Discussion:
[MG] question about scoring system
(too old to reply)
Flash Cards
2014-02-13 06:30:59 UTC
Permalink
Hi,

I am interested in direct democracy and I have some programming experience. Reading about the Metagovernment project raised several questions for which I could not find answers. I asked one question on the FAQ discussion page (http://www.metagovernment.org/wiki/Talk:FAQ) a few days ago, but I am not sure if anyone saw it there. Therefore I decided to post that question here:

 On the FAQ page it is suggested that the Metagovernment functioning
relies upon, among other things, the scoring system. In the proposed
scoring system users can score other users with weights proportional to
their own score. This is reminiscent to the Page rank, and like the Page
rank it is susceptible to abuse. There is no easy fix to such abuse, as
is evident from Google's ongoing battle against the abusers. In fact,
many scoring/recommending web-services explicitly state that they keep
details of their systems secret, to prevent abuse. How do you resolve
this issue?

Thank you,
s
Jacopo Tolja
2014-02-13 12:05:05 UTC
Permalink
Dear user S

I don't know if I understand correctly your question but I think the answer
relies in the fact that each user vote ONE time.
therefore a good E-Democracy platform should have a strong certification of
users.
For more indepth research I suggest
https://vote.heliosvoting.org/
http://rangevoting.org/

If your question is about some sort of Karma to apply to the users, i
believe the best way is statistical information of the activity, in
Airesis.eu, for example, we start to collect data about users participation
based on the vote they receive in the contributions that are posted in the
different proposals.
The analysis of the activity based on big numbers will permit us to develop
a good score algorithm

Bye
j

PS I do not work for metagovernment, I received this mail and I just
answered
Post by Flash Cards
Hi,
I am interested in direct democracy and I have some programming
experience. Reading about the Metagovernment project raised several
questions for which I could not find answers. I asked one question on the
FAQ discussion page (http://www.metagovernment.org/wiki/Talk:FAQ) a few
days ago, but I am not sure if anyone saw it there. Therefore I decided to
On the FAQ page it is suggested that the Metagovernment functioning
relies upon, among other things, the scoring system. In the proposed
scoring system users can score other users with weights proportional to
their own score. This is reminiscent to the Page rank, and like the Page
rank it is susceptible to abuse. There is no easy fix to such abuse, as is
evident from Google's ongoing battle against the abusers. In fact, many
scoring/recommending web-services explicitly state that they keep details
of their systems secret, to prevent abuse. How do you resolve this issue?
Thank you,
s
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
Flash Cards
2014-02-16 01:37:51 UTC
Permalink
Dear Jacopo,

Thank you for your answer. My question was about a scoring system mentioned on the metagovernment project FAQ page. I think it is their score is more like reputation, or like what you call karma. I have not yet checked your site in detail, but it seems to me that any scoring system is vulnerable to abuse. Same is true for systems based on people evaluating each other performance. A group of people can always cheat a system, if they are willing to invest effort.

As for user vote counting, I completely agree with you, each user should have just one vote. Interesting issue for me is vote delegation. I think that a viable and efficient implementation of DD (Direct Democracy) will necessarily have this feature. To ensure wide participation in DD, people should be given option to delegate their votes. Votes could be delegated to different people (or maybe parties, organizations) for different types of issues (like education, defense, foreign policy etc).


I am also interested in hearing from other people what they think is the best/easiest/fastest path toward DD. People are frustrated with their governments, but I do not see wide DD movement. Not even much discussion about it. Why is this so?

s




On Thursday, February 13, 2014 4:05 AM, Jacopo Tolja <***@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear user S


I don't know if I understand correctly your question but I think the answer relies in the fact that each user vote ONE time.
therefore a good E-Democracy platform should have a strong certification of users.
For more indepth research I suggest
https://vote.heliosvoting.org/

http://rangevoting.org/


If your question is about some sort of Karma to apply to the users, i believe the best way is statistical information of the activity, in Airesis.eu, for example, we start to collect data about users participation based on the vote they receive in the contributions that are posted in the different proposals.
The analysis of the activity based on big numbers will permit us to develop a good score algorithm  

Bye
j

PS I do not work for metagovernment, I received this mail and I just answered




On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Flash Cards <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi,
Post by Flash Cards
 On the FAQ page it is suggested that the Metagovernment functioning
relies upon, among other things, the scoring system. In the proposed
scoring system users can score other users with weights proportional to
their own score. This is reminiscent to the Page rank, and like the Page
rank it is susceptible to abuse. There is no easy fix to such abuse, as
is evident from Google's ongoing battle against the abusers. In fact,
many scoring/recommending web-services explicitly state that they keep
details of their systems secret, to prevent abuse. How do you resolve
this issue?
Post by Flash Cards
Thank you,
s
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
Ed Pastore
2014-02-16 13:59:24 UTC
Permalink
Hi. It looks as if that FAQ is long-neglected. The scoring system referenced there was my now-obsolete idea of weighted-voting, where the more trusted/active/respected someone is, the more weight their vote gets. It’s detailed here:
http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Scoring_system#User_scoring
but the idea was pretty much abandoned in favor of a consensus model of voting and a more organic community structure than I had originally envisioned.

As for the best/easiest/fastest path to DD, I’d say it can’t be all three of those things. There’s an old saying in I.T.: “Cheap, fast, good: you can have up to two.”

The fastest way to DD is the referendum movement, such as Americans have in California. I think it’s horrible. It represents a few huge, hot-button issues, which require massive funding to get on the ballot. They are usually bad decisions, and often result in unfunded mandates. But technically, it’s direct democracy, and it’s happening now.

Perhaps the easiest path is “mixdemocracy” where political parties form to get politicians into power who are sworn to act at the behest of a website or other open input system. This is the goal of the E2D movement. I find a lot of problems with it myself (I’ve considered doing it here in the U.S., but just couldn’t get on board with some of the deep issues it has). It’s very difficult to paste direct democracy onto a democratic republic. In current systems, politicians vote frequently. They may vote hundreds of times on one bill, voting up and down amendments and staying resolutions and so forth. There is no easy way to adapt that to a web-input system. Plus representatives serve on committees, which are tremendously un-democratic and are less about voting than about deliberation. And there’s still no system for people to work on the wording of bills; only to say that they want to vote up/down on one particular one. And thus there is no real consensus-building. Is it really preferable for a representative to vote “yes” on a bill because 51 percent of her constituents said so?

The best way is what we’re doing, of course. :) The goal here, as I see it, is to make systems where any community of any size can come to a consensus decision. That’s it. We then release that system(s) to presumably-small communities and let them recognize the power of a consensus system. They will be making strong, sophisticated, well-thought-out decisions; unlike communities run by more primitive forms of governance. As people start to see the strength and power of these systems, they will scale them up to larger and more diverse communities, until they start taking over the functions currently managed by government.

That in my mind is the only truly workable path to direct democracy. Everything else is highly fallible, highly unstable, and just not tenable within the framework of society today.
Post by Flash Cards
Dear Jacopo,
Thank you for your answer. My question was about a scoring system mentioned on the metagovernment project FAQ page. I think it is their score is more like reputation, or like what you call karma. I have not yet checked your site in detail, but it seems to me that any scoring system is vulnerable to abuse. Same is true for systems based on people evaluating each other performance. A group of people can always cheat a system, if they are willing to invest effort.
As for user vote counting, I completely agree with you, each user should have just one vote. Interesting issue for me is vote delegation. I think that a viable and efficient implementation of DD (Direct Democracy) will necessarily have this feature. To ensure wide participation in DD, people should be given option to delegate their votes. Votes could be delegated to different people (or maybe parties, organizations) for different types of issues (like education, defense, foreign policy etc).
I am also interested in hearing from other people what they think is the best/easiest/fastest path toward DD. People are frustrated with their governments, but I do not see wide DD movement. Not even much discussion about it. Why is this so?
s
Dear user S
I don't know if I understand correctly your question but I think the answer relies in the fact that each user vote ONE time.
therefore a good E-Democracy platform should have a strong certification of users.
For more indepth research I suggest
https://vote.heliosvoting.org/
http://rangevoting.org/
If your question is about some sort of Karma to apply to the users, i believe the best way is statistical information of the activity, in Airesis.eu, for example, we start to collect data about users participation based on the vote they receive in the contributions that are posted in the different proposals.
The analysis of the activity based on big numbers will permit us to develop a good score algorithm
Bye
j
PS I do not work for metagovernment, I received this mail and I just answered
Hi,
On the FAQ page it is suggested that the Metagovernment functioning relies upon, among other things, the scoring system. In the proposed scoring system users can score other users with weights proportional to their own score. This is reminiscent to the Page rank, and like the Page rank it is susceptible to abuse. There is no easy fix to such abuse, as is evident from Google's ongoing battle against the abusers. In fact, many scoring/recommending web-services explicitly state that they keep details of their systems secret, to prevent abuse. How do you resolve this issue?
Thank you,
s
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
Flash Cards
2014-02-17 03:56:29 UTC
Permalink
Hi Ed,

Thank you for your response. I do like the idea of injected DD, or what you call mixdemocracy. And I think that, if implemented right, it is indeed the easiest path. Many other people find similar ideas appealing, to the extent that there are serious attempts to implement them. Take, for example, the online party of Canada. It has been officially registered since 2010. But as far as I can judge its popularity is not growing that fast, if at all. The important question to me is why? I would be very interested in hearing your opinion.

Thanks.
s





On Sunday, February 16, 2014 5:59 AM, Ed Pastore <***@metagovernment.org> wrote:

Hi. It looks as if that FAQ is long-neglected. The scoring system referenced there was my now-obsolete idea of weighted-voting, where the more trusted/active/respected someone is, the more weight their vote gets. It’s detailed here:
http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Scoring_system#User_scoring
but the idea was pretty much abandoned in favor of a consensus model of voting and a more organic community structure than I had originally envisioned.

As for the best/easiest/fastest path to DD,  I’d say it can’t be all three of those things. There’s an old saying in I.T.: “Cheap, fast, good: you can have up to two.”

The fastest way to DD is the referendum movement, such as Americans have in California. I think it’s horrible. It represents a few huge, hot-button issues, which require massive funding to get on the ballot. They are usually bad decisions, and often result in unfunded mandates. But technically, it’s direct democracy, and it’s happening now. 

Perhaps the easiest path is “mixdemocracy” where political parties form to get politicians into power who are sworn to act at the behest of a website or other open input system. This is the goal of the E2D movement. I find a lot of problems with it myself (I’ve considered doing it here in the U.S., but just couldn’t get on board with some of the deep issues it has). It’s very difficult to paste direct democracy onto a democratic republic. In current systems, politicians vote frequently. They may vote hundreds of times on one bill, voting up and down amendments and staying resolutions and so forth. There is no easy way to adapt that to a web-input system. Plus representatives serve on committees, which are tremendously un-democratic and are less about voting than about deliberation. And there’s still no system for people to work on the wording of bills; only to say that they want to vote up/down on one particular one. And thus there is no real
consensus-building. Is it really preferable for a representative to vote “yes” on a bill because 51 percent of her constituents said so?

The best way is what we’re doing, of course. :) The goal here, as I see it, is to make systems where any community of any size can come to a consensus decision. That’s it. We then release that system(s) to presumably-small communities and let them recognize the power of a consensus system. They will be making strong, sophisticated, well-thought-out decisions; unlike communities run by more primitive forms of governance. As people start to see the strength and power of these systems, they will scale them up to larger and more diverse communities, until they start taking over the functions currently managed by government.

That in my mind is the only truly workable path to direct democracy. Everything else is highly fallible, highly unstable, and just not tenable within the framework of society today.




On Feb 15, 2014, at 8:37 PM, Flash Cards <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

Dear Jacopo,
Post by Flash Cards
Thank you for your answer. My question was about a scoring system mentioned on the metagovernment project FAQ page. I think it is their score is more like reputation, or like what you call karma. I have not yet checked your site in detail, but it seems to me that any scoring system is vulnerable to abuse. Same is true for systems based on people evaluating each other performance. A group of people can always cheat a system, if they are willing to invest effort.
As for user vote counting, I completely agree with you, each user should have just one vote. Interesting issue for me is vote delegation. I think that a viable and efficient implementation of DD (Direct Democracy) will necessarily have this feature. To ensure wide participation in DD, people should be given option to delegate their votes. Votes could be delegated to different people (or maybe parties, organizations) for different types of issues (like education, defense, foreign policy etc).
I am also interested in hearing from other people what they think is the best/easiest/fastest path toward DD. People are frustrated with their governments, but I do not see wide DD movement. Not even much discussion about it. Why is this so?
s
Dear user S
I don't know if I understand correctly your question but I think the answer relies in the fact that each user vote ONE time.
therefore a good E-Democracy platform should have a strong certification of users.
For more indepth research I suggest
https://vote.heliosvoting.org/
http://rangevoting.org/
If your question is about some sort of Karma to apply to the users, i believe the best way is statistical information of the activity, in Airesis.eu, for example, we start to collect data about users participation based on the vote they receive in the contributions that are posted in the different proposals.
The analysis of the activity based on big numbers will permit us to develop a good score algorithm  
Bye
j
PS I do not work for metagovernment, I received this mail and I just answered
Hi,
 On the FAQ page it is suggested that the Metagovernment functioning
relies upon, among other things, the scoring system. In the proposed
scoring system users can score other users with weights proportional to
their own score. This is reminiscent to the Page rank, and like the Page
rank it is susceptible to abuse. There is no easy fix to such abuse, as
is evident from Google's ongoing battle against the abusers. In fact,
many scoring/recommending web-services explicitly state that they keep
details of their systems secret, to prevent abuse. How do you resolve
this issue?
Post by Flash Cards
Thank you,
s
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
Paul Nollen
2014-02-17 11:29:35 UTC
Permalink
Hi all,

I am following those Direct Democratic experiments. The first one that succeeded to win a seat (they still have) was Demoex in a small town in Sweden. I think that it is only directed to what we call “early adapters” and that is always a small number of people. Most citizens are very conservative with politics.
When you say that you are starting up a new political party and that you take part in the elections the reaction is : Citizen: oh fine , I vote for you, what is your program. Respons: we don’t have onen you have to decide for yourself. Citizen: oh, sorry, I am not interested in politics and I don’t have time to get involved.
But most of them are still active. (Sol Australia has a chanche in the next elections I think)

Paul http://www.e2d-international.org/

From: Flash Cards
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 4:56 AM
To: Metagovernment Project
Subject: Re: [MG] question about scoring system

Hi Ed,

Thank you for your response. I do like the idea of injected DD, or what you call mixdemocracy. And I think that, if implemented right, it is indeed the easiest path. Many other people find similar ideas appealing, to the extent that there are serious attempts to implement them. Take, for example, the online party of Canada. It has been officially registered since 2010. But as far as I can judge its popularity is not growing that fast, if at all. The important question to me is why? I would be very interested in hearing your opinion.

Thanks.
s






On Sunday, February 16, 2014 5:59 AM, Ed Pastore <***@metagovernment.org> wrote:

Hi. It looks as if that FAQ is long-neglected. The scoring system referenced there was my now-obsolete idea of weighted-voting, where the more trusted/active/respected someone is, the more weight their vote gets. It’s detailed here:
http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Scoring_system#User_scoring
but the idea was pretty much abandoned in favor of a consensus model of voting and a more organic community structure than I had originally envisioned.

As for the best/easiest/fastest path to DD, I’d say it can’t be all three of those things. There’s an old saying in I.T.: “Cheap, fast, good: you can have up to two.”

The fastest way to DD is the referendum movement, such as Americans have in California. I think it’s horrible. It represents a few huge, hot-button issues, which require massive funding to get on the ballot. They are usually bad decisions, and often result in unfunded mandates. But technically, it’s direct democracy, and it’s happening now.

Perhaps the easiest path is “mixdemocracy” where political parties form to get politicians into power who are sworn to act at the behest of a website or other open input system. This is the goal of the E2D movement. I find a lot of problems with it myself (I’ve considered doing it here in the U.S., but just couldn’t get on board with some of the deep issues it has). It’s very difficult to paste direct democracy onto a democratic republic. In current systems, politicians vote frequently. They may vote hundreds of times on one bill, voting up and down amendments and staying resolutions and so forth. There is no easy way to adapt that to a web-input system. Plus representatives serve on committees, which are tremendously un-democratic and are less about voting than about deliberation. And there’s still no system for people to work on the wording of bills; only to say that they want to vote up/down on one particular one. And thus there is no real consensus-building. Is it really preferable for a representative to vote “yes” on a bill because 51 percent of her constituents said so?

The best way is what we’re doing, of course. :) The goal here, as I see it, is to make systems where any community of any size can come to a consensus decision. That’s it. We then release that system(s) to presumably-small communities and let them recognize the power of a consensus system. They will be making strong, sophisticated, well-thought-out decisions; unlike communities run by more primitive forms of governance. As people start to see the strength and power of these systems, they will scale them up to larger and more diverse communities, until they start taking over the functions currently managed by government.

That in my mind is the only truly workable path to direct democracy. Everything else is highly fallible, highly unstable, and just not tenable within the framework of society today.



On Feb 15, 2014, at 8:37 PM, Flash Cards <***@yahoo.com> wrote:


Dear Jacopo,


Thank you for your answer. My question was about a scoring system mentioned on the metagovernment project FAQ page. I think it is their score is more like reputation, or like what you call karma. I have not yet checked your site in detail, but it seems to me that any scoring system is vulnerable to abuse. Same is true for systems based on people evaluating each other performance. A group of people can always cheat a system, if they are willing to invest effort.


As for user vote counting, I completely agree with you, each user should have just one vote. Interesting issue for me is vote delegation. I think that a viable and efficient implementation of DD (Direct Democracy) will necessarily have this feature. To ensure wide participation in DD, people should be given option to delegate their votes. Votes could be delegated to different people (or maybe parties, organizations) for different types of issues (like education, defense, foreign policy etc).



I am also interested in hearing from other people what they think is the best/easiest/fastest path toward DD. People are frustrated with their governments, but I do not see wide DD movement. Not even much discussion about it. Why is this so?


s



On Thursday, February 13, 2014 4:05 AM, Jacopo Tolja <***@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear user S

I don't know if I understand correctly your question but I think the answer relies in the fact that each user vote ONE time.
therefore a good E-Democracy platform should have a strong certification of users.
For more indepth research I suggest
https://vote.heliosvoting.org/

http://rangevoting.org/


If your question is about some sort of Karma to apply to the users, i believe the best way is statistical information of the activity, in Airesis.eu, for example, we start to collect data about users participation based on the vote they receive in the contributions that are posted in the different proposals.
The analysis of the activity based on big numbers will permit us to develop a good score algorithm

Bye
j

PS I do not work for metagovernment, I received this mail and I just answered




On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Flash Cards <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi,

I am interested in direct democracy and I have some programming experience. Reading about the Metagovernment project raised several questions for which I could not find answers. I asked one question on the FAQ discussion page (http://www.metagovernment.org/wiki/Talk:FAQ) a few days ago, but I am not sure if anyone saw it there. Therefore I decided to post that question here:

On the FAQ page it is suggested that the Metagovernment functioning relies upon, among other things, the scoring system. In the proposed scoring system users can score other users with weights proportional to their own score. This is reminiscent to the Page rank, and like the Page rank it is susceptible to abuse. There is no easy fix to such abuse, as is evident from Google's ongoing battle against the abusers. In fact, many scoring/recommending web-services explicitly state that they keep details of their systems secret, to prevent abuse. How do you resolve this issue?

Thank you,
s



_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Post to the list: ***@metagovernment.org
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org






_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Post to the list: ***@metagovernment.org
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org



_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Post to the list: ***@metagovernment.org
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Post to the list: ***@metagovernment.org
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org


---
Dit e-mailbericht bevat geen virussen en malware omdat avast! Antivirus-bescherming actief is.
http://www.avast.com
Flash Cards
2014-02-18 07:27:11 UTC
Permalink
Hi Paul,

Good post. I think to make those people involved something like the following should be offered:

we will make your vote counted the same way your favorite party A votes, OR
if one some issues you agree better with a party B, on those issues we will count your vote that way, OR
if yet there are issues no party represents you well we will count your vote directly, OR
we will only count your direct votes if you wish, OR
we will give you an opportunity to draft your own law in collaboration with other people, if you wish,

etc,etc, from least effort to most, not the other way around. Basically people should be given opportunity to delegate their votes in a very flexible way, sometime taking direct initiative on issues that they dim important.

s





On Monday, February 17, 2014 3:29 AM, Paul Nollen <***@skynet.be> wrote:

Hi all,
 
I am following those Direct Democratic experiments. The first one that
succeeded to win a seat (they still have) was Demoex in a small town in Sweden.
I think that it is only directed to what we call “early adapters” and that is
always a small number of people. Most citizens are very conservative with
politics.
When you say that you are starting up a new political party and that you
take part in the elections the reaction is : Citizen:  oh fine , I vote for
you, what is your program. Respons: we don’t have onen you have to decide for
yourself. Citizen: oh, sorry, I am not interested in politics and I don’t have
time to get involved.
But most of them are still active. (Sol Australia has a chanche in the next
elections I think)
 
Paul http://www.e2d-international.org/  
From: Flash Cards
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 4:56 AM
To: Metagovernment Project
Subject: Re: [MG] question about scoring system
 
Hi
Ed,

Thank you for your response. I do like the idea of injected DD, or
what you call mixdemocracy. And I think that, if implemented right, it is indeed
the easiest path. Many other people find similar ideas appealing, to the extent
that there are serious attempts to implement them. Take, for example, the online
party of Canada. It has been officially registered since 2010. But as far as I
can judge its popularity is not growing that fast, if at all. The important
question to me is why? I would be very interested in hearing your
opinion.

Thanks.
s





On Sunday, February 16, 2014 5:59 AM, Ed
Pastore <***@metagovernment.org> wrote:

Hi. It looks as if that FAQ is long-neglected. The scoring system
referenced there was my now-obsolete idea of weighted-voting, where the more
trusted/active/respected someone is, the more weight their vote gets. It’s
detailed here:
http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Scoring_system#User_scoring
but the idea was pretty much abandoned in favor of a consensus model of
voting and a more organic community structure than I had originally
envisioned.
 
As for the best/easiest/fastest path to DD,  I’d say it can’t be all
three of those things. There’s an old saying in I.T.: “Cheap, fast, good: you
can have up to two.”
 
The fastest way to DD is the referendum movement, such as Americans have in
California. I think it’s horrible. It represents a few huge, hot-button issues,
which require massive funding to get on the ballot. They are usually bad
decisions, and often result in unfunded mandates. But technically, it’s direct
democracy, and it’s happening now.
 
Perhaps the easiest path is “mixdemocracy” where political parties form to
get politicians into power who are sworn to act at the behest of a website or
other open input system. This is the goal of the E2D movement. I find a lot of
problems with it myself (I’ve considered doing it here in the U.S., but just
couldn’t get on board with some of the deep issues it has). It’s very difficult
to paste direct democracy onto a democratic republic. In current systems,
politicians vote frequently. They may vote hundreds of times on one bill, voting
up and down amendments and staying resolutions and so forth. There is no easy
way to adapt that to a web-input system. Plus representatives serve on
committees, which are tremendously un-democratic and are less about voting than
about deliberation. And there’s still no system for people to work on the
wording of bills; only to say that they want to vote up/down on one particular
one. And thus there is no real consensus-building. Is it really preferable for a
representative to vote “yes” on a bill because 51 percent of her constituents
said so?
 
The best way is what we’re doing, of course. :) The goal here, as I see it,
is to make systems where any community of any size can come to a consensus
decision. That’s it. We then release that system(s) to presumably-small
communities and let them recognize the power of a consensus system. They will be
making strong, sophisticated, well-thought-out decisions; unlike communities run
by more primitive forms of governance. As people start to see the strength and
power of these systems, they will scale them up to larger and more diverse
communities, until they start taking over the functions currently managed by
government.
 
That in my mind is the only truly workable path to direct democracy.
Everything else is highly fallible, highly unstable, and just not tenable within
the framework of society today.

 
 
On Feb 15, 2014, at 8:37 PM, Flash Cards <***@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Dear Jacopo,
Thank you for your answer. My question was about a scoring system mentioned on the metagovernment project FAQ page. I think it is their score is more like reputation, or like what you call karma. I have not yet checked your site in detail, but it seems to me that any scoring system is vulnerable to abuse. Same is true for systems based on people evaluating each other performance. A group of people can always cheat a system, if they are willing to invest effort.
As for user vote counting, I completely agree with you, each user should have just one vote. Interesting issue for me is vote delegation. I think that a viable and efficient implementation of DD (Direct Democracy) will necessarily have this feature. To ensure wide participation in DD, people should be given option to delegate their votes. Votes could be delegated to different people (or maybe parties, organizations) for different types of issues (like education, defense, foreign policy etc).
I am also interested in hearing from other people what they think is the best/easiest/fastest path toward DD. People are frustrated with their governments, but I do not see wide DD movement. Not even much discussion about it. Why is this so?
s
Dear user S
 
I don't know if I understand correctly your question but I think the answer relies in the fact that each user vote ONE time.
therefore a good E-Democracy platform should have a strong certification of users.
For more indepth research I suggest
https://vote.heliosvoting.org/
http://rangevoting.org/
 
If your question is about some sort of Karma to apply to the users, i believe the best way is statistical information of the activity, in Airesis.eu, for example, we start to collect data about users participation based on the vote they receive in the contributions that are posted in the different proposals.
The analysis of the activity based on big numbers will permit us to develop a good score algorithm 
 
Bye
j
 
PS I do not work for metagovernment, I received this mail and I just answered
 
Hi,
Post by Flash Cards
I am interested in direct democracy and I have
some programming experience. Reading about the Metagovernment project raised
several questions for which I could not find answers. I asked one question
Post by Flash Cards
On the FAQ page it is
suggested that the Metagovernment functioning relies upon, among other
things, the scoring system. In the proposed scoring system users can score
other users with weights proportional to their own score. This is
reminiscent to the Page rank, and like the Page rank it is susceptible to
abuse. There is no easy fix to such abuse, as is evident from Google's
ongoing battle against the abusers. In fact, many scoring/recommending
web-services explicitly state that they keep details of their systems
secret, to prevent abuse. How do you resolve this issue?
Post by Flash Cards
Thank you,
s
 
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Post to the
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
 
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Post to the
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
 
 
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Post to the list: ***@metagovernment.org
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org



________________________________
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the
Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Post to the list:
***@metagovernment.org
Manage subscription:
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org


________________________________

Dit e-mailbericht bevat geen virussen en malware omdat avast! Antivirus actief is.
Jacopo Tolja
2014-02-17 06:00:21 UTC
Permalink
Hi S

I do not exclude delegation is proven from the experience of the pirate
party in Germany that use LQFB that the function created less participation.
Participation mean effort and effort mean time and energy. In today world
we do have little time to spare (at least in Italy) because we are busy
surviving. Now it does not imply that every one should participate in
proposal making but it should be on the final decision making. If you are
not willing to even know what is decided it mean that you deserve to live
the consequences of your absence. My and the Airesis development team idea
is that when, at the end, the personal interest will be at stakes, the
stakeholder will be involved in the decision taking.
Usually there is fronts and each fronts bring up his point of view and this
is the "education" time needed to make a good vote.
In large numbers and with a proposal making process that include
participation (in Airesis, the proposal making system still have to be
modified and developed as we learn from experience and different
methodology) I do believe that the collective intelligence will be brought
up.
When you will be able to vote (securely!) from your smartphone the
participation is up to you and if you decide not to vote is because you
don't have time or because you don't care. Revolution at that time will not
be in the agenda!
If then you decide to install a bot that let other vote for you, is a
choice (dangerous I believe) I will consider developing system that prevent
that (easy to do)

Efficiency:
There is many type of problem and many way to address them. Our strategy
(Airesis Team) is to analyze each problem and then brake it down in to
smaller sub-problems to have the relative stakeholders address it.
So here the concept is more participation to solve your own problem.
Usually during this process many sub-problem find a solution in synthesis
by the participants in the debate.
The second strategy is to use different voting system for different
solution. Let's say that it need to be decided the max speed on the highway
or the amount of that particular drugs that you can carry legally etc.For
that we will choose the mathematical formula that show to give the best
result, In candidate selection we use Schulze algorithm and so forth. The
participatory budgeting system will be for local expenditure ect.

As I open this email I say i do not exclude delegation, is fundamentally a
right but we live in a delegated democracy, the fundamental question is: is
functioning? My answer is NO!
So, the rules of the game are set, we work to see if there is a way of
making them better.
I do believe that delegating some one should be done only when I cannot be
present during the vote.
If you give large windows of time during the vote the above become a rarity.
If the problem is divided in sub-problem your vote should be made for each
sub-prolem rather than vote a single bill with hundred decision in it.
Civic education should become obligatory.

Need to go to work
Bye
j

Please test Airesis.us and give us your critics. I believe is better to
work pragmatically on the development of a platform and see it in action,
analyze statistical data and from poor experiences learn and modify the
platform, rather than making hypothesis.
Hi,
I looked at both your blog posts, where you outline math of delegated vote
discounting, and where you discuss vote delegating in general. I think, if
and how to discount votes can be debated. But I feel very strongly for vote
delegation, therefore I would like to present some arguments for it and see
1) Participation. Direct participation requires effort. Good amount of
effort. Fraction of people willing to commit such effort is small. This is
not because people lazy or dumb. I would say this is because people are
smart (sea more below). In short, a system without delegation is doomed to
have low participation, what also makes it more vulnerable to targeted
subversive effort.
2) Efficiency. I read in your post that more deliberation, more
consultation, more participation is always better. I disagree. It is only
better for a problem under consideration, in isolation from all other
problems. Extra effort devoted to a given problem means less effort to
other problems. And the output of solving this problem is not a linear
function of the input effort. Usually we deal with diminishing returns.
People are rational agents constrained by bounded resorcses. They always
prioritize and ration their efforts. And this is the reason why most people
will not participate directly in political decision making, and reasonably
so. (I have in mind problems and decision making of large, societal scale).
3) Fundamental principals of democracy. I think it is simply more
democratic to let people themselves to decide on extent of their
involvement in democratic decision making. Not allowing them to delegate
their votes (or discounting their votes) is more restrictive. It can also
be technically difficult or impossible if people are to participate via
internet. People can always automate their voting using bots, for example,
thus circumventing your restrictions.
I can elaborate on my points and give more reasons for vote delegation.
But it would be interesting to hear your objections. I am also considering
posting this or an altered version to the metagovernment list later, to see
what other people may say.
Thank you for your attention,
s
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 11:10 PM, Jacopo Tolja <
I agree on the first part of your email about the vulnerability of the
scoring system.
The effort necessary should be greater than the value of the range
achieved!
And if spotted the whole group be so devaluated that they loose their
grade for ever!
I disagree on vote delegation, sooner or later it will create disaffection
like the current system.
If implemented anyway it should be with a value >1 for each delegated vote
and eventually the value should be reduced as bigger is the amount of vote
one single representative get.
Something like
http://blog.pietrosperoni.it/2013/04/18/delegating-in-edemocracy-my-way/
There is no best or easy or faster path to DD it goes with awareness and
the established establishment will do anything to keep it low.
The internet will do the rest! That why they even try to stop it!
But as the internet generation grow the change is coming.
bye
j
Dear Jacopo,
Thank you for your answer. My question was about a scoring system
mentioned on the metagovernment project FAQ page. I think it is their score
is more like reputation, or like what you call karma. I have not yet
checked your site in detail, but it seems to me that any scoring system is
vulnerable to abuse. Same is true for systems based on people evaluating
each other performance. A group of people can always cheat a system, if
they are willing to invest effort.
As for user vote counting, I completely agree with you, each user should
have just one vote. Interesting issue for me is vote delegation. I think
that a viable and efficient implementation of DD (Direct Democracy) will
necessarily have this feature. To ensure wide participation in DD, people
should be given option to delegate their votes. Votes could be delegated to
different people (or maybe parties, organizations) for different types of
issues (like education, defense, foreign policy etc).
I am also interested in hearing from other people what they think is the
best/easiest/fastest path toward DD. People are frustrated with their
governments, but I do not see wide DD movement. Not even much discussion
about it. Why is this so?
s
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 4:05 AM, Jacopo Tolja <
Dear user S
I don't know if I understand correctly your question but I think the
answer relies in the fact that each user vote ONE time.
therefore a good E-Democracy platform should have a strong certification of users.
For more indepth research I suggest
https://vote.heliosvoting.org/
http://rangevoting.org/
If your question is about some sort of Karma to apply to the users, i
believe the best way is statistical information of the activity, in
Airesis.eu, for example, we start to collect data about users participation
based on the vote they receive in the contributions that are posted in the
different proposals.
The analysis of the activity based on big numbers will permit us to
develop a good score algorithm
Bye
j
PS I do not work for metagovernment, I received this mail and I just answered
Hi,
I am interested in direct democracy and I have some programming
experience. Reading about the Metagovernment project raised several
questions for which I could not find answers. I asked one question on the
FAQ discussion page (http://www.metagovernment.org/wiki/Talk:FAQ) a few
days ago, but I am not sure if anyone saw it there. Therefore I decided to
On the FAQ page it is suggested that the Metagovernment functioning
relies upon, among other things, the scoring system. In the proposed
scoring system users can score other users with weights proportional to
their own score. This is reminiscent to the Page rank, and like the Page
rank it is susceptible to abuse. There is no easy fix to such abuse, as is
evident from Google's ongoing battle against the abusers. In fact, many
scoring/recommending web-services explicitly state that they keep details
of their systems secret, to prevent abuse. How do you resolve this issue?
Thank you,
s
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
Ed Pastore
2014-02-18 03:39:12 UTC
Permalink
Hi, Jacopo.

I admit I still don’t fully understand Airesis, but my impression so far is that it may emphasize voting a bit too much. Please correct me in whatever way I am misapprehending.

Government and governing bodies outside of government make a vast array of decisions that affect out life. It can decide questions like:
Should we build a swimming pool in this city park?
Should we send troops to country X to intervene in a massacre?
Should we ban texting while driving?
Should we have schools teach a particular new curriculum?
Should we raise the tax on tobacco?
Those are just random examples. The array of decisions is seemingly infinite. And you can easily be a stakeholder in ever single one of those. But you cannot reasonably vote on all of those decisions with a fully informed opinion. It is impossible.

And I agree that delegation is not the answer. I think the real problem and the real answer here is that we are asking the wrong questions. All of the above are yes/no questions. They assume that there can only be two choices, and they invite ignorant participation (anyone can say yes or no to those for any number of reasons).

Instead, those above questions could be stated as:
How can we affordably make this park serve the community better?
How can we effectively intervene in the massacre in country X?
How can we address safety issues with texting while driving?
How can we best teach our children?
How can we help discourage people from smoking?
For each of those questions, it is not a matter of voting yes or no, but of building solutions that can get everyone to vote for them. The process may be much longer, but the result would be orders-of-magnitude better.

Isn’t that a much stronger, more workable, more persistent form of democracy? One that builds solutions for everyone?
Hi S
I do not exclude delegation is proven from the experience of the pirate party in Germany that use LQFB that the function created less participation.
Participation mean effort and effort mean time and energy. In today world we do have little time to spare (at least in Italy) because we are busy surviving. Now it does not imply that every one should participate in proposal making but it should be on the final decision making. If you are not willing to even know what is decided it mean that you deserve to live the consequences of your absence. My and the Airesis development team idea is that when, at the end, the personal interest will be at stakes, the stakeholder will be involved in the decision taking.
Usually there is fronts and each fronts bring up his point of view and this is the "education" time needed to make a good vote.
In large numbers and with a proposal making process that include participation (in Airesis, the proposal making system still have to be modified and developed as we learn from experience and different methodology) I do believe that the collective intelligence will be brought up.
When you will be able to vote (securely!) from your smartphone the participation is up to you and if you decide not to vote is because you don't have time or because you don't care. Revolution at that time will not be in the agenda!
If then you decide to install a bot that let other vote for you, is a choice (dangerous I believe) I will consider developing system that prevent that (easy to do)
There is many type of problem and many way to address them. Our strategy (Airesis Team) is to analyze each problem and then brake it down in to smaller sub-problems to have the relative stakeholders address it.
So here the concept is more participation to solve your own problem.
Usually during this process many sub-problem find a solution in synthesis by the participants in the debate.
The second strategy is to use different voting system for different solution. Let's say that it need to be decided the max speed on the highway or the amount of that particular drugs that you can carry legally etc.For that we will choose the mathematical formula that show to give the best result, In candidate selection we use Schulze algorithm and so forth. The participatory budgeting system will be for local expenditure ect.
As I open this email I say i do not exclude delegation, is fundamentally a right but we live in a delegated democracy, the fundamental question is: is functioning? My answer is NO!
So, the rules of the game are set, we work to see if there is a way of making them better.
I do believe that delegating some one should be done only when I cannot be present during the vote.
If you give large windows of time during the vote the above become a rarity.
If the problem is divided in sub-problem your vote should be made for each sub-prolem rather than vote a single bill with hundred decision in it. Civic education should become obligatory.
Need to go to work
Bye
j
Please test Airesis.us and give us your critics. I believe is better to work pragmatically on the development of a platform and see it in action, analyze statistical data and from poor experiences learn and modify the platform, rather than making hypothesis.
Hi,
1) Participation. Direct participation requires effort. Good amount of effort. Fraction of people willing to commit such effort is small. This is not because people lazy or dumb. I would say this is because people are smart (sea more below). In short, a system without delegation is doomed to have low participation, what also makes it more vulnerable to targeted subversive effort.
2) Efficiency. I read in your post that more deliberation, more consultation, more participation is always better. I disagree. It is only better for a problem under consideration, in isolation from all other problems. Extra effort devoted to a given problem means less effort to other problems. And the output of solving this problem is not a linear function of the input effort. Usually we deal with diminishing returns. People are rational agents constrained by bounded resorcses. They always prioritize and ration their efforts. And this is the reason why most people will not participate directly in political decision making, and reasonably so. (I have in mind problems and decision making of large, societal scale).
3) Fundamental principals of democracy. I think it is simply more democratic to let people themselves to decide on extent of their involvement in democratic decision making. Not allowing them to delegate their votes (or discounting their votes) is more restrictive. It can also be technically difficult or impossible if people are to participate via internet. People can always automate their voting using bots, for example, thus circumventing your restrictions.
I can elaborate on my points and give more reasons for vote delegation. But it would be interesting to hear your objections. I am also considering posting this or an altered version to the metagovernment list later, to see what other people may say.
Thank you for your attention,
s
I agree on the first part of your email about the vulnerability of the scoring system.
The effort necessary should be greater than the value of the range achieved!
And if spotted the whole group be so devaluated that they loose their grade for ever!
I disagree on vote delegation, sooner or later it will create disaffection like the current system.
If implemented anyway it should be with a value >1 for each delegated vote and eventually the value should be reduced as bigger is the amount of vote one single representative get.
Something like
http://blog.pietrosperoni.it/2013/04/18/delegating-in-edemocracy-my-way/
There is no best or easy or faster path to DD it goes with awareness and the established establishment will do anything to keep it low.
The internet will do the rest! That why they even try to stop it!
But as the internet generation grow the change is coming.
bye
j
Dear Jacopo,
Thank you for your answer. My question was about a scoring system mentioned on the metagovernment project FAQ page. I think it is their score is more like reputation, or like what you call karma. I have not yet checked your site in detail, but it seems to me that any scoring system is vulnerable to abuse. Same is true for systems based on people evaluating each other performance. A group of people can always cheat a system, if they are willing to invest effort.
As for user vote counting, I completely agree with you, each user should have just one vote. Interesting issue for me is vote delegation. I think that a viable and efficient implementation of DD (Direct Democracy) will necessarily have this feature. To ensure wide participation in DD, people should be given option to delegate their votes. Votes could be delegated to different people (or maybe parties, organizations) for different types of issues (like education, defense, foreign policy etc).
I am also interested in hearing from other people what they think is the best/easiest/fastest path toward DD. People are frustrated with their governments, but I do not see wide DD movement. Not even much discussion about it. Why is this so?
s
Dear user S
I don't know if I understand correctly your question but I think the answer relies in the fact that each user vote ONE time.
therefore a good E-Democracy platform should have a strong certification of users.
For more indepth research I suggest
https://vote.heliosvoting.org/
http://rangevoting.org/
If your question is about some sort of Karma to apply to the users, i believe the best way is statistical information of the activity, in Airesis.eu, for example, we start to collect data about users participation based on the vote they receive in the contributions that are posted in the different proposals.
The analysis of the activity based on big numbers will permit us to develop a good score algorithm
Bye
j
PS I do not work for metagovernment, I received this mail and I just answered
Hi,
On the FAQ page it is suggested that the Metagovernment functioning relies upon, among other things, the scoring system. In the proposed scoring system users can score other users with weights proportional to their own score. This is reminiscent to the Page rank, and like the Page rank it is susceptible to abuse. There is no easy fix to such abuse, as is evident from Google's ongoing battle against the abusers. In fact, many scoring/recommending web-services explicitly state that they keep details of their systems secret, to prevent abuse. How do you resolve this issue?
Thank you,
s
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
Flash Cards
2014-02-18 06:36:04 UTC
Permalink
Hi Ed,

Sorry to intervene, but isn't it a fact of life that most people are not interested even in reading other people's proposals on how to fix problems 1)-5), let alone making their own proposals?





On Monday, February 17, 2014 7:39 PM, Ed Pastore <***@metagovernment.org> wrote:

Hi, Jacopo.

I admit I still don’t fully understand Airesis, but my impression so far is that it may emphasize voting a bit too much. Please correct me in whatever way I am misapprehending.

Government and governing bodies outside of government make a vast array of decisions that affect out life. It can decide questions like:
* Should we build a swimming pool in this city park?
* Should we send troops to country X to intervene in a massacre?
* Should we ban texting while driving?
* Should we have schools teach a particular new curriculum?
* Should we raise the tax on tobacco?
Those are just random examples. The array of decisions is seemingly infinite. And you can easily be a stakeholder in ever single one of those. But you cannot reasonably vote on all of those decisions with a fully informed opinion. It is impossible.

And I agree that delegation is not the answer. I think the real problem and the real answer here is that we are asking the wrong questions. All of the above are yes/no questions. They assume that there can only be two choices, and they invite ignorant participation (anyone can say yes or no to those for any number of reasons).

Instead, those above questions could be stated as:
* How can we affordably make this park serve the community better?
* How can we effectively intervene in the massacre in country X?
* How can we address safety issues with texting while driving?
* How can we best teach our children?
* How can we help discourage people from smoking?
For each of those questions, it is not a matter of voting yes or no, but of building solutions that can get everyone to vote for them. The process may be much longer, but the result would be orders-of-magnitude better. 

Isn’t that a much stronger, more workable, more persistent form of democracy? One that builds solutions for everyone?


On Feb 17, 2014, at 1:00 AM, Jacopo Tolja <***@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi S
I do not exclude delegation is proven from the experience of the pirate party in Germany that use LQFB that the function created less participation.
Participation mean effort and effort mean time and energy. In today world we do have little time to spare (at least in Italy) because we are busy surviving. Now it does not imply that every one should participate in proposal making but it should be on the final decision making. If you are not willing to even know what is decided it mean that you deserve to live the consequences of your absence. My and  the Airesis development team idea is that when, at the end, the personal interest will be at stakes, the stakeholder will be involved in the decision taking.
Usually there is fronts and each fronts bring up his point of view and this is the "education" time needed to make a good vote.
In large numbers and with a proposal making process that include participation (in Airesis, the proposal making system still have to be modified and developed as we learn from experience and different methodology)  I do believe that the collective intelligence will be brought up.
When you will be able to vote (securely!) from your smartphone the participation is up to you and if you decide not to vote is because you don't have time or because you don't care. Revolution at that time will not be in the agenda!
If then you decide to install a bot that let other vote for you, is a choice (dangerous I believe) I will consider developing system that prevent that (easy to do) 
There is many type of problem and many way to address them. Our strategy (Airesis Team) is to analyze each problem and then brake it down in to smaller sub-problems to have the relative stakeholders address it.
So here the concept is more participation to solve your own problem.
Usually during this process many sub-problem find a solution in synthesis by the participants in the debate.
The second strategy is to use different voting system for different solution. Let's say that it need to be decided the max speed on the highway or the amount of that particular drugs that you can carry legally etc.For that we will choose the mathematical formula that show to give the best result, In candidate selection we use Schulze algorithm  and so forth. The participatory budgeting system will be for local expenditure ect.
As I open this email I say i do not exclude delegation, is fundamentally a right but we live in a delegated democracy, the fundamental question is: is functioning? My answer is NO! 
So, the rules of the game are set, we work to see if there is a way of making them better.
I do believe that delegating some one should be done only when I cannot be present during the vote.
If you give large windows of time during the vote the above become a rarity.
If the problem is divided in sub-problem your vote should be made for each sub-prolem rather than vote a single bill with hundred decision in it. Civic education should become obligatory. 
Need to go to work
Bye
j
Please test Airesis.us and give us your critics. I believe is better to work pragmatically on the development of a platform and see it in action, analyze  statistical data and from poor experiences learn and modify the platform, rather than making hypothesis.  
Hi,
1) Participation. Direct participation requires effort. Good amount of effort. Fraction of people willing to commit such effort is small. This is not because people lazy or dumb. I would say this is because people are smart (sea more below). In short, a system without delegation is doomed to have low participation, what also makes it more vulnerable to targeted subversive effort.
2) Efficiency. I read in your post that more deliberation, more consultation,
more participation is always better. I disagree. It is only better for a problem under consideration, in isolation from all other problems. Extra effort devoted to a given problem means less effort to other problems. And the output of solving this problem is not a linear function of the input effort. Usually we deal with diminishing returns. People are rational agents constrained by bounded resorcses. They always prioritize and ration their efforts. And this is the reason why most people will not participate directly in political decision making, and reasonably so. (I have in mind problems and decision making of large, societal scale).
3) Fundamental principals of democracy. I think it is simply more democratic to let people themselves to decide on extent of their involvement in democratic decision making. Not allowing them to delegate their votes (or discounting their votes) is more restrictive. It can also be technically difficult or impossible
if people are to participate via internet. People can always automate their voting using bots, for example, thus circumventing your restrictions.
I can elaborate on my points and give more reasons for vote delegation. But it would be interesting to hear your objections. I am also considering posting this or an altered version to the metagovernment list later, to see what other people may say.
Thank you for your attention,
s
I agree on the first part of your email about the vulnerability of the scoring system.
The effort necessary should be greater than the value of the range achieved!
And if spotted the whole group be so devaluated that they loose their grade for ever!
I disagree on vote delegation, sooner or later it will create disaffection like the current system.
If implemented anyway it should be with a value >1 for each delegated vote and eventually the value should be reduced as bigger is the amount of vote one single representative get.
Something like
http://blog.pietrosperoni.it/2013/04/18/delegating-in-edemocracy-my-way/
There is no best  or easy or faster path to DD it goes with awareness and the established establishment will do anything to keep it low.
The internet will do the rest! That why they even try to stop it!
But as the internet generation grow the change is coming.
bye
j
Dear Jacopo,
Post by Flash Cards
Thank you for your answer. My question was about a scoring system mentioned on the metagovernment project FAQ page. I think it is their score is more like reputation, or like what you call karma. I have not yet checked your site in detail, but it seems to me that any scoring system is vulnerable to abuse. Same is true for systems based on people evaluating each other performance. A group of people can always cheat a system, if they are willing to invest effort.
As for user vote counting, I completely agree with you, each user should have just one vote. Interesting issue for me is vote delegation. I think that a viable and efficient implementation of DD (Direct Democracy) will necessarily have this feature. To ensure wide participation in DD, people should be given option to delegate their votes. Votes could be delegated to different people (or maybe parties, organizations) for different types of issues (like education, defense, foreign policy etc).
I am also interested in hearing from other people what they think is the best/easiest/fastest path toward DD. People are frustrated with their governments, but I do not see wide DD movement. Not even much discussion about it. Why is this so?
s
Dear user S
I don't know if I understand correctly your question but I think the answer relies in the fact that each user vote ONE time.
therefore a good E-Democracy platform should have a strong certification of users.
For more indepth research I suggest
https://vote.heliosvoting.org/
http://rangevoting.org/
If your question is about some sort of Karma to apply to the users, i believe the best way is statistical information of the activity, in Airesis.eu, for example, we start to collect data about users participation based on the vote they receive in the contributions that are posted in the different proposals.
The analysis of the activity based on big numbers will permit us to develop a good score algorithm  
Bye
j
PS I do not work for metagovernment, I received this mail and I just answered
Hi,
 On the FAQ page it is suggested that the Metagovernment functioning
relies upon, among other things, the scoring system. In the proposed
scoring system users can score other users with weights proportional to
their own score. This is reminiscent to the Page rank, and like the Page
rank it is susceptible to abuse. There is no easy fix to such abuse, as
is evident from Google's ongoing battle against the abusers. In fact,
many scoring/recommending web-services explicitly state that they keep
details of their systems secret, to prevent abuse. How do you resolve
this issue?
Post by Flash Cards
Thank you,
s
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
Jacopo Tolja
2014-02-18 12:23:57 UTC
Permalink
Dear Ed

The heart of Airesis is the proposal building... then there is the vote.
The vote become secondary If the proposal building is carried in the
optimal way (and we have open issue here in Airesis on the methodology)
At the moment the proposal building is the responsibility of one or
more relaters.
The proposal start with a problem:
Tobacco is proven bad for health
School does not sufficiently adapt to new technology

The second step is to define an objective:
How can we help discourage people from smoking?
How can we best teach our children?

Third step is to identify a solution from the proposed ones:
1We raise the tax on tobacco
2We prevent smoking in public
3 We rise tobacco tax and prohibit smoking in public.

In each of this step you may have something to say, in fact we are writing
a bill
Airesis give you the chance to make a contribution *in each of this step*,
is specially important in the last step where different solutions may be
proposed or multiple solutions may be packaged.

What you say, is called contribution, can be related to a paragraph or can
be a new solution and will be evaluated by the participants in the debate.
they can give 3 different evaluation: Like ,Don't Like , Don't know

In Airesis the debate may be hold in temporary anonymity, so that we are
not influenced by our preconception or the presence of a leader.
If chosen that feature you will be given a fictitious name and a temporary
avatar. At the end of the debate real names and avatar will be displayed.
Many time we find to agree with our most declared enemy!!

As soon as you evaluate one contribution you will be shown the result of
the other evaluations for that contribution.
You may comment on a contribution and the owner of the contribution may
edit his contribution turning the evaluation back to zero for new
evaluation. (here is where I think Airesis can be enhanced to find a better
methodology to build synthesis removing part of the "weight" of the
relater)

The relaters will pick the best evaluated contribution and edit the
paragraph accordingly.
Each participants in the debate may indicate if the debate need to be
carried on or if should be continued (this value is taken into
consideration by the quorum that is chosen for that proposal) but some of
this proposal may have a fixed closing date.

In Airesis depending on the type of proposal, different model, are
proposed by a wizard.
Usually the final result is a set of very smart consensus build solutions
packaged in a way that schulze algorithm help find the best to come up.

Unfortunately the quality of the relaters is the weak point and we are
working on it.
Is proven by statistical data that a poor relater may turn of participation.
We are looking at way to prevent that.

Done in this way the stakeholder have plenty to say and if they are not
saying nothing the will see anyway the best solution emerge.
We prefer to have stakeholder take action and participate in the debate
rather than have them delegate their vote.
Compared to Liquidfeedback we are way advanced, in liquidfeedback is more
of a competition between proposal.
The system is designed to bring up excellence and promote knowledge.
There still the danger to change the good construction of a proposal if a
large and organized group of participants act to damage a proposal. Nothing
compared to what we see in delegated political system under the action of
lobbyist.

Regards
Jacopo

PS please test the system and help us to figure out missing features and
enhancing existing.
Post by Ed Pastore
Hi, Jacopo.
I admit I still don't fully understand Airesis, but my impression so far
is that it may emphasize voting a bit too much. Please correct me in
whatever way I am misapprehending.
Government and governing bodies outside of government make a vast array of
- Should we build a swimming pool in this city park?
- Should we send troops to country X to intervene in a massacre?
- Should we ban texting while driving?
- Should we have schools teach a particular new curriculum?
- Should we raise the tax on tobacco?
Those are just random examples. The array of decisions is seemingly
infinite. And you can easily be a stakeholder in ever single one of those.
But you cannot reasonably vote on all of those decisions with a fully
informed opinion. It is impossible.
And I agree that delegation is not the answer. I think the real problem
and the real answer here is that we are asking the wrong questions. All of
the above are yes/no questions. They assume that there can only be two
choices, and they invite ignorant participation (anyone can say yes or no
to those for any number of reasons).
- How can we affordably make this park serve the community better?
- How can we effectively intervene in the massacre in country X?
- How can we address safety issues with texting while driving?
- How can we best teach our children?
- How can we help discourage people from smoking?
For each of those questions, it is not a matter of voting yes or no, but
of building solutions that can get *everyone* to vote for them. The
process may be much longer, but the result would be orders-of-magnitude
better.
Isn't that a much stronger, more workable, more persistent form of
democracy? One that builds solutions for *everyone*?
Hi S
I do not exclude delegation is proven from the experience of the pirate
party in Germany that use LQFB that the function created less participation.
Participation mean effort and effort mean time and energy. In today world
we do have little time to spare (at least in Italy) because we are busy
surviving. Now it does not imply that every one should participate in
proposal making but it should be on the final decision making. If you are
not willing to even know what is decided it mean that you deserve to live
the consequences of your absence. My and the Airesis development team idea
is that when, at the end, the personal interest will be at stakes, the
stakeholder will be involved in the decision taking.
Usually there is fronts and each fronts bring up his point of view and
this is the "education" time needed to make a good vote.
In large numbers and with a proposal making process that include
participation (in Airesis, the proposal making system still have to be
modified and developed as we learn from experience and different
methodology) I do believe that the collective intelligence will be brought
up.
When you will be able to vote (securely!) from your smartphone the
participation is up to you and if you decide not to vote is because you
don't have time or because you don't care. Revolution at that time will not
be in the agenda!
If then you decide to install a bot that let other vote for you, is a
choice (dangerous I believe) I will consider developing system that prevent
that (easy to do)
There is many type of problem and many way to address them. Our strategy
(Airesis Team) is to analyze each problem and then brake it down in to
smaller sub-problems to have the relative stakeholders address it.
So here the concept is more participation to solve your own problem.
Usually during this process many sub-problem find a solution in synthesis
by the participants in the debate.
The second strategy is to use different voting system for different
solution. Let's say that it need to be decided the max speed on the highway
or the amount of that particular drugs that you can carry legally etc.For
that we will choose the mathematical formula that show to give the best
result, In candidate selection we use Schulze algorithm and so forth. The
participatory budgeting system will be for local expenditure ect.
As I open this email I say i do not exclude delegation, is fundamentally a
right but we live in a delegated democracy, the fundamental question is: is
functioning? My answer is NO!
So, the rules of the game are set, we work to see if there is a way of making them better.
I do believe that delegating some one should be done only when I cannot be
present during the vote.
If you give large windows of time during the vote the above become a rarity.
If the problem is divided in sub-problem your vote should be made for each
sub-prolem rather than vote a single bill with hundred decision in it.
Civic education should become obligatory.
Need to go to work
Bye
j
Please test Airesis.us and give us your critics. I believe is better to
work pragmatically on the development of a platform and see it in action,
analyze statistical data and from poor experiences learn and modify the
platform, rather than making hypothesis.
Hi,
I looked at both your blog posts, where you outline math of delegated
vote discounting, and where you discuss vote delegating in general. I
think, if and how to discount votes can be debated. But I feel very
strongly for vote delegation, therefore I would like to present some
1) Participation. Direct participation requires effort. Good amount of
effort. Fraction of people willing to commit such effort is small. This is
not because people lazy or dumb. I would say this is because people are
smart (sea more below). In short, a system without delegation is doomed to
have low participation, what also makes it more vulnerable to targeted
subversive effort.
2) Efficiency. I read in your post that more deliberation, more
consultation, more participation is always better. I disagree. It is only
better for a problem under consideration, in isolation from all other
problems. Extra effort devoted to a given problem means less effort to
other problems. And the output of solving this problem is not a linear
function of the input effort. Usually we deal with diminishing returns.
People are rational agents constrained by bounded resorcses. They always
prioritize and ration their efforts. And this is the reason why most people
will not participate directly in political decision making, and reasonably
so. (I have in mind problems and decision making of large, societal scale).
3) Fundamental principals of democracy. I think it is simply more
democratic to let people themselves to decide on extent of their
involvement in democratic decision making. Not allowing them to delegate
their votes (or discounting their votes) is more restrictive. It can also
be technically difficult or impossible if people are to participate via
internet. People can always automate their voting using bots, for example,
thus circumventing your restrictions.
I can elaborate on my points and give more reasons for vote delegation.
But it would be interesting to hear your objections. I am also considering
posting this or an altered version to the metagovernment list later, to see
what other people may say.
Thank you for your attention,
s
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 11:10 PM, Jacopo Tolja <
I agree on the first part of your email about the vulnerability of the scoring system.
The effort necessary should be greater than the value of the range achieved!
And if spotted the whole group be so devaluated that they loose their grade for ever!
I disagree on vote delegation, sooner or later it will create
disaffection like the current system.
If implemented anyway it should be with a value >1 for each delegated
vote and eventually the value should be reduced as bigger is the amount of
vote one single representative get.
Something like
http://blog.pietrosperoni.it/2013/04/18/delegating-in-edemocracy-my-way/
There is no best or easy or faster path to DD it goes with awareness and
the established establishment will do anything to keep it low.
The internet will do the rest! That why they even try to stop it!
But as the internet generation grow the change is coming.
bye
j
Dear Jacopo,
Thank you for your answer. My question was about a scoring system
mentioned on the metagovernment project FAQ page. I think it is their score
is more like reputation, or like what you call karma. I have not yet
checked your site in detail, but it seems to me that any scoring system is
vulnerable to abuse. Same is true for systems based on people evaluating
each other performance. A group of people can always cheat a system, if
they are willing to invest effort.
As for user vote counting, I completely agree with you, each user should
have just one vote. Interesting issue for me is vote delegation. I think
that a viable and efficient implementation of DD (Direct Democracy) will
necessarily have this feature. To ensure wide participation in DD, people
should be given option to delegate their votes. Votes could be delegated to
different people (or maybe parties, organizations) for different types of
issues (like education, defense, foreign policy etc).
I am also interested in hearing from other people what they think is the
best/easiest/fastest path toward DD. People are frustrated with their
governments, but I do not see wide DD movement. Not even much discussion
about it. Why is this so?
s
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 4:05 AM, Jacopo Tolja <
Dear user S
I don't know if I understand correctly your question but I think the
answer relies in the fact that each user vote ONE time.
therefore a good E-Democracy platform should have a strong certification of users.
For more indepth research I suggest
https://vote.heliosvoting.org/
http://rangevoting.org/
If your question is about some sort of Karma to apply to the users, i
believe the best way is statistical information of the activity, in
Airesis.eu, for example, we start to collect data about users
participation based on the vote they receive in the contributions that are
posted in the different proposals.
The analysis of the activity based on big numbers will permit us to
develop a good score algorithm
Bye
j
PS I do not work for metagovernment, I received this mail and I just answered
Hi,
I am interested in direct democracy and I have some programming
experience. Reading about the Metagovernment project raised several
questions for which I could not find answers. I asked one question on the
FAQ discussion page (http://www.metagovernment.org/wiki/Talk:FAQ) a few
days ago, but I am not sure if anyone saw it there. Therefore I decided to
On the FAQ page it is suggested that the Metagovernment functioning
relies upon, among other things, the scoring system. In the proposed
scoring system users can score other users with weights proportional to
their own score. This is reminiscent to the Page rank, and like the Page
rank it is susceptible to abuse. There is no easy fix to such abuse, as is
evident from Google's ongoing battle against the abusers. In fact, many
scoring/recommending web-services explicitly state that they keep details
of their systems secret, to prevent abuse. How do you resolve this issue?
Thank you,
s
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
Ed Pastore
2014-03-09 14:02:38 UTC
Permalink
Sorry for the delay, Jacopo. I think I better understand your approach now. Some of the other systems here take a similar approach, but with less distinction between the debate and the vote.

If the relaters are a potential weak-spot, then one option would be to remove them. What Votorola does, for example, is simply have all participants act in the function of your relaters, and they also have no distinction between the small votes (like/dont-like/dont-know) and the “main” vote.

Their approach is to allow anyone to submit a proposal, and to have participants vote for whatever proposal they support. If no one proposal is clearly winning, then it is up to the proposers to work to try to convince the supporters of the other proposals to support their proposal. Usually the way to do this is to incorporate parts of other proposals or to build syntheses in order to make new proposals that work for competing interests.

The weakness of this approach is that it can involve a lot of reading, which hurts participation. The weakness of the Airesis approach, as you note, is that it is dependent on one person (never a good thing for real democracy). Also, in Airesis I see much less opportunity for synthesis. What if there is big disagreement on a proposal, and the only way to get everyone board is to propose something radically different from what is being worked on. How does that happen?

I’d be very interested in hearing others’ perceptions on the above critique and on how to approach these issues.
Post by Jacopo Tolja
Dear Ed
The heart of Airesis is the proposal building... then there is the vote.
The vote become secondary If the proposal building is carried in the optimal way (and we have open issue here in Airesis on the methodology)
At the moment the proposal building is the responsibility of one or more relaters.
Tobacco is proven bad for health
School does not sufficiently adapt to new technology
How can we help discourage people from smoking?
How can we best teach our children?
1We raise the tax on tobacco
2We prevent smoking in public
3 We rise tobacco tax and prohibit smoking in public.
In each of this step you may have something to say, in fact we are writing a bill
Airesis give you the chance to make a contribution in each of this step, is specially important in the last step where different solutions may be proposed or multiple solutions may be packaged.
What you say, is called contribution, can be related to a paragraph or can be a new solution and will be evaluated by the participants in the debate. they can give 3 different evaluation: Like ,Don't Like , Don't know
In Airesis the debate may be hold in temporary anonymity, so that we are not influenced by our preconception or the presence of a leader. If chosen that feature you will be given a fictitious name and a temporary avatar. At the end of the debate real names and avatar will be displayed. Many time we find to agree with our most declared enemy!!
As soon as you evaluate one contribution you will be shown the result of the other evaluations for that contribution.
You may comment on a contribution and the owner of the contribution may edit his contribution turning the evaluation back to zero for new evaluation. (here is where I think Airesis can be enhanced to find a better methodology to build synthesis removing part of the "weight" of the relater)
The relaters will pick the best evaluated contribution and edit the paragraph accordingly.
Each participants in the debate may indicate if the debate need to be carried on or if should be continued (this value is taken into consideration by the quorum that is chosen for that proposal) but some of this proposal may have a fixed closing date.
In Airesis depending on the type of proposal, different model, are proposed by a wizard.
Usually the final result is a set of very smart consensus build solutions packaged in a way that schulze algorithm help find the best to come up.
Unfortunately the quality of the relaters is the weak point and we are working on it.
Is proven by statistical data that a poor relater may turn of participation.
We are looking at way to prevent that.
Done in this way the stakeholder have plenty to say and if they are not saying nothing the will see anyway the best solution emerge.
We prefer to have stakeholder take action and participate in the debate rather than have them delegate their vote.
Compared to Liquidfeedback we are way advanced, in liquidfeedback is more of a competition between proposal.
The system is designed to bring up excellence and promote knowledge.
There still the danger to change the good construction of a proposal if a large and organized group of participants act to damage a proposal. Nothing compared to what we see in delegated political system under the action of lobbyist.
Regards
Jacopo
PS please test the system and help us to figure out missing features and enhancing existing.
Hi, Jacopo.
I admit I still don’t fully understand Airesis, but my impression so far is that it may emphasize voting a bit too much. Please correct me in whatever way I am misapprehending.
Should we build a swimming pool in this city park?
Should we send troops to country X to intervene in a massacre?
Should we ban texting while driving?
Should we have schools teach a particular new curriculum?
Should we raise the tax on tobacco?
Those are just random examples. The array of decisions is seemingly infinite. And you can easily be a stakeholder in ever single one of those. But you cannot reasonably vote on all of those decisions with a fully informed opinion. It is impossible.
And I agree that delegation is not the answer. I think the real problem and the real answer here is that we are asking the wrong questions. All of the above are yes/no questions. They assume that there can only be two choices, and they invite ignorant participation (anyone can say yes or no to those for any number of reasons).
How can we affordably make this park serve the community better?
How can we effectively intervene in the massacre in country X?
How can we address safety issues with texting while driving?
How can we best teach our children?
How can we help discourage people from smoking?
For each of those questions, it is not a matter of voting yes or no, but of building solutions that can get everyone to vote for them. The process may be much longer, but the result would be orders-of-magnitude better.
Isn’t that a much stronger, more workable, more persistent form of democracy? One that builds solutions for everyone?
Hi S
I do not exclude delegation is proven from the experience of the pirate party in Germany that use LQFB that the function created less participation.
Participation mean effort and effort mean time and energy. In today world we do have little time to spare (at least in Italy) because we are busy surviving. Now it does not imply that every one should participate in proposal making but it should be on the final decision making. If you are not willing to even know what is decided it mean that you deserve to live the consequences of your absence. My and the Airesis development team idea is that when, at the end, the personal interest will be at stakes, the stakeholder will be involved in the decision taking.
Usually there is fronts and each fronts bring up his point of view and this is the "education" time needed to make a good vote.
In large numbers and with a proposal making process that include participation (in Airesis, the proposal making system still have to be modified and developed as we learn from experience and different methodology) I do believe that the collective intelligence will be brought up.
When you will be able to vote (securely!) from your smartphone the participation is up to you and if you decide not to vote is because you don't have time or because you don't care. Revolution at that time will not be in the agenda!
If then you decide to install a bot that let other vote for you, is a choice (dangerous I believe) I will consider developing system that prevent that (easy to do)
There is many type of problem and many way to address them. Our strategy (Airesis Team) is to analyze each problem and then brake it down in to smaller sub-problems to have the relative stakeholders address it.
So here the concept is more participation to solve your own problem.
Usually during this process many sub-problem find a solution in synthesis by the participants in the debate.
The second strategy is to use different voting system for different solution. Let's say that it need to be decided the max speed on the highway or the amount of that particular drugs that you can carry legally etc.For that we will choose the mathematical formula that show to give the best result, In candidate selection we use Schulze algorithm and so forth. The participatory budgeting system will be for local expenditure ect.
As I open this email I say i do not exclude delegation, is fundamentally a right but we live in a delegated democracy, the fundamental question is: is functioning? My answer is NO!
So, the rules of the game are set, we work to see if there is a way of making them better.
I do believe that delegating some one should be done only when I cannot be present during the vote.
If you give large windows of time during the vote the above become a rarity.
If the problem is divided in sub-problem your vote should be made for each sub-prolem rather than vote a single bill with hundred decision in it. Civic education should become obligatory.
Need to go to work
Bye
j
Please test Airesis.us and give us your critics. I believe is better to work pragmatically on the development of a platform and see it in action, analyze statistical data and from poor experiences learn and modify the platform, rather than making hypothesis.
Hi,
1) Participation. Direct participation requires effort. Good amount of effort. Fraction of people willing to commit such effort is small. This is not because people lazy or dumb. I would say this is because people are smart (sea more below). In short, a system without delegation is doomed to have low participation, what also makes it more vulnerable to targeted subversive effort.
2) Efficiency. I read in your post that more deliberation, more consultation, more participation is always better. I disagree. It is only better for a problem under consideration, in isolation from all other problems. Extra effort devoted to a given problem means less effort to other problems. And the output of solving this problem is not a linear function of the input effort. Usually we deal with diminishing returns. People are rational agents constrained by bounded resorcses. They always prioritize and ration their efforts. And this is the reason why most people will not participate directly in political decision making, and reasonably so. (I have in mind problems and decision making of large, societal scale).
3) Fundamental principals of democracy. I think it is simply more democratic to let people themselves to decide on extent of their involvement in democratic decision making. Not allowing them to delegate their votes (or discounting their votes) is more restrictive. It can also be technically difficult or impossible if people are to participate via internet. People can always automate their voting using bots, for example, thus circumventing your restrictions.
I can elaborate on my points and give more reasons for vote delegation. But it would be interesting to hear your objections. I am also considering posting this or an altered version to the metagovernment list later, to see what other people may say.
Thank you for your attention,
s
I agree on the first part of your email about the vulnerability of the scoring system.
The effort necessary should be greater than the value of the range achieved!
And if spotted the whole group be so devaluated that they loose their grade for ever!
I disagree on vote delegation, sooner or later it will create disaffection like the current system.
If implemented anyway it should be with a value >1 for each delegated vote and eventually the value should be reduced as bigger is the amount of vote one single representative get.
Something like
http://blog.pietrosperoni.it/2013/04/18/delegating-in-edemocracy-my-way/
There is no best or easy or faster path to DD it goes with awareness and the established establishment will do anything to keep it low.
The internet will do the rest! That why they even try to stop it!
But as the internet generation grow the change is coming.
bye
j
Dear Jacopo,
Thank you for your answer. My question was about a scoring system mentioned on the metagovernment project FAQ page. I think it is their score is more like reputation, or like what you call karma. I have not yet checked your site in detail, but it seems to me that any scoring system is vulnerable to abuse. Same is true for systems based on people evaluating each other performance. A group of people can always cheat a system, if they are willing to invest effort.
As for user vote counting, I completely agree with you, each user should have just one vote. Interesting issue for me is vote delegation. I think that a viable and efficient implementation of DD (Direct Democracy) will necessarily have this feature. To ensure wide participation in DD, people should be given option to delegate their votes. Votes could be delegated to different people (or maybe parties, organizations) for different types of issues (like education, defense, foreign policy etc).
I am also interested in hearing from other people what they think is the best/easiest/fastest path toward DD. People are frustrated with their governments, but I do not see wide DD movement. Not even much discussion about it. Why is this so?
s
Dear user S
I don't know if I understand correctly your question but I think the answer relies in the fact that each user vote ONE time.
therefore a good E-Democracy platform should have a strong certification of users.
For more indepth research I suggest
https://vote.heliosvoting.org/
http://rangevoting.org/
If your question is about some sort of Karma to apply to the users, i believe the best way is statistical information of the activity, in Airesis.eu, for example, we start to collect data about users participation based on the vote they receive in the contributions that are posted in the different proposals.
The analysis of the activity based on big numbers will permit us to develop a good score algorithm
Bye
j
PS I do not work for metagovernment, I received this mail and I just answered
Hi,
On the FAQ page it is suggested that the Metagovernment functioning relies upon, among other things, the scoring system. In the proposed scoring system users can score other users with weights proportional to their own score. This is reminiscent to the Page rank, and like the Page rank it is susceptible to abuse. There is no easy fix to such abuse, as is evident from Google's ongoing battle against the abusers. In fact, many scoring/recommending web-services explicitly state that they keep details of their systems secret, to prevent abuse. How do you resolve this issue?
Thank you,
s
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
max stalnaker
2014-03-09 20:11:49 UTC
Permalink
RRO allows an agreement to substitute one motion for another. It is a bit
like an amendment to a motion.

Anyway the math says you cannot have a consistent and dynamic system with
all votes being equal. I suppose this is so obvious that you do not need
any math. But then how many times do you read RRO or looked at the math
issues around allocating seats in the US House. The history there says a
lot more then the math itself. And it says to me that Jacopo is more
likely to have the right directionality but at the moment is caught up in
statistics but might not be able to critique Gauss's critique of Guassian
distributions.

But Ed is right to focus on how to make big shifts.

Max
Sorry for the delay, Jacopo. I think I better understand your approach now.
Some of the other systems here take a similar approach, but with less
distinction between the debate and the vote.

If the relaters are a potential weak-spot, then one option would be to
remove them. What Votorola does, for example, is simply have all
participants act in the function of your relaters, and they also have no
distinction between the small votes (like/dont-like/dont-know) and the
“main” vote.

Their approach is to allow anyone to submit a proposal, and to have
participants vote for whatever proposal they support. If no one proposal is
clearly winning, then it is up to the proposers to work to try to convince
the supporters of the other proposals to support their proposal. Usually
the way to do this is to incorporate parts of other proposals or to build
syntheses in order to make new proposals that work for competing interests.

The weakness of this approach is that it can involve a lot of reading,
which hurts participation. The weakness of the Airesis approach, as you
note, is that it is dependent on one person (never a good thing for real
democracy). Also, in Airesis I see much less opportunity for synthesis.
What if there is big disagreement on a proposal, and the only way to get
everyone board is to propose something radically different from what is
being worked on. How does that happen?

I’d be very interested in hearing others’ perceptions on the above critique
and on how to approach these issues.


On Feb 18, 2014, at 7:23 AM, Jacopo Tolja <***@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Ed

The heart of Airesis is the proposal building... then there is the vote.
The vote become secondary If the proposal building is carried in the
optimal way (and we have open issue here in Airesis on the methodology)
At the moment the proposal building is the responsibility of one or
more relaters.
The proposal start with a problem:
Tobacco is proven bad for health
School does not sufficiently adapt to new technology

The second step is to define an objective:
How can we help discourage people from smoking?
How can we best teach our children?

Third step is to identify a solution from the proposed ones:
1We raise the tax on tobacco
2We prevent smoking in public
3 We rise tobacco tax and prohibit smoking in public.

In each of this step you may have something to say, in fact we are writing
a bill
Airesis give you the chance to make a contribution *in each of this step*,
is specially important in the last step where different solutions may be
proposed or multiple solutions may be packaged.

What you say, is called contribution, can be related to a paragraph or can
be a new solution and will be evaluated by the participants in the debate.
they can give 3 different evaluation: Like ,Don't Like , Don't know

In Airesis the debate may be hold in temporary anonymity, so that we are
not influenced by our preconception or the presence of a leader.
If chosen that feature you will be given a fictitious name and a temporary
avatar. At the end of the debate real names and avatar will be displayed.
Many time we find to agree with our most declared enemy!!

As soon as you evaluate one contribution you will be shown the result of
the other evaluations for that contribution.
You may comment on a contribution and the owner of the contribution may
edit his contribution turning the evaluation back to zero for new
evaluation. (here is where I think Airesis can be enhanced to find a better
methodology to build synthesis removing part of the "weight" of the
relater)

The relaters will pick the best evaluated contribution and edit the
paragraph accordingly.
Each participants in the debate may indicate if the debate need to be
carried on or if should be continued (this value is taken into
consideration by the quorum that is chosen for that proposal) but some of
this proposal may have a fixed closing date.

In Airesis depending on the type of proposal, different model, are
proposed by a wizard.
Usually the final result is a set of very smart consensus build solutions
packaged in a way that schulze algorithm help find the best to come up.

Unfortunately the quality of the relaters is the weak point and we are
working on it.
Is proven by statistical data that a poor relater may turn of participation.
We are looking at way to prevent that.

Done in this way the stakeholder have plenty to say and if they are not
saying nothing the will see anyway the best solution emerge.
We prefer to have stakeholder take action and participate in the debate
rather than have them delegate their vote.
Compared to Liquidfeedback we are way advanced, in liquidfeedback is more
of a competition between proposal.
The system is designed to bring up excellence and promote knowledge.
There still the danger to change the good construction of a proposal if a
large and organized group of participants act to damage a proposal. Nothing
compared to what we see in delegated political system under the action of
lobbyist.

Regards
Jacopo

PS please test the system and help us to figure out missing features and
enhancing existing.
Post by Ed Pastore
Hi, Jacopo.
I admit I still don’t fully understand Airesis, but my impression so far
is that it may emphasize voting a bit too much. Please correct me in
whatever way I am misapprehending.
Government and governing bodies outside of government make a vast array of
- Should we build a swimming pool in this city park?
- Should we send troops to country X to intervene in a massacre?
- Should we ban texting while driving?
- Should we have schools teach a particular new curriculum?
- Should we raise the tax on tobacco?
Those are just random examples. The array of decisions is seemingly
infinite. And you can easily be a stakeholder in ever single one of those.
But you cannot reasonably vote on all of those decisions with a fully
informed opinion. It is impossible.
And I agree that delegation is not the answer. I think the real problem
and the real answer here is that we are asking the wrong questions. All of
the above are yes/no questions. They assume that there can only be two
choices, and they invite ignorant participation (anyone can say yes or no
to those for any number of reasons).
- How can we affordably make this park serve the community better?
- How can we effectively intervene in the massacre in country X?
- How can we address safety issues with texting while driving?
- How can we best teach our children?
- How can we help discourage people from smoking?
For each of those questions, it is not a matter of voting yes or no, but
of building solutions that can get *everyone* to vote for them. The
process may be much longer, but the result would be orders-of-magnitude
better.
Isn’t that a much stronger, more workable, more persistent form of
democracy? One that builds solutions for *everyone*?
Hi S
I do not exclude delegation is proven from the experience of the pirate
party in Germany that use LQFB that the function created less participation.
Participation mean effort and effort mean time and energy. In today world
we do have little time to spare (at least in Italy) because we are busy
surviving. Now it does not imply that every one should participate in
proposal making but it should be on the final decision making. If you are
not willing to even know what is decided it mean that you deserve to live
the consequences of your absence. My and the Airesis development team idea
is that when, at the end, the personal interest will be at stakes, the
stakeholder will be involved in the decision taking.
Usually there is fronts and each fronts bring up his point of view and
this is the "education" time needed to make a good vote.
In large numbers and with a proposal making process that include
participation (in Airesis, the proposal making system still have to be
modified and developed as we learn from experience and different
methodology) I do believe that the collective intelligence will be brought
up.
When you will be able to vote (securely!) from your smartphone the
participation is up to you and if you decide not to vote is because you
don't have time or because you don't care. Revolution at that time will not
be in the agenda!
If then you decide to install a bot that let other vote for you, is a
choice (dangerous I believe) I will consider developing system that prevent
that (easy to do)
There is many type of problem and many way to address them. Our strategy
(Airesis Team) is to analyze each problem and then brake it down in to
smaller sub-problems to have the relative stakeholders address it.
So here the concept is more participation to solve your own problem.
Usually during this process many sub-problem find a solution in synthesis
by the participants in the debate.
The second strategy is to use different voting system for different
solution. Let's say that it need to be decided the max speed on the highway
or the amount of that particular drugs that you can carry legally etc.For
that we will choose the mathematical formula that show to give the best
result, In candidate selection we use Schulze algorithm and so forth. The
participatory budgeting system will be for local expenditure ect.
As I open this email I say i do not exclude delegation, is fundamentally a
right but we live in a delegated democracy, the fundamental question is: is
functioning? My answer is NO!
So, the rules of the game are set, we work to see if there is a way of making them better.
I do believe that delegating some one should be done only when I cannot be
present during the vote.
If you give large windows of time during the vote the above become a rarity.
If the problem is divided in sub-problem your vote should be made for each
sub-prolem rather than vote a single bill with hundred decision in it.
Civic education should become obligatory.
Need to go to work
Bye
j
Please test Airesis.us <http://airesis.us/> and give us your critics. I
believe is better to work pragmatically on the development of a platform
and see it in action, analyze statistical data and from poor experiences
learn and modify the platform, rather than making hypothesis.
Hi,
I looked at both your blog posts, where you outline math of delegated
vote discounting, and where you discuss vote delegating in general. I
think, if and how to discount votes can be debated. But I feel very
strongly for vote delegation, therefore I would like to present some
1) Participation. Direct participation requires effort. Good amount of
effort. Fraction of people willing to commit such effort is small. This is
not because people lazy or dumb. I would say this is because people are
smart (sea more below). In short, a system without delegation is doomed to
have low participation, what also makes it more vulnerable to targeted
subversive effort.
2) Efficiency. I read in your post that more deliberation, more
consultation, more participation is always better. I disagree. It is only
better for a problem under consideration, in isolation from all other
problems. Extra effort devoted to a given problem means less effort to
other problems. And the output of solving this problem is not a linear
function of the input effort. Usually we deal with diminishing returns.
People are rational agents constrained by bounded resorcses. They always
prioritize and ration their efforts. And this is the reason why most people
will not participate directly in political decision making, and reasonably
so. (I have in mind problems and decision making of large, societal scale).
3) Fundamental principals of democracy. I think it is simply more
democratic to let people themselves to decide on extent of their
involvement in democratic decision making. Not allowing them to delegate
their votes (or discounting their votes) is more restrictive. It can also
be technically difficult or impossible if people are to participate via
internet. People can always automate their voting using bots, for example,
thus circumventing your restrictions.
I can elaborate on my points and give more reasons for vote delegation.
But it would be interesting to hear your objections. I am also considering
posting this or an altered version to the metagovernment list later, to see
what other people may say.
Thank you for your attention,
s
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 11:10 PM, Jacopo Tolja <
I agree on the first part of your email about the vulnerability of the scoring system.
The effort necessary should be greater than the value of the range achieved!
And if spotted the whole group be so devaluated that they loose their grade for ever!
I disagree on vote delegation, sooner or later it will create
disaffection like the current system.
If implemented anyway it should be with a value >1 for each delegated
vote and eventually the value should be reduced as bigger is the amount of
vote one single representative get.
Something like
http://blog.pietrosperoni.it/2013/04/18/delegating-in-edemocracy-my-way/
There is no best or easy or faster path to DD it goes with awareness and
the established establishment will do anything to keep it low.
The internet will do the rest! That why they even try to stop it!
But as the internet generation grow the change is coming.
bye
j
Dear Jacopo,
Thank you for your answer. My question was about a scoring system
mentioned on the metagovernment project FAQ page. I think it is their score
is more like reputation, or like what you call karma. I have not yet
checked your site in detail, but it seems to me that any scoring system is
vulnerable to abuse. Same is true for systems based on people evaluating
each other performance. A group of people can always cheat a system, if
they are willing to invest effort.
As for user vote counting, I completely agree with you, each user should
have just one vote. Interesting issue for me is vote delegation. I think
that a viable and efficient implementation of DD (Direct Democracy) will
necessarily have this feature. To ensure wide participation in DD, people
should be given option to delegate their votes. Votes could be delegated to
different people (or maybe parties, organizations) for different types of
issues (like education, defense, foreign policy etc).
I am also interested in hearing from other people what they think is the
best/easiest/fastest path toward DD. People are frustrated with their
governments, but I do not see wide DD movement. Not even much discussion
about it. Why is this so?
s
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 4:05 AM, Jacopo Tolja <
Dear user S
I don't know if I understand correctly your question but I think the
answer relies in the fact that each user vote ONE time.
therefore a good E-Democracy platform should have a strong certification of users.
For more indepth research I suggest
https://vote.heliosvoting.org/
http://rangevoting.org/
If your question is about some sort of Karma to apply to the users, i
believe the best way is statistical information of the activity, in
Airesis.eu <http://airesis.eu/>, for example, we start to collect data
about users participation based on the vote they receive
in the contributions that are posted in the different proposals.
The analysis of the activity based on big numbers will permit us to
develop a good score algorithm
Bye
j
PS I do not work for metagovernment, I received this mail and I just answered
Hi,
I am interested in direct democracy and I have some programming
experience. Reading about the Metagovernment project raised several
questions for which I could not find answers. I asked one question on the
FAQ discussion page (http://www.metagovernment.org/wiki/Talk:FAQ) a few
days ago, but I am not sure if anyone saw it there. Therefore I decided to
On the FAQ page it is suggested that the Metagovernment functioning
relies upon, among other things, the scoring system. In the proposed
scoring system users can score other users with weights proportional to
their own score. This is reminiscent to the Page rank, and like the Page
rank it is susceptible to abuse. There is no easy fix to such abuse, as is
evident from Google's ongoing battle against the abusers. In fact, many
scoring/recommending web-services explicitly state that they keep details
of their systems secret, to prevent abuse. How do you resolve this issue?
Thank you,
s
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Post to the list: ***@metagovernment.org
Manage subscription:
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org



_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Post to the list: ***@metagovernment.org
Manage subscription:
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
Jacopo Tolja
2014-03-09 23:46:55 UTC
Permalink
Hi Ed hi Max hi everyone
I try to give another example. and how I would limit the power of the
relater
Given the problem given the objective we start to work on the solution.

The current way is one or more relater obliged to incorporate into the
proposal the contribution that are being evaluated positively by the
participant during the debate time frame. At the same time there is another
evaluation that is the readiness of the proposal.
This obligation and the "intelligence" of the relater(s) are the weak spot.

A contribution is a text with amendment, correction, ideas, concept that
can be evaluated with a + or a - or a neutral vote, (we use smiley). If a
contribution get a number of positive evaluation the relater will integrate
the contribution in the selected area where the contribution is placed.
The integration is subjective! Here is the weakness! The relater may have
misunderstood the sense of it, or use poor language into the integration
etc etc.

On the other hand it can be exactly the opposite you have a smart dedicated
relater that do an excellent work! we can't rely e-democracy on luck!

My approach that is not implemented because of limited resources
(programming expenses) is to change this current system with this:
I select a part of the proposal or a spot in the proposal or solution I
want to change or I can even start a new solution. THis action create an
area called discussion area, where I am the "owner". The discussion area is
like a forum and next to it there is the synthesis area, every single
participant (as soon as you enter your point of view you become a member)
of the discussion have right to edit in the synthesis area of the
discussion.
2 cases, either you agree or you don't agree and as we want to build an
amendment or a solution or a simple rephrase we kick out who disagree, we
need to complete our little process productively so is a work of consensual
debate. Let's imagine a moderation. If the discussion is held with openness
the person who disagree will have the chance to convince the colleague and
change their vision with arguments. If he fail to do so he will be kicked
out (taken away the right to edit the synthesis), he can open another
discussion area where he will "rule" and look for consensus on his point of
view. In this case we will have two antithetic position that will generate
two different solution. Somehow after some time the synthesis will be
exhausted and the discussion will be closed, now the synthesis will be
evaluated and will get from the beginning the positive evaluation from the
peole that participate end eventually from other that read the synthesis
and agree with it. The relater will now integrate the synthesis in the
proposal AS IS! The work is a collective work!
If there is an antithesis that receive sufficient positive evaluation this
will be Integrated in the proposal as a different solution. When there is
no more solution and open discussion it is also the time that people will
evaluate the readiness of the proposal and we will go to the final vote. In
case of two solution we are going to decide by majority if there is more
than two solution we use the Schulze vote.

The end
Post by max stalnaker
RRO allows an agreement to substitute one motion for another. It is a bit
like an amendment to a motion.
Anyway the math says you cannot have a consistent and dynamic system with
all votes being equal. I suppose this is so obvious that you do not need
any math. But then how many times do you read RRO or looked at the math
issues around allocating seats in the US House. The history there says a
lot more then the math itself. And it says to me that Jacopo is more
likely to have the right directionality but at the moment is caught up in
statistics but might not be able to critique Gauss's critique of Guassian
distributions.
But Ed is right to focus on how to make big shifts.
Max
Sorry for the delay, Jacopo. I think I better understand your approach
now. Some of the other systems here take a similar approach, but with less
distinction between the debate and the vote.
If the relaters are a potential weak-spot, then one option would be to
remove them. What Votorola does, for example, is simply have all
participants act in the function of your relaters, and they also have no
distinction between the small votes (like/dont-like/dont-know) and the
"main" vote.
Their approach is to allow anyone to submit a proposal, and to have
participants vote for whatever proposal they support. If no one proposal is
clearly winning, then it is up to the proposers to work to try to convince
the supporters of the other proposals to support their proposal. Usually
the way to do this is to incorporate parts of other proposals or to build
syntheses in order to make new proposals that work for competing interests.
The weakness of this approach is that it can involve a lot of reading,
which hurts participation. The weakness of the Airesis approach, as you
note, is that it is dependent on one person (never a good thing for real
democracy). Also, in Airesis I see much less opportunity for synthesis.
What if there is big disagreement on a proposal, and the only way to get
everyone board is to propose something radically different from what is
being worked on. How does that happen?
I'd be very interested in hearing others' perceptions on the above
critique and on how to approach these issues.
Dear Ed
The heart of Airesis is the proposal building... then there is the vote.
The vote become secondary If the proposal building is carried in the
optimal way (and we have open issue here in Airesis on the methodology)
At the moment the proposal building is the responsibility of one or more relaters.
Tobacco is proven bad for health
School does not sufficiently adapt to new technology
How can we help discourage people from smoking?
How can we best teach our children?
1We raise the tax on tobacco
2We prevent smoking in public
3 We rise tobacco tax and prohibit smoking in public.
In each of this step you may have something to say, in fact we are writing a bill
Airesis give you the chance to make a contribution *in each of this step*,
is specially important in the last step where different solutions may be
proposed or multiple solutions may be packaged.
What you say, is called contribution, can be related to a paragraph or can
be a new solution and will be evaluated by the participants in the debate.
they can give 3 different evaluation: Like ,Don't Like , Don't know
In Airesis the debate may be hold in temporary anonymity, so that we are
not influenced by our preconception or the presence of a leader.
If chosen that feature you will be given a fictitious name and a temporary
avatar. At the end of the debate real names and avatar will be displayed.
Many time we find to agree with our most declared enemy!!
As soon as you evaluate one contribution you will be shown the result of
the other evaluations for that contribution.
You may comment on a contribution and the owner of the contribution may
edit his contribution turning the evaluation back to zero for new
evaluation. (here is where I think Airesis can be enhanced to find a better
methodology to build synthesis removing part of the "weight" of the
relater)
The relaters will pick the best evaluated contribution and edit the paragraph accordingly.
Each participants in the debate may indicate if the debate need to be
carried on or if should be continued (this value is taken into
consideration by the quorum that is chosen for that proposal) but some of
this proposal may have a fixed closing date.
In Airesis depending on the type of proposal, different model, are proposed by a wizard.
Usually the final result is a set of very smart consensus build solutions
packaged in a way that schulze algorithm help find the best to come up.
Unfortunately the quality of the relaters is the weak point and we are working on it.
Is proven by statistical data that a poor relater may turn of
participation.
We are looking at way to prevent that.
Done in this way the stakeholder have plenty to say and if they are not
saying nothing the will see anyway the best solution emerge.
We prefer to have stakeholder take action and participate in the debate
rather than have them delegate their vote.
Compared to Liquidfeedback we are way advanced, in liquidfeedback is more
of a competition between proposal.
The system is designed to bring up excellence and promote knowledge.
There still the danger to change the good construction of a proposal if a
large and organized group of participants act to damage a proposal. Nothing
compared to what we see in delegated political system under the action of
lobbyist.
Regards
Jacopo
PS please test the system and help us to figure out missing features and
enhancing existing.
Post by Ed Pastore
Hi, Jacopo.
I admit I still don't fully understand Airesis, but my impression so far
is that it may emphasize voting a bit too much. Please correct me in
whatever way I am misapprehending.
Government and governing bodies outside of government make a vast array
- Should we build a swimming pool in this city park?
- Should we send troops to country X to intervene in a massacre?
- Should we ban texting while driving?
- Should we have schools teach a particular new curriculum?
- Should we raise the tax on tobacco?
Those are just random examples. The array of decisions is seemingly
infinite. And you can easily be a stakeholder in ever single one of those.
But you cannot reasonably vote on all of those decisions with a fully
informed opinion. It is impossible.
And I agree that delegation is not the answer. I think the real problem
and the real answer here is that we are asking the wrong questions. All of
the above are yes/no questions. They assume that there can only be two
choices, and they invite ignorant participation (anyone can say yes or no
to those for any number of reasons).
- How can we affordably make this park serve the community better?
- How can we effectively intervene in the massacre in country X?
- How can we address safety issues with texting while driving?
- How can we best teach our children?
- How can we help discourage people from smoking?
For each of those questions, it is not a matter of voting yes or no, but
of building solutions that can get *everyone* to vote for them. The
process may be much longer, but the result would be orders-of-magnitude
better.
Isn't that a much stronger, more workable, more persistent form of
democracy? One that builds solutions for *everyone*?
Hi S
I do not exclude delegation is proven from the experience of the pirate
party in Germany that use LQFB that the function created less participation.
Participation mean effort and effort mean time and energy. In today world
we do have little time to spare (at least in Italy) because we are busy
surviving. Now it does not imply that every one should participate in
proposal making but it should be on the final decision making. If you are
not willing to even know what is decided it mean that you deserve to live
the consequences of your absence. My and the Airesis development team idea
is that when, at the end, the personal interest will be at stakes, the
stakeholder will be involved in the decision taking.
Usually there is fronts and each fronts bring up his point of view and
this is the "education" time needed to make a good vote.
In large numbers and with a proposal making process that include
participation (in Airesis, the proposal making system still have to be
modified and developed as we learn from experience and different
methodology) I do believe that the collective intelligence will be brought
up.
When you will be able to vote (securely!) from your smartphone the
participation is up to you and if you decide not to vote is because you
don't have time or because you don't care. Revolution at that time will not
be in the agenda!
If then you decide to install a bot that let other vote for you, is a
choice (dangerous I believe) I will consider developing system that prevent
that (easy to do)
There is many type of problem and many way to address them. Our strategy
(Airesis Team) is to analyze each problem and then brake it down in to
smaller sub-problems to have the relative stakeholders address it.
So here the concept is more participation to solve your own problem.
Usually during this process many sub-problem find a solution in synthesis
by the participants in the debate.
The second strategy is to use different voting system for different
solution. Let's say that it need to be decided the max speed on the highway
or the amount of that particular drugs that you can carry legally etc.For
that we will choose the mathematical formula that show to give the best
result, In candidate selection we use Schulze algorithm and so forth. The
participatory budgeting system will be for local expenditure ect.
As I open this email I say i do not exclude delegation,
is fundamentally a right but we live in a delegated democracy, the
fundamental question is: is functioning? My answer is NO!
So, the rules of the game are set, we work to see if there is a way of
making them better.
I do believe that delegating some one should be done only when I cannot
be present during the vote.
If you give large windows of time during the vote the above become a rarity.
If the problem is divided in sub-problem your vote should be made for
each sub-prolem rather than vote a single bill with hundred decision in it.
Civic education should become obligatory.
Need to go to work
Bye
j
Please test Airesis.us <http://airesis.us/> and give us your critics. I
believe is better to work pragmatically on the development of a platform
and see it in action, analyze statistical data and from poor experiences
learn and modify the platform, rather than making hypothesis.
Hi,
I looked at both your blog posts, where you outline math of delegated
vote discounting, and where you discuss vote delegating in general. I
think, if and how to discount votes can be debated. But I feel very
strongly for vote delegation, therefore I would like to present some
1) Participation. Direct participation requires effort. Good amount of
effort. Fraction of people willing to commit such effort is small. This is
not because people lazy or dumb. I would say this is because people are
smart (sea more below). In short, a system without delegation is doomed to
have low participation, what also makes it more vulnerable to targeted
subversive effort.
2) Efficiency. I read in your post that more deliberation, more
consultation, more participation is always better. I disagree. It is only
better for a problem under consideration, in isolation from all other
problems. Extra effort devoted to a given problem means less effort to
other problems. And the output of solving this problem is not a linear
function of the input effort. Usually we deal with diminishing returns.
People are rational agents constrained by bounded resorcses. They always
prioritize and ration their efforts. And this is the reason why most people
will not participate directly in political decision making, and reasonably
so. (I have in mind problems and decision making of large, societal scale).
3) Fundamental principals of democracy. I think it is simply more
democratic to let people themselves to decide on extent of their
involvement in democratic decision making. Not allowing them to delegate
their votes (or discounting their votes) is more restrictive. It can also
be technically difficult or impossible if people are to participate via
internet. People can always automate their voting using bots, for example,
thus circumventing your restrictions.
I can elaborate on my points and give more reasons for vote delegation.
But it would be interesting to hear your objections. I am also considering
posting this or an altered version to the metagovernment list later, to see
what other people may say.
Thank you for your attention,
s
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 11:10 PM, Jacopo Tolja <
I agree on the first part of your email about the vulnerability of
the scoring system.
The effort necessary should be greater than the value of the range achieved!
And if spotted the whole group be so devaluated that they loose their grade for ever!
I disagree on vote delegation, sooner or later it will create
disaffection like the current system.
If implemented anyway it should be with a value >1 for each delegated
vote and eventually the value should be reduced as bigger is the amount of
vote one single representative get.
Something like
http://blog.pietrosperoni.it/2013/04/18/delegating-in-edemocracy-my-way/
There is no best or easy or faster path to DD it goes with awareness
and the established establishment will do anything to keep it low.
The internet will do the rest! That why they even try to stop it!
But as the internet generation grow the change is coming.
bye
j
Dear Jacopo,
Thank you for your answer. My question was about a scoring system
mentioned on the metagovernment project FAQ page. I think it is their score
is more like reputation, or like what you call karma. I have not yet
checked your site in detail, but it seems to me that any scoring system is
vulnerable to abuse. Same is true for systems based on people evaluating
each other performance. A group of people can always cheat a system, if
they are willing to invest effort.
As for user vote counting, I completely agree with you, each user should
have just one vote. Interesting issue for me is vote delegation. I think
that a viable and efficient implementation of DD (Direct Democracy) will
necessarily have this feature. To ensure wide participation in DD, people
should be given option to delegate their votes. Votes could be delegated to
different people (or maybe parties, organizations) for different types of
issues (like education, defense, foreign policy etc).
I am also interested in hearing from other people what they think is the
best/easiest/fastest path toward DD. People are frustrated with their
governments, but I do not see wide DD movement. Not even much discussion
about it. Why is this so?
s
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 4:05 AM, Jacopo Tolja <
Dear user S
I don't know if I understand correctly your question but I think the
answer relies in the fact that each user vote ONE time.
therefore a good E-Democracy platform should have a strong certification of users.
For more indepth research I suggest
https://vote.heliosvoting.org/
http://rangevoting.org/
If your question is about some sort of Karma to apply to the users, i
believe the best way is statistical information of the activity, in
Airesis.eu <http://airesis.eu/>, for example, we start to collect data
about users participation based on the vote they receive
in the contributions that are posted in the different proposals.
The analysis of the activity based on big numbers will permit us to
develop a good score algorithm
Bye
j
PS I do not work for metagovernment, I received this mail and I just answered
Hi,
I am interested in direct democracy and I have some programming
experience. Reading about the Metagovernment project raised several
questions for which I could not find answers. I asked one question on the
FAQ discussion page (http://www.metagovernment.org/wiki/Talk:FAQ) a few
days ago, but I am not sure if anyone saw it there. Therefore I decided to
On the FAQ page it is suggested that the Metagovernment functioning
relies upon, among other things, the scoring system. In the proposed
scoring system users can score other users with weights proportional to
their own score. This is reminiscent to the Page rank, and like the Page
rank it is susceptible to abuse. There is no easy fix to such abuse, as is
evident from Google's ongoing battle against the abusers. In fact, many
scoring/recommending web-services explicitly state that they keep details
of their systems secret, to prevent abuse. How do you resolve this issue?
Thank you,
s
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
max stalnaker
2014-03-10 03:40:07 UTC
Permalink
Thank you. Here is a positive suggestion. Run all the text through
repeated machine translation back to the originating language and go from
there. You might be able to come up with a minimal basis of meaning after
a few tries. Max
Post by Jacopo Tolja
Hi Ed hi Max hi everyone
I try to give another example. and how I would limit the power of the
relater
Given the problem given the objective we start to work on the solution.
The current way is one or more relater obliged to incorporate into the
proposal the contribution that are being evaluated positively by the
participant during the debate time frame. At the same time there is another
evaluation that is the readiness of the proposal.
This obligation and the "intelligence" of the relater(s) are the weak spot.
A contribution is a text with amendment, correction, ideas, concept that
can be evaluated with a + or a - or a neutral vote, (we use smiley). If a
contribution get a number of positive evaluation the relater will integrate
the contribution in the selected area where the contribution is placed.
The integration is subjective! Here is the weakness! The relater may have
misunderstood the sense of it, or use poor language into the integration
etc etc.
On the other hand it can be exactly the opposite you have a smart
dedicated relater that do an excellent work! we can't rely e-democracy on
luck!
My approach that is not implemented because of limited resources
I select a part of the proposal or a spot in the proposal or solution I
want to change or I can even start a new solution. THis action create an
area called discussion area, where I am the "owner". The discussion area is
like a forum and next to it there is the synthesis area, every single
participant (as soon as you enter your point of view you become a member)
of the discussion have right to edit in the synthesis area of the
discussion.
2 cases, either you agree or you don't agree and as we want to build an
amendment or a solution or a simple rephrase we kick out who disagree, we
need to complete our little process productively so is a work of consensual
debate. Let's imagine a moderation. If the discussion is held with openness
the person who disagree will have the chance to convince the colleague and
change their vision with arguments. If he fail to do so he will be kicked
out (taken away the right to edit the synthesis), he can open another
discussion area where he will "rule" and look for consensus on his point of
view. In this case we will have two antithetic position that will generate
two different solution. Somehow after some time the synthesis will be
exhausted and the discussion will be closed, now the synthesis will be
evaluated and will get from the beginning the positive evaluation from the
peole that participate end eventually from other that read the synthesis
and agree with it. The relater will now integrate the synthesis in the
proposal AS IS! The work is a collective work!
If there is an antithesis that receive sufficient positive evaluation
this will be Integrated in the proposal as a different solution. When there
is no more solution and open discussion it is also the time that people
will evaluate the readiness of the proposal and we will go to the final
vote. In case of two solution we are going to decide by majority if there
is more than two solution we use the Schulze vote.
The end
Post by max stalnaker
RRO allows an agreement to substitute one motion for another. It is a
bit like an amendment to a motion.
Anyway the math says you cannot have a consistent and dynamic system with
all votes being equal. I suppose this is so obvious that you do not need
any math. But then how many times do you read RRO or looked at the math
issues around allocating seats in the US House. The history there says a
lot more then the math itself. And it says to me that Jacopo is more
likely to have the right directionality but at the moment is caught up in
statistics but might not be able to critique Gauss's critique of Guassian
distributions.
But Ed is right to focus on how to make big shifts.
Max
Sorry for the delay, Jacopo. I think I better understand your approach
now. Some of the other systems here take a similar approach, but with less
distinction between the debate and the vote.
If the relaters are a potential weak-spot, then one option would be to
remove them. What Votorola does, for example, is simply have all
participants act in the function of your relaters, and they also have no
distinction between the small votes (like/dont-like/dont-know) and the
“main” vote.
Their approach is to allow anyone to submit a proposal, and to have
participants vote for whatever proposal they support. If no one proposal is
clearly winning, then it is up to the proposers to work to try to convince
the supporters of the other proposals to support their proposal. Usually
the way to do this is to incorporate parts of other proposals or to build
syntheses in order to make new proposals that work for competing interests.
The weakness of this approach is that it can involve a lot of reading,
which hurts participation. The weakness of the Airesis approach, as you
note, is that it is dependent on one person (never a good thing for real
democracy). Also, in Airesis I see much less opportunity for synthesis.
What if there is big disagreement on a proposal, and the only way to get
everyone board is to propose something radically different from what is
being worked on. How does that happen?
I’d be very interested in hearing others’ perceptions on the above
critique and on how to approach these issues.
Dear Ed
The heart of Airesis is the proposal building... then there is the vote.
The vote become secondary If the proposal building is carried in the
optimal way (and we have open issue here in Airesis on the methodology)
At the moment the proposal building is the responsibility of one or more relaters.
Tobacco is proven bad for health
School does not sufficiently adapt to new technology
How can we help discourage people from smoking?
How can we best teach our children?
1We raise the tax on tobacco
2We prevent smoking in public
3 We rise tobacco tax and prohibit smoking in public.
In each of this step you may have something to say, in fact we are writing a bill
Airesis give you the chance to make a contribution *in each of this step*,
is specially important in the last step where different solutions may be
proposed or multiple solutions may be packaged.
What you say, is called contribution, can be related to a paragraph or
can be a new solution and will be evaluated by the participants in the
debate. they can give 3 different evaluation: Like ,Don't Like , Don't know
In Airesis the debate may be hold in temporary anonymity, so that we are
not influenced by our preconception or the presence of a leader.
If chosen that feature you will be given a fictitious name and a temporary
avatar. At the end of the debate real names and avatar will be displayed.
Many time we find to agree with our most declared enemy!!
As soon as you evaluate one contribution you will be shown the result of
the other evaluations for that contribution.
You may comment on a contribution and the owner of the contribution may
edit his contribution turning the evaluation back to zero for new
evaluation. (here is where I think Airesis can be enhanced to find a better
methodology to build synthesis removing part of the "weight" of the
relater)
The relaters will pick the best evaluated contribution and edit the
paragraph accordingly.
Each participants in the debate may indicate if the debate need to be
carried on or if should be continued (this value is taken into
consideration by the quorum that is chosen for that proposal) but some of
this proposal may have a fixed closing date.
In Airesis depending on the type of proposal, different model, are proposed by a wizard.
Usually the final result is a set of very smart consensus build solutions
packaged in a way that schulze algorithm help find the best to come up.
Unfortunately the quality of the relaters is the weak point and we are working on it.
Is proven by statistical data that a poor relater may turn of
participation.
We are looking at way to prevent that.
Done in this way the stakeholder have plenty to say and if they are not
saying nothing the will see anyway the best solution emerge.
We prefer to have stakeholder take action and participate in the debate
rather than have them delegate their vote.
Compared to Liquidfeedback we are way advanced, in liquidfeedback is more
of a competition between proposal.
The system is designed to bring up excellence and promote knowledge.
There still the danger to change the good construction of a proposal if a
large and organized group of participants act to damage a proposal. Nothing
compared to what we see in delegated political system under the action of
lobbyist.
Regards
Jacopo
PS please test the system and help us to figure out missing features and
enhancing existing.
Post by Ed Pastore
Hi, Jacopo.
I admit I still don’t fully understand Airesis, but my impression so far
is that it may emphasize voting a bit too much. Please correct me in
whatever way I am misapprehending.
Government and governing bodies outside of government make a vast array
- Should we build a swimming pool in this city park?
- Should we send troops to country X to intervene in a massacre?
- Should we ban texting while driving?
- Should we have schools teach a particular new curriculum?
- Should we raise the tax on tobacco?
Those are just random examples. The array of decisions is seemingly
infinite. And you can easily be a stakeholder in ever single one of those.
But you cannot reasonably vote on all of those decisions with a fully
informed opinion. It is impossible.
And I agree that delegation is not the answer. I think the real problem
and the real answer here is that we are asking the wrong questions. All of
the above are yes/no questions. They assume that there can only be two
choices, and they invite ignorant participation (anyone can say yes or no
to those for any number of reasons).
- How can we affordably make this park serve the community better?
- How can we effectively intervene in the massacre in country X?
- How can we address safety issues with texting while driving?
- How can we best teach our children?
- How can we help discourage people from smoking?
For each of those questions, it is not a matter of voting yes or no, but
of building solutions that can get *everyone* to vote for them. The
process may be much longer, but the result would be orders-of-magnitude
better.
Isn’t that a much stronger, more workable, more persistent form of
democracy? One that builds solutions for *everyone*?
Hi S
I do not exclude delegation is proven from the experience of the pirate
party in Germany that use LQFB that the function created less participation.
Participation mean effort and effort mean time and energy. In today
world we do have little time to spare (at least in Italy) because we are
busy surviving. Now it does not imply that every one should participate in
proposal making but it should be on the final decision making. If you are
not willing to even know what is decided it mean that you deserve to live
the consequences of your absence. My and the Airesis development team idea
is that when, at the end, the personal interest will be at stakes, the
stakeholder will be involved in the decision taking.
Usually there is fronts and each fronts bring up his point of view and
this is the "education" time needed to make a good vote.
In large numbers and with a proposal making process that include
participation (in Airesis, the proposal making system still have to be
modified and developed as we learn from experience and different
methodology) I do believe that the collective intelligence will be brought
up.
When you will be able to vote (securely!) from your smartphone the
participation is up to you and if you decide not to vote is because you
don't have time or because you don't care. Revolution at that time will not
be in the agenda!
If then you decide to install a bot that let other vote for you, is a
choice (dangerous I believe) I will consider developing system that prevent
that (easy to do)
There is many type of problem and many way to address them. Our strategy
(Airesis Team) is to analyze each problem and then brake it down in to
smaller sub-problems to have the relative stakeholders address it.
So here the concept is more participation to solve your own problem.
Usually during this process many sub-problem find a solution
in synthesis by the participants in the debate.
The second strategy is to use different voting system for different
solution. Let's say that it need to be decided the max speed on the highway
or the amount of that particular drugs that you can carry legally etc.For
that we will choose the mathematical formula that show to give the best
result, In candidate selection we use Schulze algorithm and so forth. The
participatory budgeting system will be for local expenditure ect.
As I open this email I say i do not exclude delegation,
is fundamentally a right but we live in a delegated democracy, the
fundamental question is: is functioning? My answer is NO!
So, the rules of the game are set, we work to see if there is a way of
making them better.
I do believe that delegating some one should be done only when I cannot
be present during the vote.
If you give large windows of time during the vote the above become a rarity.
If the problem is divided in sub-problem your vote should be made for
each sub-prolem rather than vote a single bill with hundred decision in it.
Civic education should become obligatory.
Need to go to work
Bye
j
Please test Airesis.us <http://airesis.us/> and give us your critics. I
believe is better to work pragmatically on the development of a platform
and see it in action, analyze statistical data and from poor experiences
learn and modify the platform, rather than making hypothesis.
Hi,
I looked at both your blog posts, where you outline math of delegated
vote discounting, and where you discuss vote delegating in general. I
think, if and how to discount votes can be debated. But I feel very
strongly for vote delegation, therefore I would like to present some
1) Participation. Direct participation requires effort. Good amount of
effort. Fraction of people willing to commit such effort is small. This is
not because people lazy or dumb. I would say this is because people are
smart (sea more below). In short, a system without delegation is doomed to
have low participation, what also makes it more vulnerable to targeted
subversive effort.
2) Efficiency. I read in your post that more deliberation, more
consultation, more participation is always better. I disagree. It is only
better for a problem under consideration, in isolation from all other
problems. Extra effort devoted to a given problem means less effort to
other problems. And the output of solving this problem is not a linear
function of the input effort. Usually we deal with diminishing returns.
People are rational agents constrained by bounded resorcses. They always
prioritize and ration their efforts. And this is the reason why most people
will not participate directly in political decision making, and reasonably
so. (I have in mind problems and decision making of large, societal scale).
3) Fundamental principals of democracy. I think it is simply more
democratic to let people themselves to decide on extent of their
involvement in democratic decision making. Not allowing them to delegate
their votes (or discounting their votes) is more restrictive. It can also
be technically difficult or impossible if people are to participate via
internet. People can always automate their voting using bots, for example,
thus circumventing your restrictions.
I can elaborate on my points and give more reasons for vote delegation.
But it would be interesting to hear your objections. I am also considering
posting this or an altered version to the metagovernment list later, to see
what other people may say.
Thank you for your attention,
s
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 11:10 PM, Jacopo Tolja <
I agree on the first part of your email about the vulnerability of
the scoring system.
The effort necessary should be greater than the value of the range achieved!
And if spotted the whole group be so devaluated that they loose their grade for ever!
I disagree on vote delegation, sooner or later it will create
disaffection like the current system.
If implemented anyway it should be with a value >1 for each delegated
vote and eventually the value should be reduced as bigger is the amount of
vote one single representative get.
Something like
http://blog.pietrosperoni.it/2013/04/18/delegating-in-edemocracy-my-way/
There is no best or easy or faster path to DD it goes with awareness
and the established establishment will do anything to keep it low.
The internet will do the rest! That why they even try to stop it!
But as the internet generation grow the change is coming.
bye
j
Dear Jacopo,
Thank you for your answer. My question was about a scoring system
mentioned on the metagovernment project FAQ page. I think it is their score
is more like reputation, or like what you call karma. I have not yet
checked your site in detail, but it seems to me that any scoring system is
vulnerable to abuse. Same is true for systems based on people evaluating
each other performance. A group of people can always cheat a system, if
they are willing to invest effort.
As for user vote counting, I completely agree with you, each user
should have just one vote. Interesting issue for me is vote delegation. I
think that a viable and efficient implementation of DD (Direct Democracy)
will necessarily have this feature. To ensure wide participation in DD,
people should be given option to delegate their votes. Votes could be
delegated to different people (or maybe parties, organizations) for
different types of issues (like education, defense, foreign policy etc).
I am also interested in hearing from other people what they think is
the best/easiest/fastest path toward DD. People are frustrated with their
governments, but I do not see wide DD movement. Not even much discussion
about it. Why is this so?
s
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 4:05 AM, Jacopo Tolja <
Dear user S
I don't know if I understand correctly your question but I think the
answer relies in the fact that each user vote ONE time.
therefore a good E-Democracy platform should have a strong
certification of users.
For more indepth research I suggest
https://vote.heliosvoting.org/
http://rangevoting.org/
If your question is about some sort of Karma to apply to the users, i
believe the best way is statistical information of the activity, in
Airesis.eu <http://airesis.eu/>, for example, we start to collect data
about users participation based on the vote they receive
in the contributions that are posted in the different proposals.
The analysis of the activity based on big numbers will permit us to
develop a good score algorithm
Bye
j
PS I do not work for metagovernment, I received this mail and I just answered
Hi,
I am interested in direct democracy and I have some programming
experience. Reading about the Metagovernment project raised several
questions for which I could not find answers. I asked one question on the
FAQ discussion page (http://www.metagovernment.org/wiki/Talk:FAQ) a
few days ago, but I am not sure if anyone saw it there. Therefore I decided
On the FAQ page it is suggested that the Metagovernment functioning
relies upon, among other things, the scoring system. In the proposed
scoring system users can score other users with weights proportional to
their own score. This is reminiscent to the Page rank, and like the Page
rank it is susceptible to abuse. There is no easy fix to such abuse, as is
evident from Google's ongoing battle against the abusers. In fact, many
scoring/recommending web-services explicitly state that they keep details
of their systems secret, to prevent abuse. How do you resolve this issue?
Thank you,
s
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
Ed Pastore
2014-03-30 14:30:39 UTC
Permalink
I select a part of the proposal or a spot in the proposal or solution I want to change or I can even start a new solution. THis action create an area called discussion area, where I am the "owner". The discussion area is like a forum and next to it there is the synthesis area, every single participant (as soon as you enter your point of view you become a member) of the discussion have right to edit in the synthesis area of the discussion.
There may be code you can use or collaboration that can help you get this done. The Votorola team developed the “difference bridge” which I believe would suit here. I don’t see where I can reference it, but they should be able to help.

Also the Candiwi project was building a wiki with voting and discussion on each paragraph. Their site is offline now, but the source code is still available:
https://bitbucket.org/candiwi/candiwi/src

But I still put forth that the relaters aren’t necessary. I haven’t fully understood their process in Airesis, but I know that democracy shouldn’t be funneled through individuals (who decides who gets to be a relater?). Why can’t any number of members of the community fulfill that role as they please? In other words, if the relaters are necessary, do they have to be solitary individuals? Can’t they be any number of people?
Hi Ed hi Max hi everyone
I try to give another example. and how I would limit the power of the relater
Given the problem given the objective we start to work on the solution.
The current way is one or more relater obliged to incorporate into the proposal the contribution that are being evaluated positively by the participant during the debate time frame. At the same time there is another evaluation that is the readiness of the proposal.
This obligation and the "intelligence" of the relater(s) are the weak spot.
A contribution is a text with amendment, correction, ideas, concept that can be evaluated with a + or a - or a neutral vote, (we use smiley). If a contribution get a number of positive evaluation the relater will integrate the contribution in the selected area where the contribution is placed.
The integration is subjective! Here is the weakness! The relater may have misunderstood the sense of it, or use poor language into the integration etc etc.
On the other hand it can be exactly the opposite you have a smart dedicated relater that do an excellent work! we can't rely e-democracy on luck!
I select a part of the proposal or a spot in the proposal or solution I want to change or I can even start a new solution. THis action create an area called discussion area, where I am the "owner". The discussion area is like a forum and next to it there is the synthesis area, every single participant (as soon as you enter your point of view you become a member) of the discussion have right to edit in the synthesis area of the discussion.
2 cases, either you agree or you don't agree and as we want to build an amendment or a solution or a simple rephrase we kick out who disagree, we need to complete our little process productively so is a work of consensual debate. Let's imagine a moderation. If the discussion is held with openness the person who disagree will have the chance to convince the colleague and change their vision with arguments. If he fail to do so he will be kicked out (taken away the right to edit the synthesis), he can open another discussion area where he will "rule" and look for consensus on his point of view. In this case we will have two antithetic position that will generate two different solution. Somehow after some time the synthesis will be exhausted and the discussion will be closed, now the synthesis will be evaluated and will get from the beginning the positive evaluation from the peole that participate end eventually from other that read the synthesis and agree with it. The relater will now integrate the synthesis in the proposal AS IS! The work is a collective work!
If there is an antithesis that receive sufficient positive evaluation this will be Integrated in the proposal as a different solution. When there is no more solution and open discussion it is also the time that people will evaluate the readiness of the proposal and we will go to the final vote. In case of two solution we are going to decide by majority if there is more than two solution we use the Schulze vote.
The end
RRO allows an agreement to substitute one motion for another. It is a bit like an amendment to a motion.
Anyway the math says you cannot have a consistent and dynamic system with all votes being equal. I suppose this is so obvious that you do not need any math. But then how many times do you read RRO or looked at the math issues around allocating seats in the US House. The history there says a lot more then the math itself. And it says to me that Jacopo is more likely to have the right directionality but at the moment is caught up in statistics but might not be able to critique Gauss's critique of Guassian distributions.
But Ed is right to focus on how to make big shifts.
Max
Sorry for the delay, Jacopo. I think I better understand your approach now. Some of the other systems here take a similar approach, but with less distinction between the debate and the vote.
If the relaters are a potential weak-spot, then one option would be to remove them. What Votorola does, for example, is simply have all participants act in the function of your relaters, and they also have no distinction between the small votes (like/dont-like/dont-know) and the “main” vote.
Their approach is to allow anyone to submit a proposal, and to have participants vote for whatever proposal they support. If no one proposal is clearly winning, then it is up to the proposers to work to try to convince the supporters of the other proposals to support their proposal. Usually the way to do this is to incorporate parts of other proposals or to build syntheses in order to make new proposals that work for competing interests.
The weakness of this approach is that it can involve a lot of reading, which hurts participation. The weakness of the Airesis approach, as you note, is that it is dependent on one person (never a good thing for real democracy). Also, in Airesis I see much less opportunity for synthesis. What if there is big disagreement on a proposal, and the only way to get everyone board is to propose something radically different from what is being worked on. How does that happen?
I’d be very interested in hearing others’ perceptions on the above critique and on how to approach these issues.
Post by Jacopo Tolja
Dear Ed
The heart of Airesis is the proposal building... then there is the vote.
The vote become secondary If the proposal building is carried in the optimal way (and we have open issue here in Airesis on the methodology)
At the moment the proposal building is the responsibility of one or more relaters.
Tobacco is proven bad for health
School does not sufficiently adapt to new technology
How can we help discourage people from smoking?
How can we best teach our children?
1We raise the tax on tobacco
2We prevent smoking in public
3 We rise tobacco tax and prohibit smoking in public.
In each of this step you may have something to say, in fact we are writing a bill
Airesis give you the chance to make a contribution in each of this step, is specially important in the last step where different solutions may be proposed or multiple solutions may be packaged.
What you say, is called contribution, can be related to a paragraph or can be a new solution and will be evaluated by the participants in the debate. they can give 3 different evaluation: Like ,Don't Like , Don't know
In Airesis the debate may be hold in temporary anonymity, so that we are not influenced by our preconception or the presence of a leader. If chosen that feature you will be given a fictitious name and a temporary avatar. At the end of the debate real names and avatar will be displayed. Many time we find to agree with our most declared enemy!!
As soon as you evaluate one contribution you will be shown the result of the other evaluations for that contribution.
You may comment on a contribution and the owner of the contribution may edit his contribution turning the evaluation back to zero for new evaluation. (here is where I think Airesis can be enhanced to find a better methodology to build synthesis removing part of the "weight" of the relater)
The relaters will pick the best evaluated contribution and edit the paragraph accordingly.
Each participants in the debate may indicate if the debate need to be carried on or if should be continued (this value is taken into consideration by the quorum that is chosen for that proposal) but some of this proposal may have a fixed closing date.
In Airesis depending on the type of proposal, different model, are proposed by a wizard.
Usually the final result is a set of very smart consensus build solutions packaged in a way that schulze algorithm help find the best to come up.
Unfortunately the quality of the relaters is the weak point and we are working on it.
Is proven by statistical data that a poor relater may turn of participation.
We are looking at way to prevent that.
Done in this way the stakeholder have plenty to say and if they are not saying nothing the will see anyway the best solution emerge.
We prefer to have stakeholder take action and participate in the debate rather than have them delegate their vote.
Compared to Liquidfeedback we are way advanced, in liquidfeedback is more of a competition between proposal.
The system is designed to bring up excellence and promote knowledge.
There still the danger to change the good construction of a proposal if a large and organized group of participants act to damage a proposal. Nothing compared to what we see in delegated political system under the action of lobbyist.
Regards
Jacopo
PS please test the system and help us to figure out missing features and enhancing existing.
Hi, Jacopo.
I admit I still don’t fully understand Airesis, but my impression so far is that it may emphasize voting a bit too much. Please correct me in whatever way I am misapprehending.
Should we build a swimming pool in this city park?
Should we send troops to country X to intervene in a massacre?
Should we ban texting while driving?
Should we have schools teach a particular new curriculum?
Should we raise the tax on tobacco?
Those are just random examples. The array of decisions is seemingly infinite. And you can easily be a stakeholder in ever single one of those. But you cannot reasonably vote on all of those decisions with a fully informed opinion. It is impossible.
And I agree that delegation is not the answer. I think the real problem and the real answer here is that we are asking the wrong questions. All of the above are yes/no questions. They assume that there can only be two choices, and they invite ignorant participation (anyone can say yes or no to those for any number of reasons).
How can we affordably make this park serve the community better?
How can we effectively intervene in the massacre in country X?
How can we address safety issues with texting while driving?
How can we best teach our children?
How can we help discourage people from smoking?
For each of those questions, it is not a matter of voting yes or no, but of building solutions that can get everyone to vote for them. The process may be much longer, but the result would be orders-of-magnitude better.
Isn’t that a much stronger, more workable, more persistent form of democracy? One that builds solutions for everyone?
Hi S
I do not exclude delegation is proven from the experience of the pirate party in Germany that use LQFB that the function created less participation.
Participation mean effort and effort mean time and energy. In today world we do have little time to spare (at least in Italy) because we are busy surviving. Now it does not imply that every one should participate in proposal making but it should be on the final decision making. If you are not willing to even know what is decided it mean that you deserve to live the consequences of your absence. My and the Airesis development team idea is that when, at the end, the personal interest will be at stakes, the stakeholder will be involved in the decision taking.
Usually there is fronts and each fronts bring up his point of view and this is the "education" time needed to make a good vote.
In large numbers and with a proposal making process that include participation (in Airesis, the proposal making system still have to be modified and developed as we learn from experience and different methodology) I do believe that the collective intelligence will be brought up.
When you will be able to vote (securely!) from your smartphone the participation is up to you and if you decide not to vote is because you don't have time or because you don't care. Revolution at that time will not be in the agenda!
If then you decide to install a bot that let other vote for you, is a choice (dangerous I believe) I will consider developing system that prevent that (easy to do)
There is many type of problem and many way to address them. Our strategy (Airesis Team) is to analyze each problem and then brake it down in to smaller sub-problems to have the relative stakeholders address it.
So here the concept is more participation to solve your own problem.
Usually during this process many sub-problem find a solution in synthesis by the participants in the debate.
The second strategy is to use different voting system for different solution. Let's say that it need to be decided the max speed on the highway or the amount of that particular drugs that you can carry legally etc.For that we will choose the mathematical formula that show to give the best result, In candidate selection we use Schulze algorithm and so forth. The participatory budgeting system will be for local expenditure ect.
As I open this email I say i do not exclude delegation, is fundamentally a right but we live in a delegated democracy, the fundamental question is: is functioning? My answer is NO!
So, the rules of the game are set, we work to see if there is a way of making them better.
I do believe that delegating some one should be done only when I cannot be present during the vote.
If you give large windows of time during the vote the above become a rarity.
If the problem is divided in sub-problem your vote should be made for each sub-prolem rather than vote a single bill with hundred decision in it. Civic education should become obligatory.
Need to go to work
Bye
j
Please test Airesis.us and give us your critics. I believe is better to work pragmatically on the development of a platform and see it in action, analyze statistical data and from poor experiences learn and modify the platform, rather than making hypothesis.
Hi,
1) Participation. Direct participation requires effort. Good amount of effort. Fraction of people willing to commit such effort is small. This is not because people lazy or dumb. I would say this is because people are smart (sea more below). In short, a system without delegation is doomed to have low participation, what also makes it more vulnerable to targeted subversive effort.
2) Efficiency. I read in your post that more deliberation, more consultation, more participation is always better. I disagree. It is only better for a problem under consideration, in isolation from all other problems. Extra effort devoted to a given problem means less effort to other problems. And the output of solving this problem is not a linear function of the input effort. Usually we deal with diminishing returns. People are rational agents constrained by bounded resorcses. They always prioritize and ration their efforts. And this is the reason why most people will not participate directly in political decision making, and reasonably so. (I have in mind problems and decision making of large, societal scale).
3) Fundamental principals of democracy. I think it is simply more democratic to let people themselves to decide on extent of their involvement in democratic decision making. Not allowing them to delegate their votes (or discounting their votes) is more restrictive. It can also be technically difficult or impossible if people are to participate via internet. People can always automate their voting using bots, for example, thus circumventing your restrictions.
I can elaborate on my points and give more reasons for vote delegation. But it would be interesting to hear your objections. I am also considering posting this or an altered version to the metagovernment list later, to see what other people may say.
Thank you for your attention,
s
I agree on the first part of your email about the vulnerability of the scoring system.
The effort necessary should be greater than the value of the range achieved!
And if spotted the whole group be so devaluated that they loose their grade for ever!
I disagree on vote delegation, sooner or later it will create disaffection like the current system.
If implemented anyway it should be with a value >1 for each delegated vote and eventually the value should be reduced as bigger is the amount of vote one single representative get.
Something like
http://blog.pietrosperoni.it/2013/04/18/delegating-in-edemocracy-my-way/
There is no best or easy or faster path to DD it goes with awareness and the established establishment will do anything to keep it low.
The internet will do the rest! That why they even try to stop it!
But as the internet generation grow the change is coming.
bye
j
Dear Jacopo,
Thank you for your answer. My question was about a scoring system mentioned on the metagovernment project FAQ page. I think it is their score is more like reputation, or like what you call karma. I have not yet checked your site in detail, but it seems to me that any scoring system is vulnerable to abuse. Same is true for systems based on people evaluating each other performance. A group of people can always cheat a system, if they are willing to invest effort.
As for user vote counting, I completely agree with you, each user should have just one vote. Interesting issue for me is vote delegation. I think that a viable and efficient implementation of DD (Direct Democracy) will necessarily have this feature. To ensure wide participation in DD, people should be given option to delegate their votes. Votes could be delegated to different people (or maybe parties, organizations) for different types of issues (like education, defense, foreign policy etc).
I am also interested in hearing from other people what they think is the best/easiest/fastest path toward DD. People are frustrated with their governments, but I do not see wide DD movement. Not even much discussion about it. Why is this so?
s
Dear user S
I don't know if I understand correctly your question but I think the answer relies in the fact that each user vote ONE time.
therefore a good E-Democracy platform should have a strong certification of users.
For more indepth research I suggest
https://vote.heliosvoting.org/
http://rangevoting.org/
If your question is about some sort of Karma to apply to the users, i believe the best way is statistical information of the activity, in Airesis.eu, for example, we start to collect data about users participation based on the vote they receive in the contributions that are posted in the different proposals.
The analysis of the activity based on big numbers will permit us to develop a good score algorithm
Bye
j
PS I do not work for metagovernment, I received this mail and I just answered
Hi,
On the FAQ page it is suggested that the Metagovernment functioning relies upon, among other things, the scoring system. In the proposed scoring system users can score other users with weights proportional to their own score. This is reminiscent to the Page rank, and like the Page rank it is susceptible to abuse. There is no easy fix to such abuse, as is evident from Google's ongoing battle against the abusers. In fact, many scoring/recommending web-services explicitly state that they keep details of their systems secret, to prevent abuse. How do you resolve this issue?
Thank you,
s
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
Jacopo Tolja
2014-03-30 19:18:16 UTC
Permalink
Thank you Ed for your help I will check the candiwi and the votorola
system, for the time being in Airesis is the proposer that became by
default the relater but any one can ask the relater to help with a message
sent in automatic by clicking in the button for the specific request. I see
proposal with up to five relater, of course there is the history of the doc
and anyone can check the step by step editing process

Individual contribution are evaluated by the community and based on the
evaluation the relater should or should not integrate them.
Post by Jacopo Tolja
My approach that is not implemented because of limited resources
I select a part of the proposal or a spot in the proposal or solution I
want to change or I can even start a new solution. THis action create an
area called discussion area, where I am the "owner". The discussion area is
like a forum and next to it there is the synthesis area, every single
participant (as soon as you enter your point of view you become a member)
of the discussion have right to edit in the synthesis area of the
discussion.
There may be code you can use or collaboration that can help you get this
done. The Votorola team developed the "difference bridge" which I believe
would suit here. I don't see where I can reference it, but they should be
able to help.
Also the Candiwi project was building a wiki with voting and discussion on
each paragraph. Their site is offline now, but the source code is still
https://bitbucket.org/candiwi/candiwi/src
But I still put forth that the relaters aren't necessary. I haven't fully
understood their process in Airesis, but I know that democracy shouldn't be
funneled through individuals (who decides who gets to be a relater?). Why
can't any number of members of the community fulfill that role as they
please? In other words, if the relaters are necessary, do they have to be
solitary individuals? Can't they be any number of people?
Hi Ed hi Max hi everyone
I try to give another example. and how I would limit the power of the relater
Given the problem given the objective we start to work on the solution.
The current way is one or more relater obliged to incorporate into the
proposal the contribution that are being evaluated positively by the
participant during the debate time frame. At the same time there is another
evaluation that is the readiness of the proposal.
This obligation and the "intelligence" of the relater(s) are the weak spot.
A contribution is a text with amendment, correction, ideas, concept that
can be evaluated with a + or a - or a neutral vote, (we use smiley). If a
contribution get a number of positive evaluation the relater will integrate
the contribution in the selected area where the contribution is placed.
The integration is subjective! Here is the weakness! The relater may have
misunderstood the sense of it, or use poor language into the integration
etc etc.
On the other hand it can be exactly the opposite you have a smart
dedicated relater that do an excellent work! we can't rely e-democracy on
luck!
My approach that is not implemented because of limited resources
I select a part of the proposal or a spot in the proposal or solution I
want to change or I can even start a new solution. THis action create an
area called discussion area, where I am the "owner". The discussion area is
like a forum and next to it there is the synthesis area, every single
participant (as soon as you enter your point of view you become a member)
of the discussion have right to edit in the synthesis area of the
discussion.
2 cases, either you agree or you don't agree and as we want to build an
amendment or a solution or a simple rephrase we kick out who disagree, we
need to complete our little process productively so is a work of consensual
debate. Let's imagine a moderation. If the discussion is held with openness
the person who disagree will have the chance to convince the colleague and
change their vision with arguments. If he fail to do so he will be kicked
out (taken away the right to edit the synthesis), he can open another
discussion area where he will "rule" and look for consensus on his point of
view. In this case we will have two antithetic position that will generate
two different solution. Somehow after some time the synthesis will be
exhausted and the discussion will be closed, now the synthesis will be
evaluated and will get from the beginning the positive evaluation from the
peole that participate end eventually from other that read the synthesis
and agree with it. The relater will now integrate the synthesis in the
proposal AS IS! The work is a collective work!
If there is an antithesis that receive sufficient positive evaluation
this will be Integrated in the proposal as a different solution. When there
is no more solution and open discussion it is also the time that people
will evaluate the readiness of the proposal and we will go to the final
vote. In case of two solution we are going to decide by majority if there
is more than two solution we use the Schulze vote.
The end
Post by max stalnaker
RRO allows an agreement to substitute one motion for another. It is a
bit like an amendment to a motion.
Anyway the math says you cannot have a consistent and dynamic system with
all votes being equal. I suppose this is so obvious that you do not need
any math. But then how many times do you read RRO or looked at the math
issues around allocating seats in the US House. The history there says a
lot more then the math itself. And it says to me that Jacopo is more
likely to have the right directionality but at the moment is caught up in
statistics but might not be able to critique Gauss's critique of Guassian
distributions.
But Ed is right to focus on how to make big shifts.
Max
Sorry for the delay, Jacopo. I think I better understand your approach
now. Some of the other systems here take a similar approach, but with less
distinction between the debate and the vote.
If the relaters are a potential weak-spot, then one option would be to
remove them. What Votorola does, for example, is simply have all
participants act in the function of your relaters, and they also have no
distinction between the small votes (like/dont-like/dont-know) and the
"main" vote.
Their approach is to allow anyone to submit a proposal, and to have
participants vote for whatever proposal they support. If no one proposal is
clearly winning, then it is up to the proposers to work to try to convince
the supporters of the other proposals to support their proposal. Usually
the way to do this is to incorporate parts of other proposals or to build
syntheses in order to make new proposals that work for competing interests.
The weakness of this approach is that it can involve a lot of reading,
which hurts participation. The weakness of the Airesis approach, as you
note, is that it is dependent on one person (never a good thing for real
democracy). Also, in Airesis I see much less opportunity for synthesis.
What if there is big disagreement on a proposal, and the only way to get
everyone board is to propose something radically different from what is
being worked on. How does that happen?
I'd be very interested in hearing others' perceptions on the above
critique and on how to approach these issues.
Dear Ed
The heart of Airesis is the proposal building... then there is the vote.
The vote become secondary If the proposal building is carried in the
optimal way (and we have open issue here in Airesis on the methodology)
At the moment the proposal building is the responsibility of one or more relaters.
Tobacco is proven bad for health
School does not sufficiently adapt to new technology
How can we help discourage people from smoking?
How can we best teach our children?
1We raise the tax on tobacco
2We prevent smoking in public
3 We rise tobacco tax and prohibit smoking in public.
In each of this step you may have something to say, in fact we are writing a bill
Airesis give you the chance to make a contribution *in each of this step*,
is specially important in the last step where different solutions may be
proposed or multiple solutions may be packaged.
What you say, is called contribution, can be related to a paragraph or
can be a new solution and will be evaluated by the participants in the
debate. they can give 3 different evaluation: Like ,Don't Like , Don't know
In Airesis the debate may be hold in temporary anonymity, so that we are
not influenced by our preconception or the presence of a leader.
If chosen that feature you will be given a fictitious name and a temporary
avatar. At the end of the debate real names and avatar will be displayed.
Many time we find to agree with our most declared enemy!!
As soon as you evaluate one contribution you will be shown the result of
the other evaluations for that contribution.
You may comment on a contribution and the owner of the contribution may
edit his contribution turning the evaluation back to zero for new
evaluation. (here is where I think Airesis can be enhanced to find a better
methodology to build synthesis removing part of the "weight" of the
relater)
The relaters will pick the best evaluated contribution and edit the
paragraph accordingly.
Each participants in the debate may indicate if the debate need to be
carried on or if should be continued (this value is taken into
consideration by the quorum that is chosen for that proposal) but some of
this proposal may have a fixed closing date.
In Airesis depending on the type of proposal, different model, are proposed by a wizard.
Usually the final result is a set of very smart consensus build solutions
packaged in a way that schulze algorithm help find the best to come up.
Unfortunately the quality of the relaters is the weak point and we are working on it.
Is proven by statistical data that a poor relater may turn of
participation.
We are looking at way to prevent that.
Done in this way the stakeholder have plenty to say and if they are not
saying nothing the will see anyway the best solution emerge.
We prefer to have stakeholder take action and participate in the debate
rather than have them delegate their vote.
Compared to Liquidfeedback we are way advanced, in liquidfeedback is more
of a competition between proposal.
The system is designed to bring up excellence and promote knowledge.
There still the danger to change the good construction of a proposal if a
large and organized group of participants act to damage a proposal. Nothing
compared to what we see in delegated political system under the action of
lobbyist.
Regards
Jacopo
PS please test the system and help us to figure out missing features and
enhancing existing.
Post by Ed Pastore
Hi, Jacopo.
I admit I still don't fully understand Airesis, but my impression so far
is that it may emphasize voting a bit too much. Please correct me in
whatever way I am misapprehending.
Government and governing bodies outside of government make a vast array
- Should we build a swimming pool in this city park?
- Should we send troops to country X to intervene in a massacre?
- Should we ban texting while driving?
- Should we have schools teach a particular new curriculum?
- Should we raise the tax on tobacco?
Those are just random examples. The array of decisions is seemingly
infinite. And you can easily be a stakeholder in ever single one of those.
But you cannot reasonably vote on all of those decisions with a fully
informed opinion. It is impossible.
And I agree that delegation is not the answer. I think the real problem
and the real answer here is that we are asking the wrong questions. All of
the above are yes/no questions. They assume that there can only be two
choices, and they invite ignorant participation (anyone can say yes or no
to those for any number of reasons).
- How can we affordably make this park serve the community better?
- How can we effectively intervene in the massacre in country X?
- How can we address safety issues with texting while driving?
- How can we best teach our children?
- How can we help discourage people from smoking?
For each of those questions, it is not a matter of voting yes or no, but
of building solutions that can get *everyone* to vote for them. The
process may be much longer, but the result would be orders-of-magnitude
better.
Isn't that a much stronger, more workable, more persistent form of
democracy? One that builds solutions for *everyone*?
Hi S
I do not exclude delegation is proven from the experience of the pirate
party in Germany that use LQFB that the function created less participation.
Participation mean effort and effort mean time and energy. In today
world we do have little time to spare (at least in Italy) because we are
busy surviving. Now it does not imply that every one should participate in
proposal making but it should be on the final decision making. If you are
not willing to even know what is decided it mean that you deserve to live
the consequences of your absence. My and the Airesis development team idea
is that when, at the end, the personal interest will be at stakes, the
stakeholder will be involved in the decision taking.
Usually there is fronts and each fronts bring up his point of view and
this is the "education" time needed to make a good vote.
In large numbers and with a proposal making process that include
participation (in Airesis, the proposal making system still have to be
modified and developed as we learn from experience and different
methodology) I do believe that the collective intelligence will be brought
up.
When you will be able to vote (securely!) from your smartphone the
participation is up to you and if you decide not to vote is because you
don't have time or because you don't care. Revolution at that time will not
be in the agenda!
If then you decide to install a bot that let other vote for you, is a
choice (dangerous I believe) I will consider developing system that prevent
that (easy to do)
There is many type of problem and many way to address them. Our strategy
(Airesis Team) is to analyze each problem and then brake it down in to
smaller sub-problems to have the relative stakeholders address it.
So here the concept is more participation to solve your own problem.
Usually during this process many sub-problem find a solution
in synthesis by the participants in the debate.
The second strategy is to use different voting system for different
solution. Let's say that it need to be decided the max speed on the highway
or the amount of that particular drugs that you can carry legally etc.For
that we will choose the mathematical formula that show to give the best
result, In candidate selection we use Schulze algorithm and so forth. The
participatory budgeting system will be for local expenditure ect.
As I open this email I say i do not exclude delegation,
is fundamentally a right but we live in a delegated democracy, the
fundamental question is: is functioning? My answer is NO!
So, the rules of the game are set, we work to see if there is a way of
making them better.
I do believe that delegating some one should be done only when I cannot
be present during the vote.
If you give large windows of time during the vote the above become a rarity.
If the problem is divided in sub-problem your vote should be made for
each sub-prolem rather than vote a single bill with hundred decision in it.
Civic education should become obligatory.
Need to go to work
Bye
j
Please test Airesis.us <http://airesis.us/> and give us your critics. I
believe is better to work pragmatically on the development of a platform
and see it in action, analyze statistical data and from poor experiences
learn and modify the platform, rather than making hypothesis.
Hi,
I looked at both your blog posts, where you outline math of delegated
vote discounting, and where you discuss vote delegating in general. I
think, if and how to discount votes can be debated. But I feel very
strongly for vote delegation, therefore I would like to present some
1) Participation. Direct participation requires effort. Good amount of
effort. Fraction of people willing to commit such effort is small. This is
not because people lazy or dumb. I would say this is because people are
smart (sea more below). In short, a system without delegation is doomed to
have low participation, what also makes it more vulnerable to targeted
subversive effort.
2) Efficiency. I read in your post that more deliberation, more
consultation, more participation is always better. I disagree. It is only
better for a problem under consideration, in isolation from all other
problems. Extra effort devoted to a given problem means less effort to
other problems. And the output of solving this problem is not a linear
function of the input effort. Usually we deal with diminishing returns.
People are rational agents constrained by bounded resorcses. They always
prioritize and ration their efforts. And this is the reason why most people
will not participate directly in political decision making, and reasonably
so. (I have in mind problems and decision making of large, societal scale).
3) Fundamental principals of democracy. I think it is simply more
democratic to let people themselves to decide on extent of their
involvement in democratic decision making. Not allowing them to delegate
their votes (or discounting their votes) is more restrictive. It can also
be technically difficult or impossible if people are to participate via
internet. People can always automate their voting using bots, for example,
thus circumventing your restrictions.
I can elaborate on my points and give more reasons for vote delegation.
But it would be interesting to hear your objections. I am also considering
posting this or an altered version to the metagovernment list later, to see
what other people may say.
Thank you for your attention,
s
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 11:10 PM, Jacopo Tolja <
I agree on the first part of your email about the vulnerability of
the scoring system.
The effort necessary should be greater than the value of the range achieved!
And if spotted the whole group be so devaluated that they loose their grade for ever!
I disagree on vote delegation, sooner or later it will create
disaffection like the current system.
If implemented anyway it should be with a value >1 for each delegated
vote and eventually the value should be reduced as bigger is the amount of
vote one single representative get.
Something like
http://blog.pietrosperoni.it/2013/04/18/delegating-in-edemocracy-my-way/
There is no best or easy or faster path to DD it goes with awareness
and the established establishment will do anything to keep it low.
The internet will do the rest! That why they even try to stop it!
But as the internet generation grow the change is coming.
bye
j
Dear Jacopo,
Thank you for your answer. My question was about a scoring system
mentioned on the metagovernment project FAQ page. I think it is their score
is more like reputation, or like what you call karma. I have not yet
checked your site in detail, but it seems to me that any scoring system is
vulnerable to abuse. Same is true for systems based on people evaluating
each other performance. A group of people can always cheat a system, if
they are willing to invest effort.
As for user vote counting, I completely agree with you, each user
should have just one vote. Interesting issue for me is vote delegation. I
think that a viable and efficient implementation of DD (Direct Democracy)
will necessarily have this feature. To ensure wide participation in DD,
people should be given option to delegate their votes. Votes could be
delegated to different people (or maybe parties, organizations) for
different types of issues (like education, defense, foreign policy etc).
I am also interested in hearing from other people what they think is
the best/easiest/fastest path toward DD. People are frustrated with their
governments, but I do not see wide DD movement. Not even much discussion
about it. Why is this so?
s
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 4:05 AM, Jacopo Tolja <
Dear user S
I don't know if I understand correctly your question but I think the
answer relies in the fact that each user vote ONE time.
therefore a good E-Democracy platform should have a strong
certification of users.
For more indepth research I suggest
https://vote.heliosvoting.org/
http://rangevoting.org/
If your question is about some sort of Karma to apply to the users, i
believe the best way is statistical information of the activity, in
Airesis.eu <http://airesis.eu/>, for example, we start to collect data
about users participation based on the vote they receive
in the contributions that are posted in the different proposals.
The analysis of the activity based on big numbers will permit us to
develop a good score algorithm
Bye
j
PS I do not work for metagovernment, I received this mail and I just answered
Hi,
I am interested in direct democracy and I have some programming
experience. Reading about the Metagovernment project raised several
questions for which I could not find answers. I asked one question on the
FAQ discussion page (http://www.metagovernment.org/wiki/Talk:FAQ) a
few days ago, but I am not sure if anyone saw it there. Therefore I decided
On the FAQ page it is suggested that the Metagovernment functioning
relies upon, among other things, the scoring system. In the proposed
scoring system users can score other users with weights proportional to
their own score. This is reminiscent to the Page rank, and like the Page
rank it is susceptible to abuse. There is no easy fix to such abuse, as is
evident from Google's ongoing battle against the abusers. In fact, many
scoring/recommending web-services explicitly state that they keep details
of their systems secret, to prevent abuse. How do you resolve this issue?
Thank you,
s
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
Flash Cards
2014-02-18 06:23:55 UTC
Permalink
Hi Jacopo,

I tried "Try it" session at www.airesis.eu. It looks interesting, I am glad to see that people are actively participating, creating hundreds of groups, debating and voting. Unfortunately all (or most) of it is in Italian, so I could not get a good feel of the deliberation process. May be a short guide in English (if it is not already there, but I did not notice it) would help to bring more international users?

Thanks for mentioning the liquid feedback system. I am new to many of these concepts. Provided such system is flexible enough (to allow well customizable vote delegation), this is something I had in mind.

By participation I meant number of votes in support of a particular issue. For a DD party to succeed, it is important to involve as many people as possible. (I do not equate participation to the combined amount of energy spent on solving a problem).

I actually think that a real (direct) participation in form of voting alone will have huge impact on political life. Current "representative" democracies are doing very poor job representing people. Internet and computers present opportunity to fix it.

s





On Sunday, February 16, 2014 10:00 PM, Jacopo Tolja <***@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi S

I do not exclude delegation is proven from the experience of the pirate party in Germany that use LQFB that the function created less participation.
Participation mean effort and effort mean time and energy. In today world we do have little time to spare (at least in Italy) because we are busy surviving. Now it does not imply that every one should participate in proposal making but it should be on the final decision making. If you are not willing to even know what is decided it mean that you deserve to live the consequences of your absence. My and  the Airesis development team idea is that when, at the end, the personal interest will be at stakes, the stakeholder will be involved in the decision taking.
Usually there is fronts and each fronts bring up his point of view and this is the "education" time needed to make a good vote.
In large numbers and with a proposal making process that include participation (in Airesis, the proposal making system still have to be modified and developed as we learn from experience and different methodology)  I do believe that the collective intelligence will be brought up.
When you will be able to vote (securely!) from your smartphone the participation is up to you and if you decide not to vote is because you don't have time or because you don't care. Revolution at that time will not be in the agenda!
If then you decide to install a bot that let other vote for you, is a choice (dangerous I believe) I will consider developing system that prevent that (easy to do) 


Efficiency:
There is many type of problem and many way to address them. Our strategy (Airesis Team) is to analyze each problem and then brake it down in to smaller sub-problems to have the relative stakeholders address it.
So here the concept is more participation to solve your own problem.
Usually during this process many sub-problem find a solution in synthesis by the participants in the debate.
The second strategy is to use different voting system for different solution. Let's say that it need to be decided the max speed on the highway or the amount of that particular drugs that you can carry legally etc.For that we will choose the mathematical formula that show to give the best result, In candidate selection we use Schulze algorithm  and so forth. The participatory budgeting system will be for local expenditure ect.

As I open this email I say i do not exclude delegation, is fundamentally a right but we live in a delegated democracy, the fundamental question is: is functioning? My answer is NO! 
So, the rules of the game are set, we work to see if there is a way of making them better.
I do believe that delegating some one should be done only when I cannot be present during the vote.
If you give large windows of time during the vote the above become a rarity.
If the problem is divided in sub-problem your vote should be made for each sub-prolem rather than vote a single bill with hundred decision in it. Civic education should become obligatory. 

Need to go to work
Bye
j

Please test Airesis.us and give us your critics. I believe is better to work pragmatically on the development of a platform and see it in action, analyze  statistical data and from poor experiences learn and modify the platform, rather than making hypothesis.  





On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 9:46 PM, Flash Cards <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi,
1) Participation. Direct participation requires effort. Good amount of effort. Fraction of people willing to commit such effort is small. This is not because people lazy or dumb. I would say this is because people are smart (sea more below). In short, a system without delegation is doomed to have low participation, what also makes it more vulnerable to targeted subversive effort.
2) Efficiency. I read in your post that more deliberation, more consultation,
more participation is always better. I disagree. It is only better for a problem under consideration, in isolation from all other problems. Extra effort devoted to a given problem means less effort to other problems. And the output of solving this problem is not a linear function of the input effort. Usually we deal with diminishing returns. People are rational agents constrained by bounded resorcses. They always prioritize and ration their efforts. And this is the reason why most people will not participate directly in political decision making, and reasonably so. (I have in mind problems and decision making of large, societal scale).
3) Fundamental principals of democracy. I think it is simply more democratic to let people themselves to decide on extent of their involvement in democratic decision making. Not allowing them to delegate their votes (or discounting their votes) is more restrictive. It can also be technically difficult or impossible
if people are to participate via internet. People can always automate their voting using bots, for example, thus circumventing your restrictions.
I can elaborate on my points and give more reasons for vote delegation. But it would be interesting to hear your objections. I am also considering posting this or an altered version to the metagovernment list later, to see what other people may say.
Thank you for your attention,
s
I agree on the first part of your email about the vulnerability of the scoring system.
The effort necessary should be greater than the value of the range achieved!
And if spotted the whole group be so devaluated that they loose their grade for ever!
I disagree on vote delegation, sooner or later it will create disaffection like the current system.
If implemented anyway it should be with a value >1 for each delegated vote and eventually the value should be reduced as bigger is the amount of vote one single representative get.
Something like
http://blog.pietrosperoni.it/2013/04/18/delegating-in-edemocracy-my-way/
There is no best  or easy or faster path to DD it goes with awareness and the established establishment will do anything to keep it low.
The internet will do the rest! That why they even try to stop it!
But as the internet generation grow the change is coming.
bye
j
Dear Jacopo,
Post by Flash Cards
Thank you for your answer. My question was about a scoring system mentioned on the metagovernment project FAQ page. I think it is their score is more like reputation, or like what you call karma. I have not yet checked your site in detail, but it seems to me that any scoring system is vulnerable to abuse. Same is true for systems based on people evaluating each other performance. A group of people can always cheat a system, if they are willing to invest effort.
As for user vote counting, I completely agree with you, each user should have just one vote. Interesting issue for me is vote delegation. I think that a viable and efficient implementation of DD (Direct Democracy) will necessarily have this feature. To ensure wide participation in DD, people should be given option to delegate their votes. Votes could be delegated to different people (or maybe parties, organizations) for different types of issues (like education, defense, foreign policy etc).
I am also interested in hearing from other people what they think is the best/easiest/fastest path toward DD. People are frustrated with their governments, but I do not see wide DD movement. Not even much discussion about it. Why is this so?
s
Dear user S
I don't know if I understand correctly your question but I think the answer relies in the fact that each user vote ONE time.
therefore a good E-Democracy platform should have a strong certification of users.
For more indepth research I suggest
https://vote.heliosvoting.org/
http://rangevoting.org/
If your question is about some sort of Karma to apply to the users, i believe the best way is statistical information of the activity, in Airesis.eu, for example, we start to collect data about users participation based on the vote they receive in the contributions that are posted in the different proposals.
The analysis of the activity based on big numbers will permit us to develop a good score algorithm  
Bye
j
PS I do not work for metagovernment, I received this mail and I just answered
Hi,
Post by Flash Cards
 On the FAQ page it is suggested that the Metagovernment functioning
relies upon, among other things, the scoring system. In the proposed
scoring system users can score other users with weights proportional to
their own score. This is reminiscent to the Page rank, and like the Page
rank it is susceptible to abuse. There is no easy fix to such abuse, as
is evident from Google's ongoing battle against the abusers. In fact,
many scoring/recommending web-services explicitly state that they keep
details of their systems secret, to prevent abuse. How do you resolve
this issue?
Post by Flash Cards
Post by Flash Cards
Thank you,
s
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
Flash Cards
2014-02-18 07:43:50 UTC
Permalink
Hi Jacopo,

OK, I found good explanation here: http://www.airesis.eu/eparticipation

It all sounds interesting, I just would love to see actual discussions/deliberations. Are there any of them in English? I could not find on my own.

Thanks





On Monday, February 17, 2014 10:23 PM, Flash Cards <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi Jacopo,

I tried "Try it" session at www.airesis.eu. It looks interesting, I am glad to see that people are actively participating, creating hundreds of groups, debating and voting. Unfortunately all (or most) of it is in Italian, so I could not get a good feel of the deliberation process. May be a short guide in English (if it is not already there, but I did not notice it) would help to bring more international users?

Thanks for mentioning the liquid feedback system. I am new to many of these concepts. Provided such system is flexible enough (to allow well customizable vote delegation), this is something I had in mind.

By participation I meant number of votes in support of a particular issue. For a DD party to succeed, it is important to involve as many people as
possible. (I do not equate participation to the combined amount of energy spent on solving a problem).

I actually think that a real (direct) participation in form of voting alone will have huge impact on political life. Current "representative" democracies are doing very poor job representing people. Internet and computers present opportunity to fix it.

s





On Sunday, February 16, 2014 10:00 PM, Jacopo Tolja <***@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi S

I do not exclude delegation is proven from the experience of the pirate party in Germany that use LQFB that the function created less participation.
Participation mean effort and effort mean time and energy. In today world we do have little time to spare (at least in Italy) because we are busy surviving. Now it does not imply that every one should participate in proposal making but it should be on the final decision making. If you are not willing to even know what is decided it mean that you deserve to live the consequences of your absence. My and  the Airesis development team idea is that when, at the end, the personal interest will be at stakes, the stakeholder will be involved in the decision taking.
Usually there is fronts and each fronts bring up his point of view and this is the "education" time needed to make a good vote.
In large numbers and with a proposal making process that include participation (in Airesis, the proposal making system still have to be modified and developed as we learn from experience and different methodology)  I do believe that the collective intelligence will be brought up.
When you will be able to vote (securely!) from your smartphone the participation is up to you and if you decide not to vote is because you don't have time or because you don't care. Revolution at that time will not be in the agenda!
If then you decide to install a bot that let other vote for you, is a choice (dangerous I believe) I will consider developing system that prevent that (easy to do) 


Efficiency:
There is many type of problem and many way to address them. Our strategy (Airesis Team) is to analyze each problem and then brake it down in to smaller sub-problems to have the relative stakeholders address it.
So here the concept is more participation to solve your own problem.
Usually during this process many sub-problem find a solution in synthesis by the participants in the debate.
The second strategy is to use different voting system for different solution. Let's say that it need to be decided the max speed on the highway or the amount of that particular drugs that you can carry legally etc.For that we will choose the mathematical formula that show to give the best result, In candidate selection we use Schulze algorithm  and so forth. The participatory budgeting system will be for local expenditure ect.

As I open this email I say i do not exclude delegation, is fundamentally a right but we live in a delegated democracy, the fundamental question is: is functioning? My answer is NO! 
So, the rules of the game are set, we work to see if there is a way of making them better.
I do believe that delegating some one should be done only when I cannot be present during the vote.
If you give large windows of time during the vote the above become a rarity.
If the problem is divided in sub-problem your vote should be made for each sub-prolem rather than vote a single bill with hundred decision in it. Civic education should become obligatory. 

Need to go to work
Bye
j

Please test Airesis.us and give us your critics. I believe is better to work pragmatically on the development of a platform and see it in action, analyze  statistical data and from poor experiences learn and modify the platform, rather than making hypothesis.  





On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 9:46 PM, Flash Cards <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi,
1) Participation. Direct participation requires effort. Good amount of effort. Fraction of people willing to commit such effort is small. This is not because people lazy or dumb. I would say this is because people are smart (sea more below). In short, a system without delegation is doomed to have low participation, what also makes it more vulnerable to targeted subversive effort.
2) Efficiency. I read in your post that more deliberation, more consultation,
more participation is always better. I disagree. It is only better for a problem under consideration, in isolation from all other problems. Extra effort devoted to a given problem means less effort to other problems. And the output of solving this problem is not a linear function of the input effort. Usually we deal with diminishing returns. People are rational agents constrained by bounded resorcses. They always prioritize and ration their efforts. And this is the reason why most people will not participate directly in political decision making, and reasonably so. (I have in mind problems and decision making of large, societal scale).
3) Fundamental principals of democracy. I think it is simply more democratic to let people themselves to decide on extent of their involvement in democratic decision making. Not allowing them to delegate their votes (or discounting their votes) is more restrictive. It can also be technically difficult or impossible
if people are to participate via internet. People can always automate their voting using bots, for example, thus circumventing your restrictions.
I can elaborate on my points and give more reasons for vote delegation. But it would be interesting to hear your objections. I am also considering posting this or an altered version to the metagovernment list later, to see what other people may say.
Thank you for your attention,
s
I agree on the first part of your email about the vulnerability of the scoring system.
The effort necessary should be greater than the value of the range achieved!
And if spotted the whole group be so devaluated that they loose their grade for ever!
I disagree on vote delegation, sooner or later it will create disaffection like the current system.
If implemented anyway it should be with a value >1 for each delegated vote and eventually the value should be reduced as bigger is the amount of vote one single representative get.
Something like
http://blog.pietrosperoni.it/2013/04/18/delegating-in-edemocracy-my-way/
There is no best  or easy or faster path to DD it goes with awareness and the established establishment will do anything to keep it low.
The internet will do the rest! That why they even try to stop it!
But as the internet generation grow the change is coming.
bye
j
Dear Jacopo,
Post by Flash Cards
Thank you for your answer. My question was about a scoring system mentioned on the metagovernment project FAQ page. I think it is their score is more like reputation, or like what you call karma. I have not yet checked your site in detail, but it seems to me that any scoring system is vulnerable to abuse. Same is true for systems based on people evaluating each other performance. A group of people can always cheat a system, if they are willing to invest effort.
As for user vote counting, I completely agree with you, each user should have just one vote. Interesting issue for me is vote delegation. I think that a viable and efficient implementation of DD (Direct Democracy) will necessarily have this feature. To ensure wide participation in DD, people should be given option to delegate their votes. Votes could be delegated to different people (or maybe parties, organizations) for different types of issues (like education, defense, foreign policy etc).
I am also interested in hearing from other people what they think is the best/easiest/fastest path toward DD. People are frustrated with their governments, but I do not see wide DD movement. Not even much discussion about it. Why is this so?
s
Dear user S
I don't know if I understand correctly your question but I think the answer relies in the fact that each user vote ONE time.
therefore a good E-Democracy platform should have a strong certification of users.
For more indepth research I suggest
https://vote.heliosvoting.org/
http://rangevoting.org/
If your question is about some sort of Karma to apply to the users, i believe the best way is statistical information of the activity, in Airesis.eu, for example, we start to collect data about users participation based on the vote they receive in the contributions that are posted in the different proposals.
The analysis of the activity based on big numbers will permit us to develop a good score algorithm  
Bye
j
PS I do not work for metagovernment, I received this mail and I just answered
Hi,
Post by Flash Cards
 On the FAQ page it is suggested that the Metagovernment functioning
relies upon, among other things, the scoring system. In the proposed
scoring system users can score other users with weights proportional to
their own score. This is reminiscent to the Page rank, and like the Page
rank it is susceptible to abuse. There is no easy fix to such abuse, as
is evident from Google's ongoing battle against the abusers. In fact,
many scoring/recommending web-services explicitly state that they keep
details of their systems secret, to prevent abuse. How do you resolve
this issue?
Post by Flash Cards
Post by Flash Cards
Thank you,
s
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
Jacopo Tolja
2014-02-18 12:34:30 UTC
Permalink
Hi to all
Basically the system is up steadily from Feb 2013 I join the dev group in
Jan 2013 and I took the responsibility for the internationalization, We
publish the English version 4 month ago and I did not much dissemination
because I was coordinating the translators for the other 9 languages.
We did not divided the proposals by languages and by localization, because
the platform is not yet used widely but as soon as there will be groups
from other nation being created we will add in the search page the
different custom search features. And we will divide the proposal by
different mean, language, localization and other filter.

You guys are seeing something new and you are the pioneer in using the
platform.

My suggestion is to create a metagovernment group invite the member of the
ML to try it there, please be aware that the creator of the group will have
administrative rights and he will be able to create roles and give each
role different permits.
Most group that are created in Airesis they usually need to create group
rules, i believe that as I am speaking to educated people here, that want
to test the platform, will be OK to give administrative right to every one
entering the metagovernment group with the basic rule to don't change the
administrative credential.
I suggest to try different login for example create yourname then yourname1
and yourname2.
yourname will have administrative right but yourname1 will have a different
role and will have different rights (must create different roles first in
the administative panel)
If you have a group of ten people it will be a good try to start a simple
proposal and seeit in action.
Every single user have a blog and we recently added forums where discussion
will be stored, we even place a calendar feature to organize events and set
the vote day for each group.
There is a strong notification feature that can be personalized in your
personal setting.

Salut
jacopo
Post by Flash Cards
Hi Jacopo,
OK, I found good explanation here: http://www.airesis.eu/eparticipation
It all sounds interesting, I just would love to see actual
discussions/deliberations. Are there any of them in English? I could not
find on my own.
Thanks
On Monday, February 17, 2014 10:23 PM, Flash Cards <
Hi Jacopo,
I tried "Try it" session at www.airesis.eu. It looks interesting, I am
glad to see that people are actively participating, creating hundreds of
groups, debating and voting. Unfortunately all (or most) of it is in
Italian, so I could not get a good feel of the deliberation process. May be
a short guide in English (if it is not already there, but I did not notice
it) would help to bring more international users?
Thanks for mentioning the liquid feedback system. I am new to many of
these concepts. Provided such system is flexible enough (to allow well
customizable vote delegation), this is something I had in mind.
By participation I meant number of votes in support of a particular issue.
For a DD party to succeed, it is important to involve as many people as
possible. (I do not equate participation to the combined amount of energy
spent on solving a problem).
I actually think that a real (direct) participation in form of voting
alone will have huge impact on political life. Current "representative"
democracies are doing very poor job representing people. Internet and
computers present opportunity to fix it.
s
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 10:00 PM, Jacopo Tolja <
Hi S
I do not exclude delegation is proven from the experience of the pirate
party in Germany that use LQFB that the function created less participation.
Participation mean effort and effort mean time and energy. In today world
we do have little time to spare (at least in Italy) because we are busy
surviving. Now it does not imply that every one should participate in
proposal making but it should be on the final decision making. If you are
not willing to even know what is decided it mean that you deserve to live
the consequences of your absence. My and the Airesis development team idea
is that when, at the end, the personal interest will be at stakes, the
stakeholder will be involved in the decision taking.
Usually there is fronts and each fronts bring up his point of view and
this is the "education" time needed to make a good vote.
In large numbers and with a proposal making process that include
participation (in Airesis, the proposal making system still have to be
modified and developed as we learn from experience and different
methodology) I do believe that the collective intelligence will be brought
up.
When you will be able to vote (securely!) from your smartphone the
participation is up to you and if you decide not to vote is because you
don't have time or because you don't care. Revolution at that time will not
be in the agenda!
If then you decide to install a bot that let other vote for you, is a
choice (dangerous I believe) I will consider developing system that prevent
that (easy to do)
There is many type of problem and many way to address them. Our strategy
(Airesis Team) is to analyze each problem and then brake it down in to
smaller sub-problems to have the relative stakeholders address it.
So here the concept is more participation to solve your own problem.
Usually during this process many sub-problem find a solution in synthesis
by the participants in the debate.
The second strategy is to use different voting system for different
solution. Let's say that it need to be decided the max speed on the highway
or the amount of that particular drugs that you can carry legally etc.For
that we will choose the mathematical formula that show to give the best
result, In candidate selection we use Schulze algorithm and so forth. The
participatory budgeting system will be for local expenditure ect.
As I open this email I say i do not exclude delegation, is fundamentally a
right but we live in a delegated democracy, the fundamental question is: is
functioning? My answer is NO!
So, the rules of the game are set, we work to see if there is a way of making them better.
I do believe that delegating some one should be done only when I cannot be
present during the vote.
If you give large windows of time during the vote the above become a rarity.
If the problem is divided in sub-problem your vote should be made for each
sub-prolem rather than vote a single bill with hundred decision in it.
Civic education should become obligatory.
Need to go to work
Bye
j
Please test Airesis.us and give us your critics. I believe is better to
work pragmatically on the development of a platform and see it in action,
analyze statistical data and from poor experiences learn and modify the
platform, rather than making hypothesis.
Hi,
I looked at both your blog posts, where you outline math of delegated vote
discounting, and where you discuss vote delegating in general. I think, if
and how to discount votes can be debated. But I feel very strongly for vote
delegation, therefore I would like to present some arguments for it and see
1) Participation. Direct participation requires effort. Good amount of
effort. Fraction of people willing to commit such effort is small. This is
not because people lazy or dumb. I would say this is because people are
smart (sea more below). In short, a system without delegation is doomed to
have low participation, what also makes it more vulnerable to targeted
subversive effort.
2) Efficiency. I read in your post that more deliberation, more
consultation, more participation is always better. I disagree. It is only
better for a problem under consideration, in isolation from all other
problems. Extra effort devoted to a given problem means less effort to
other problems. And the output of solving this problem is not a linear
function of the input effort. Usually we deal with diminishing returns.
People are rational agents constrained by bounded resorcses. They always
prioritize and ration their efforts. And this is the reason why most people
will not participate directly in political decision making, and reasonably
so. (I have in mind problems and decision making of large, societal scale).
3) Fundamental principals of democracy. I think it is simply more
democratic to let people themselves to decide on extent of their
involvement in democratic decision making. Not allowing them to delegate
their votes (or discounting their votes) is more restrictive. It can also
be technically difficult or impossible if people are to participate via
internet. People can always automate their voting using bots, for example,
thus circumventing your restrictions.
I can elaborate on my points and give more reasons for vote delegation.
But it would be interesting to hear your objections. I am also considering
posting this or an altered version to the metagovernment list later, to see
what other people may say.
Thank you for your attention,
s
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 11:10 PM, Jacopo Tolja <
I agree on the first part of your email about the vulnerability of the scoring system.
The effort necessary should be greater than the value of the range achieved!
And if spotted the whole group be so devaluated that they loose their grade for ever!
I disagree on vote delegation, sooner or later it will create disaffection
like the current system.
If implemented anyway it should be with a value >1 for each delegated vote
and eventually the value should be reduced as bigger is the amount of vote
one single representative get.
Something like
http://blog.pietrosperoni.it/2013/04/18/delegating-in-edemocracy-my-way/
There is no best or easy or faster path to DD it goes with awareness and
the established establishment will do anything to keep it low.
The internet will do the rest! That why they even try to stop it!
But as the internet generation grow the change is coming.
bye
j
Dear Jacopo,
Thank you for your answer. My question was about a scoring system
mentioned on the metagovernment project FAQ page. I think it is their score
is more like reputation, or like what you call karma. I have not yet
checked your site in detail, but it seems to me that any scoring system is
vulnerable to abuse. Same is true for systems based on people evaluating
each other performance. A group of people can always cheat a system, if
they are willing to invest effort.
As for user vote counting, I completely agree with you, each user should
have just one vote. Interesting issue for me is vote delegation. I think
that a viable and efficient implementation of DD (Direct Democracy) will
necessarily have this feature. To ensure wide participation in DD, people
should be given option to delegate their votes. Votes could be delegated to
different people (or maybe parties, organizations) for different types of
issues (like education, defense, foreign policy etc).
I am also interested in hearing from other people what they think is the
best/easiest/fastest path toward DD. People are frustrated with their
governments, but I do not see wide DD movement. Not even much discussion
about it. Why is this so?
s
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 4:05 AM, Jacopo Tolja <
Dear user S
I don't know if I understand correctly your question but I think the
answer relies in the fact that each user vote ONE time.
therefore a good E-Democracy platform should have a strong certification of users.
For more indepth research I suggest
https://vote.heliosvoting.org/
http://rangevoting.org/
If your question is about some sort of Karma to apply to the users, i
believe the best way is statistical information of the activity, in
Airesis.eu, for example, we start to collect data about users participation
based on the vote they receive in the contributions that are posted in the
different proposals.
The analysis of the activity based on big numbers will permit us to
develop a good score algorithm
Bye
j
PS I do not work for metagovernment, I received this mail and I just answered
Hi,
I am interested in direct democracy and I have some programming
experience. Reading about the Metagovernment project raised several
questions for which I could not find answers. I asked one question on the
FAQ discussion page (http://www.metagovernment.org/wiki/Talk:FAQ) a few
days ago, but I am not sure if anyone saw it there. Therefore I decided to
On the FAQ page it is suggested that the Metagovernment functioning
relies upon, among other things, the scoring system. In the proposed
scoring system users can score other users with weights proportional to
their own score. This is reminiscent to the Page rank, and like the Page
rank it is susceptible to abuse. There is no easy fix to such abuse, as is
evident from Google's ongoing battle against the abusers. In fact, many
scoring/recommending web-services explicitly state that they keep details
of their systems secret, to prevent abuse. How do you resolve this issue?
Thank you,
s
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
Flash Cards
2014-02-18 22:08:53 UTC
Permalink
I will be happy to test Airesis  service via some metagovernment group, but it will be appropriate if a more established member of the list creates the group (I am completely new to the list and my ideas are not 100% aligned with its core). But I think, since the service emphasizes collaborative deliberation and consensus finding, it is really suitable for the list members. And the effort seems generally good for the cause of DD. Just let me know when the group is created.




On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 4:34 AM, Jacopo Tolja <***@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi to all
Basically the system is up steadily from Feb 2013 I join the dev group in Jan 2013 and I took the responsibility for the internationalization, We publish the English version 4 month ago and I did not much dissemination because I was coordinating the translators for the other 9 languages.
We did not divided the proposals by languages and by localization, because the platform is not yet used widely  but as soon as there will be groups from other nation being created we will add in the search page the different custom search features. And we will divide the proposal by different mean, language, localization  and other filter. 

You guys are seeing something new and you are the pioneer in using the platform.

My suggestion is to create a metagovernment group invite the member of the ML to try it there, please be aware that the creator of the group will have administrative rights and he will be able to create roles and give each role different permits.
Most group that are created in Airesis they usually need to create group rules, i believe that as I am speaking to educated people here, that want to test the platform, will be OK to give administrative right to every one  entering the metagovernment group with the basic rule to don't change the administrative credential.
I suggest to try different login for example create yourname then yourname1 and yourname2.
yourname will have administrative right but yourname1 will have a different role and will have different rights (must create different roles first in the administative panel)
If you have a group of ten people it will be a good try to start a simple proposal and seeit in action.
Every single user have a blog and we recently added forums where discussion will be stored, we even place a calendar feature to organize events and set the vote day for each group.
There is a strong notification feature that can be personalized in your personal setting.

Salut
jacopo






On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Flash Cards <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi Jacopo,
Post by Flash Cards
OK, I found good explanation here: http://www.airesis.eu/eparticipation
It all sounds interesting, I just would love to see actual discussions/deliberations. Are there any of them in English? I could not find on my own.
Thanks
Hi Jacopo,
I tried "Try it" session at www.airesis.eu. It looks interesting, I am glad to see that people are actively participating, creating hundreds of groups, debating and voting. Unfortunately all (or most) of it is in Italian, so I could not get a good feel of the deliberation process. May be a short guide in English (if it is not already there, but I did not notice it) would help to bring more international users?
Thanks for mentioning the liquid feedback system. I am new to many of these concepts. Provided such system is flexible enough (to allow well customizable vote delegation), this is something I had in mind.
By participation I meant number of votes in support of a
particular issue. For a DD party to succeed, it is important to involve as many people as
possible. (I do not equate participation to the combined amount of energy spent on solving a problem).
Post by Flash Cards
I actually think that a real (direct) participation in form of voting alone will have huge impact on political life. Current "representative" democracies are doing very poor job representing people. Internet and computers present opportunity to fix it.
s
Hi S
I do not exclude delegation is proven from the experience of the pirate party in Germany that use LQFB that the function created less participation.
Participation mean effort and effort mean time and energy. In today world we do have little time to spare (at least in Italy) because we are busy surviving. Now it does not imply that every one should participate in proposal making but it should be on the final decision making. If you are not willing to even know what is decided it mean that you deserve to live the consequences of your absence. My and  the Airesis development team idea is that when, at the end, the personal interest will be at stakes, the stakeholder will be involved in the decision taking.
Usually there is fronts and each fronts bring up his point of view and this is the "education" time needed to make a good vote.
In large numbers and with a proposal making process that include participation (in Airesis, the proposal making system still have to be modified and developed as we learn from experience and different methodology)  I do believe that the collective intelligence will be brought up.
When you will be able to vote (securely!) from your smartphone the participation is up to you and if you decide not to vote is because you don't have time or because you don't care. Revolution at that time will not be in the agenda!
If then you decide to install a bot that let other vote for you, is a choice (dangerous I believe) I will consider developing system that prevent that (easy to do) 
There is many type of problem and many way to address them. Our strategy (Airesis Team) is to analyze each problem and then brake it down in to smaller sub-problems to have the relative stakeholders address it.
So here the concept is more participation to solve your own problem.
Usually during this process many sub-problem find a solution in synthesis by the participants in the debate.
The second strategy is to use different voting system for different solution. Let's say that it need to be decided the max speed on the highway or the amount of that particular drugs that you can carry legally etc.For that we will choose the mathematical formula that show to give the best result, In candidate selection we use Schulze algorithm  and so forth. The participatory budgeting system will be for local expenditure ect.
As I open this email I say i do not exclude delegation, is fundamentally a right but we live in a delegated democracy, the fundamental question is: is functioning? My answer is NO! 
So, the rules of the game are set, we work to see if there is a way of making them better.
I do believe that delegating some one should be done only when I cannot be present during the vote.
If you give large windows of time during the vote the above become a rarity.
If the problem is divided in sub-problem your vote should be made for each sub-prolem rather than vote a single bill with hundred decision in it. Civic education should become obligatory. 
Need to go to work
Bye
j
Please test Airesis.us and give us your critics. I believe is better to work pragmatically on the development of a platform and see it in action, analyze  statistical data and from poor experiences learn and modify the platform, rather than making hypothesis.  
Hi,
1) Participation. Direct participation requires effort. Good amount of effort. Fraction of people willing to commit such effort is small. This is not because people lazy or dumb. I would say this is because people are smart (sea more below). In short, a system without delegation is doomed to have low participation, what also makes it more vulnerable to targeted subversive effort.
2) Efficiency. I read in your post that more deliberation, more consultation,
more participation is always better. I disagree. It is only better for a problem under consideration, in isolation from all other problems. Extra effort devoted to a given problem means less effort to other problems. And the output of solving this problem is not a linear function of the input effort. Usually we deal with diminishing returns. People are rational agents constrained by bounded resorcses. They always prioritize and ration their efforts. And this is the reason why most people will not participate directly in political decision making, and reasonably so. (I have in mind problems and decision making of large, societal scale).
Post by Flash Cards
3) Fundamental principals of democracy. I think it is simply more democratic to let people themselves to decide on extent of their involvement in democratic decision making. Not allowing them to delegate their votes (or discounting their votes) is more restrictive. It can also be technically difficult or impossible
if people are to participate via internet. People can always automate their voting using bots, for example, thus circumventing your restrictions.
Post by Flash Cards
I can elaborate on my points and give more reasons for vote delegation. But it would be interesting to hear your objections. I am also considering posting this or an altered version to the metagovernment list later, to see what other people may say.
Thank you for your attention,
s
I agree on the first part of your email about the vulnerability of the scoring system.
The effort necessary should be greater than the value of the range achieved!
And if spotted the whole group be so devaluated that they loose their grade for ever!
I disagree on vote delegation, sooner or later it will create disaffection like the current system.
If implemented anyway it should be with a value >1 for each delegated vote and eventually the value should be reduced as bigger is the amount of vote one single representative get.
Something like
http://blog.pietrosperoni.it/2013/04/18/delegating-in-edemocracy-my-way/
There is no best  or easy or faster path to DD it goes with awareness and the established establishment will do anything to keep it low.
The internet will do the rest! That why they even try to stop it!
But as the internet generation grow the change is coming.
bye
j
Dear Jacopo,
Post by Flash Cards
Thank you for your answer. My question was about a scoring system mentioned on the metagovernment project FAQ page. I think it is their score is more like reputation, or like what you call karma. I have not yet checked your site in detail, but it seems to me that any scoring system is vulnerable to abuse. Same is true for systems based on people evaluating each other performance. A group of people can always cheat a system, if they are willing to invest effort.
As for user vote counting, I completely agree with you, each user should have just one vote. Interesting issue for me is vote delegation. I think that a viable and efficient implementation of DD (Direct Democracy) will necessarily have this feature. To ensure wide participation in DD, people should be given option to delegate their votes. Votes could be delegated to different people (or maybe parties, organizations) for different types of issues (like education, defense, foreign policy etc).
I am also interested in hearing from other people what they think is the best/easiest/fastest path toward DD. People are frustrated with their governments, but I do not see wide DD movement. Not even much discussion about it. Why is this so?
s
Dear user S
I don't know if I understand correctly your question but I think the answer relies in the fact that each user vote ONE time.
therefore a good E-Democracy platform should have a strong certification of users.
For more indepth research I suggest
https://vote.heliosvoting.org/
http://rangevoting.org/
If your question is about some sort of Karma to apply to the users, i believe the best way is statistical information of the activity, in Airesis.eu, for example, we start to collect data about users participation based on the vote they receive in the contributions that are posted in the different proposals.
The analysis of the activity based on big numbers will permit us to develop a good score algorithm  
Bye
j
PS I do not work for metagovernment, I received this mail and I just answered
Hi,
Post by Flash Cards
 On the FAQ page it is suggested that the Metagovernment functioning
relies upon, among other things, the scoring system. In the proposed
scoring system users can score other users with weights proportional to
their own score. This is reminiscent to the Page rank, and like the Page
rank it is susceptible to abuse. There is no easy fix to such abuse, as
is evident from Google's ongoing battle against the abusers. In fact,
many scoring/recommending web-services explicitly state that they keep
details of their systems secret, to prevent abuse. How do you resolve
this issue?
Post by Flash Cards
Post by Flash Cards
Post by Flash Cards
Thank you,
s
_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...