Direct democracy

[Michael Allan]

Martin Gustavsson wrote:
> Thanks. We (the people) like the following things:
> * Open source
> * Open and visible voting, webpage for reading for all members, not only
> admin. (for safety so that the result can not be questioned, at least as a
> choice).
> * every vote should be possible to question and investigate by contacting
> the voter.
> * Presentation of the result in numbers and procentually on a public
> webpage.
> * Public forum for debate where we agree on what to vote for and how to
> describe the issue and the choices. (connection to googlegroups might be a
> very ok solution).

These (or equivalents) will be in the first beta release.

> * Anonymity through name of user or anonynomous e-mail. Admin must however
> be able to register members to avoid double votes cast.

Anononymous voting (secret ballot) will be added in later beta
releases.

> optional but very much needed in decisionmaking.
> *Priority voting ex. 1C 2B 3A

Not possible with current design.  Developers would have to look at
your use cases -- the practice you are aiming at.  You and they would
then decide whether to change the design and/or the practice.

> *Budget voting ex. commersials 30, material for the streets 40. Median value
> is the result.

I would argue against this approach, on grounds of legitimacy and
stability.  A median result is not a consensus result, and it might
satisfy nobody.  It might have no legitimacy in the eyes of the
voters.

Worse, people will vote strategically, exaggerating their values in
order to skew the result ("100% for my streets, 0% for everyone else").
The process will escalate into a battle.  It will be unstable.

Better is a process of rational discourse, leading to a consensus.
People will talk and listen.  The result will be an informed decision,
rather than knee-jerk opinion.

> * General Public License

Our licence is MIT, which is simpler and less restrictive than GPL.

-- 
Michael Allan

http://zelea.com/