productive. A core tenant to
posting on the forum is that any post is an amendment to the post it's
replying to. Unless starting a new topic, a post is always an attempt to
correct the post above. Any general agreement to a post can be expressed
through a prop (upvote), props help posts gain visibility and legitimacy.
Failure to follow established forum rules can result in a temporary
suspension from posting.
Here you'd also have to address the moderation issues that all other
open forums have, and why the vast majority of them have already been
shut down: How is this system any different from any of them? The only
exceptions I note continue to function exactly because they're not
open, either by design or as a result of having a very narrow scope
(FB's "unfriending" system, and Reddit and Slashdot topics are
generally very esoteric, although Reddit relies heavily on censorship
and banning people to keep the peace, options we don't have in a DD
system).
Post by Patrick Millerd
The identity of users, as well as other sensitive information, can be
hidden, still available, but difficult to access without also raising flags
on your own profile. In a true direct democracy, all information is
accessible and verifiable, this is achievable with current computing power,
the challenge is organizing it properly. Possible to have a physical
building, a section in existing libraries, where users can log in to look up
sensitive information, monitored and secured should be enough to deter
people with malicious motives.
Interesting but it seems to me impractical: We're barely managing to
keep public libraries open at all, let alone assigning them an
entirely new (unfunded?) mandate. I plan to ignore this issue under
the assumption that if no one person is given unusually large amounts
of power, no individual is likely to become a target. People already
trust the system to verify identities (voter rolls) without anyone
being expected to be able to knock on doors to verify the existence of
every person listed in the system...
Post by Patrick Millerd
Another aspect of a direct democracy is in its ability for everyone to have
their vote counted. Even if they don't directly vote it's important that
every user gets represented so as to not allow extremists to control things.
With a proxy voting system that's run through a matching mechanism, everyone
will have a vote counted for them based on their perceived preference.
Unless they cast a direct vote, their vote will be an average of the 5
closest matched users that did cast a direct vote. The matching will be done
through a variety of questions designed to predict voting patterns. This way
if only 15% of the population cast votes, 100% will still be represented,
offsetting the extremists.
I think you'd need to expand on how the matching would be done here.
And note that I'm not going to discourage adoption of this because
it's somehow "mine" or that I fear the competition. In fact, I think
it's just a great idea and the more people that submit proposals
including this feature the more mainstream all of us will appear to
be. Given what we saw in the "Next System" competition it seems to me
that our real competition is handwavers who just rehash old ideas:
Because they seem familiar the judges will be far more likely to
choose them. The trick to winning I think is getting the balance
between being progressive enough to appear to have a shot at making a
real difference while still feeling familiar enough that
non-visionaries will be able to see how it could work. This of course
IMHO means that the winner is most likely doomed to fail to achieve
its goal (i.e., competitions like this are the exact wrong way to go
about making significant changes in how things are done unless you're
sure your judges are true visionaries and not just experts in public
policy or some other irrelevant (or even backward) field).

(snip, a level of specificity that probably isn't required in the abstract)
Post by Patrick Millerd
There will be employees responsible for helping in drafting proposals before
and after the discussion process. The finished version of a proposal will be
a concise breakdown of exactly what the proposal is proposing so as to
encourage as many votes as possible. There may be a number of iterations
before one is chosen by approval from users who have adopted posts in the
proposal as well as the original proposal creator, it then goes to a general
vote.
Well at least you have some idea how the $5 million will be spent ;-)
This is actually something I'm struggling with and can't decide
whether or not to disclose this as a problem: I'm guessing that
proposing to drop millions on marketing (or perhaps even just
advertising) is not going to be attractive to the judges. For my part
I'll consider my project a failure if I have to hire an army of
moderators or system administrators to keep the trolls from ruining
it. And of course you already see this in the design of proxyfor.me
(e.g., you only get one post on a proposal, you have to choose sides,
and there is no way to directly interact with other participants).

(snip, more details that probably belong in the body)

I note that you didn't deal with the main point, which is
*international* relations. I plan to deal with that by simply saying
that looking at the problem this way is just going to result in a
system that can't function: The problem with international relations
is exactly the same problem with local, state, and national
governments: Bad decisions get made because the wrong people are
making them. The only reason to even *have* national government (let
alone the supernational system this competition seems to be calling
for) is to enforce the ability for people to have democracy at a local
level. Not sure this is going to be convincing to the judges who
probably will have a "new & improved" UN in mind, but, again, the more
of us who call them out on this misconception the better each of our
odds is.
Regards,
Scott

Loading...