Metapolitics

[Michael Allan]

Thanks for replying Conan,

> So yes, voter's 'leanings' on issues would be ascertained via some
> sort of questionnaire that would attempt to place them on the RGB
> chart in one of 3 'camps'. This process would also indicate what
> areas or issues in which the voter shares common ground with
> competing camps. ...

So essentially the voter's political leanings are classified as a
point in 3 dimensions.  This is expressed as a colour.

> > ...  If so, can the colour somehow vary from issue to issue (say a
> > foreign policy issue vs. domestic), or is the same vote applied to
> > all issues?

I missed your answer to this question.  What you describe sounds more
like a classification done *on* the user (object), rather than a vote
*by* the user (subject).

> To sum all of this up, I would be very interested in working on some
> sort of shared / collaborative VRDB (I am henceforth claiming that
> term for this use - Avast be damned). The same goes for mirroring
> and shared issue-identifiers. My only concern about any of this
> would be the potential for developing another political
> 'monoculture' such as the one we seem to have now. I personally
> believe that the best hope for protecting democratic freedoms lies
> in nurturing debate and offering a voice to divergent points of
> view.

Once I understand more about your own project, I should be able to
reply to the registration information you offer below.  But I
definitely agree about monocultures and such.  I think a design
culture based on user freedom is essential in this domain.

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
http://zelea.com/


Conan Duke wrote:
> *Michael,*
> 
> Thanks for your interest and response.
> 
> First, in answer to your questions* (a, b & c)*
> 
> A voter registration database would be an important consideration. It seemed
> logical to me that there would already be some sort of Open Source VRDB
> (Voter Registration Database) Software being used in various projects.
> Google begs to differ however - informing me that VRDB is the acronym most
> commonly used for *''Variable Rated Demand Bonds" *(a financial instrument)
> and to Avast Software's (a popular antivirus suite) *"Virus Repository
> Database"*. Only Wikipedia had ever heard of such a thing where it is
> referred-to simply as a *'Voter Database' *- a page containing some
> surprising (and revealing) information on the subject:
> 
> *"The United States has no state or federal election agency, and thus no
> central lists. In 2002, the United States Congress passed HAVA, the Help
> America Vote Act. HAVA required that each state compile an official state
> voter database by January 2006. Most states complied with HAVA by gathering
> the voter files available from each individual county. States decided what
> information to include, what restrictions to place on the use of their voter
> database, and how much the database would cost. In the United States,
> several companies have merged state voter information with commercially
> obtained data to create comprehensive voter databases that include a
> plethora of personal details on each voter. These companies often provide
> United States Voter Files to statutorily permitted or otherwise
> non-restricted users."*
> 
> ...Thus, there are numerous state-wide databases to be found, but no
> centralized repository of voter data.
> 
> At first glance this is kind of staggering to me considering how vast the
> Federal Government is. But upon further inspection, it makes perfect sense,
> as the potential for abuse of such a repository would be so great, that
> mustering the political will to create one would probably have been quite
> difficult. Thus, such a resource has (apparently, ostensibly, "officially"
> and to the best of our knowledge) never been built. - I qualified that
> statement as I am almost willing to bet that *private *repositories have
> indeed been secretly compile by the likes of *Diebold*, et al. The fact that
> this has never been done is is a double edged sword with a lot of
> implications. From a security / privacy-risk standpoint (concerns that are
> not without precedent<http://www.spamfighter.com/News-16708-Malicious-Program-Compromises-Database-of-Maines-Voter-Registration.htm>),
> it is encouraging in the sense that it indicates our collective values in
> rejecting totalitarianism and abuse of power. However, it is also a bit
> discouraging in the sense that it seems to indicate a lack of cooperation or
> coordination in protecting democratic freedoms.
> 
> *So, from where I'm standing, the whole issue of VRDBs is segmented thus:*
> 
> * 1)* The need to ensure a reliable, accurate means of securing and
> authenticating voter identities. (*logistic*)
> 
> * 2) *The software that #1 (above) would need to run under (*technical*)
> 
> I've already addressed my thoughts on #1 above. Ad for #2, while there does
> not appear to be an existing Open Source solution, there are numerous
> commercial packages available. With politics these days being so thoroughly
> clouded by money, special interests and lobbyists, it almost goes without
> saying that a 'private' solution is the worst possible approach. Here are
> the ones that I've unearthed:
> 
>  - *VoteBuilder* <http://www.votebuilder.com> from:
> *NGPVAN<http://www.ngpvan.com>
> *
>  - *AccuVote<http://www.premierelections.com/secure_solutions/voting_equipment.html>
> * from *Premier Election* (*front for Diebold*)
>  - *ES&S <http://www.essvote.com/HTML/home.html> *from *Election Systems &
> Software Inc.
> 
> ...There are more, but I don't feel like listing them because - as far as
> I'm concerned - they are all part of the problem.
> 
> To sum all of this up, I would be very interested in working on some sort of
> shared / collaborative VRDB (I am henceforth claiming that term for this use
> - Avast be damned). The same goes for mirroring and shared
> issue-identifiers. My only concern about any of this would be the potential
> for developing another political 'monoculture' such as the one we seem to
> have now. I personally believe that the best hope for protecting democratic
> freedoms lies in nurturing debate and offering a voice to divergent points
> of view.
> *
> *In answer to your question regarding Metapolitik.org:*
> *
> "I have the impression that a user's vote is expressed as an RGB colour
> that is automatically calculated (output) based on some description of
> interests supplied by the user (input).  Is that correct?  If so, can
> the colour somehow vary from issue to issue (say a foreign policy
> issue vs. domestic), or is the same vote applied to all issues?"*
> 
> *First, some background:*
> 
> The entire project is based on my observation that the 2-axis, linear,
> political 'spectrum' (as advanced by the Nolan chart and others) is
> inadequate to describe the complex positions that an individual or group may
> take on any particular issue. I believe that this shortcoming stems from a
> 'dualistic' approach to political debate which attempts to reduce all
> dialogue into a 2-option, either-or scenario. Much like the deficiencies
> addressed in your draft, the framing of political debate along a single axis
> whereby the voter must choose between one of two polar choices, leaves a lot
> to be desired (just as the closed-process, two-party electoral system in
> which one or the other of two competing and wholly entrenched political
> parties is - to put it lightly - less than democratic). Thus, unlike the
> Nolan chart which plots political leanings across a 2-axis (X,Y) chart,
> Metapolitik charts these positions accross 3-axis (X,Y,Z) chart. Thus adding
> a 'third option' for those times when the choices that present themselves
> are either undesirable or inaccurate. All of the published information on
> this system can be found here:
> 
>  - Nutshell <http://metapolitik.org/content/nutshell>
>  - Introduction <http://metapolitik.org/content/introduction>
> 
> So yes, voter's 'leanings' on issues would be ascertained via some sort of
> questionnaire that would attempt to place them on the RGB chart in one of 3
> 'camps'. This process would also indicate what areas or issues in which the
> voter shares common ground with competing camps. Americans Elect uses a
> similar setup but I am very critical and distrustful of that whole project
> for reasons that I explain
> here<http://metapolitik.org/content/american-select-0>
> .
> 
> *Sorry this was so long.*
> 
> 
> ~Conan
> godspeed2048 at gmail.com
> conan at metapolitik.org