[MG] Start Digest, Vol 37, Issue 1

[Jens Egholm]

> Welcome Jens,

Thanks :) I wasn't aware these brilliant mailinglists existed before
you pointed me to them :)

> I wonder what he [Bohman] means by "mass-to-mass communication" and
> "mini-publics". ?Do you have the full citation?

Mass-to-mass communication (actually I misquoted him, he termed it
"many-to-many" instead) are basically the method of communicating in
fora where many can talk to many in contrast to previous medias
(television, newspaper etc.) (for the full quote see Bohman 2010 pp.
83, 89 f.).
The minipublics are institutional "smaller publics" where citizens can
deliberate. "A minipublic is thus an institutionally constructed
intermediary in popular will formation, although is could act in such
a was as to become an agent for the creation of a larger public with
normative powers" (Bohman 2010 p. 88).
Anyway; The idea is to create smaller publics, so actual deliberation
can take place, as required by the idea about deliberative democracy.
It was this concept I wanted to couple with proxy-voting: Imagine
small institutionally underlined minipublics consiting of a proxy and
it's principals, that take part in a deliberative process. That, if
anything, has to be deliberation? :)

> My first introduction to the public sphere was Blanning's "The culture
> of power and the power of culture: old regime Europe 1660-1789"
> http://books.google.ca/books?id=3qCIzooCRlwC
> It's enjoyable, but not so eye-opening as Habermas's original book:
> "The structural transformation of the public sphere"
> http://books.google.ca/books?id=e799caakIWoC
>
> For me, these historical studies make all the difference. ?The
> prospect that new techniques like recursive voting might prop up and
> support the public sphere is not so exciting, in itself, as the
> prospect that they might *reinflate* it.

Exactly. I agree that the technology has no intrinsic value. The
exiting part is when it's instrumental value is allowed to blossom.
Specifically (if it has interest) I'm examining the prospects of
proxy-voting in an EU context. I'll make sure to search for the books
you mention. That's a great help, thank you.

> But is it realistic? ?To restructure parliament in "liquid" form would
> involve changing the constitution. ?That would certainly meet with
> strong and competent opposition from the political class, not to
> mention others.
>
> It would also go against historical precedent. ?During the
> Enlightenment, the institutions of the state were not the first to be
> restructured in democratic form; the first to be restructured were
> those of the public sphere. ?It might even be considered more
> democratic that it happened that in that particular order, which would
> make it one of those rare cases (seemingly) in which the more
> realistic approach is actually closer to the ideal, and not further
> from it.

You're probably right. I'll condense my assignment to concentrate on
the proxy-voting. But on another note if we look away from the
realistic issue; is it desirable? Think about the current system of
voting for a bit. It's given that over a period of 4-5 years at least
some of the representatives will have taken a new political
standpoint, to the disadvantage (not to mention the democratic
disadvantage) of the voters. It's really silly to have a system where
your vote are tied to a person for a set period, while the person
doesn't have to answer to his/her votes.
I realize the practical aspects are challenging, but it doesn't have
to be a legislature we're testing the idea on. It might as well be
some institutional arrangements or other organization.

Sincerely,
Jens Egholm



Originally posted to the mailing list of the Metagovernment Project:
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org