Direct democracy

[Martin Gustavsson]

-Good. So now it will be public. That  is satisfactory too.

-So priority voting not possible with current design? Ok. I know however
that it is possible in theory to program it in the future and with a MIT
lic. it will be ok for us to modify it later.

-Maybe we misunderstand  eachother. The "median" result is exactly the
middle result and NOT the mean result.  Therefor it will be accepted  as the
most democratic. Trust me!Otherwise I would agree with you.

- Yes, before every vote there is discussion trying to reach better
solutions and hopefully understanding and consensus and if this is not
possible at least we always reach consensus about how to vote. We have done
this so faar. It works good.

-I read about MIT licence and it seems to be very good.

-Programming language?
2008/2/23, Michael Allan <mike at zelea.com>:
>
>
> 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/
>
>
> >
>


-- 
Peace vision -> More democracy -> How? -> www.aktivdemokrati.se


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.reluk.ca/list/votorola/attachments/20080224/fea9f237/attachment-0007.html>