because I was coordinating the translators for the other 9 languages.
different custom search features. And we will divide the proposal by
different mean, language, localization and other filter.
role different permits.
proposal and seeit in action.
the vote day for each group.
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.
On Monday, February 17, 2014 10:23 PM, Flash Cards <
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.
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 10:00 PM, Jacopo Tolja <
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
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
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.
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
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,
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.
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.
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?
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
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
The analysis of the activity based on big numbers will permit us to
develop a good score algorithm
PS I do not work for metagovernment, I received this mail and I just answered
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?
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project