Direct democracy

[Michael Allan]

Martin Gustavsson wrote:
> -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.

You're right, Martin.  My understanding of statistics is at fault.  A
median cannot be skewed by extreme values in the way that a mean can.
It's a good measure for the purpose you intend (budgetary decisions),
almost as good as an actual consensus.  (This is an interesting
scenario, not considered before, so I'll answer at some length.)

An open budgeting election can be done (e.g. in Votorola) in a similar
fashion as an open policy, petition or legislative election.  The open
approach would have several advantages over the traditional
alternative of a dumb, closed poll.  In a closed poll, the electoral
authority drafts the question; and people fill in the answers.  Later,
they are told the results.  Open elections improve on this, as
follows:

In an open election, the question (or framework) of the election is a
public *initiative*.  An electoral authority might pose the initial
question (just to get people started), but so might anyone else.

Furthermore, voters are free to *rewrite* the question as the election
proceeds.  For example, consider an initial budget question that looks
as follows (the voter being expected to answer by filling in the
blanks):

  A  ______ %

  B  ______ %

  C  ______ %

As the election proceeds, we may discover answers that look like this:

  A  ______ %

  B  ______ %

  X  ______ %

  Y  ______ %


Not everybody will have the expertise to re-frame a question in this
way.  But for those who *do* (call them budget drafters), re-framing
the question is one way in which they can share their knowledge with
the rest of us voters.

Nor will everybody have the expertise to fill in the blanks.  That can
also be a job for our volunteer budget drafters.  Other voters can
then choose among these drafters, with their variant drafts, and
select the one that seems most reasonable to them.

Nor will everybody feel competent, even, for that choice.  How many
among us can make sensible budget decisions?  For those who cannot,
how can we participate effectively in the decision?  Open elections
solve this problem with a 'delegate cascade'.  The following is
extracted from the context of a legislative bill, but the reader will
see how it applies equally to a budget document.

  http://zelea.com/project/votorola/a/design.xht#ca-culture-community

  ...consider an object of law: a legislative bill for tax reform.
  Most residents are not actually going to read a legislative bill.
  (Even professional legislators often read only a summary.)
  Nevertheless, almost every member of the community does have an
  interest in tax legislation.  Consequently, they also have a
  motivation to vote.  This poses no problem for the consensual
  medium, because it is a delegate cascade.  A typical voter who lacks
  the time and expertise to read a legislative draft will nevertheless
  have time to cast a vote.  She can do this in an informed manner,
  for example, by voting for a friend who is better informed than
  herself -- perhaps a friend who is a tax accountant -- and has
  similar interests to her own.  By casting a vote on the basis of
  trusted and reliable information, such as this, she is making an
  informed decision.  If she has doubts or questions, she can direct
  them to her chosen candidate.  By engaging her friend in dialogue
  and weighing the answers, she can decide whether to leave her vote
  in place, or to shift it to another candidate.

You see when discussion comes in: *during* the election, not before.
This works because the election is a continuous, non-stop, never
ending process...

> - 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.

Nevertheless, it is an improvement to have a continuous election, a
continual discussion.  People ought to be voting, asking questions,
and shifting their votes accordingly, at their own convenience.  It is
easy for the electoral authority to calculate the results it needs
according to its own timing (e.g. annually for the budget), but the
election and the discussion ought to keep on going.  (In other words,
open elections are for communities.  They run on community time, not
political/administrative time.)

> -Programming language?

Java.  External interfaces (such as Web user interfaces) can actually
be coded in any language.  But the core of the system is Java.

System administrators will also use scripting languages in order to
customize electoral services (elections and electoral register).  The
system will support a variety of common scripting languages.

A script is how you could calculate a median.  This would only have to
be done if people failed to reach consensus.  The budget drafts
(expressing variant resource allocations, for which people vote) would
have to be composed in a *structured* markup language. (Like XHTML.
It's the latest standard, anyway, for all Web docs.)  You could easily
read and parse such documents with a script, and extract the values.
The script could also read the vote counts from the election.  It
could then calculate the median result.  The budget documents,
scripts, etc., on which the calculation was based would be public (as
are all electoral results) and open to independent verification.

-- 
Michael Allan

http://zelea.com/