At 01:53 AM 3/14/2013, Paul Nollen wrote:
About demoex and related iniatiatives (E2D
http://e2d-international.org ), it was, as far
as I understand not the intention to overtake
the whole political system with this experiment.
It is just a "Trojan horse" to breach the power
of the political parties in order to establish a
direct democracy more or less build around the Swiss example (to start with).
The question still is: How do you evolve to a
direct democracy in a particracy that does not
allow direct democracy and where parties have
direct democracy in their program just to forget it after elections.
And Demoex was, and is, a possible answer.
Not really, not as Demoex was run. It *was* an
experiment and thus some aspects of answer may be
learned from it. We are, however, short on deteiled information about Demoex.
First of all, direct democracy, just that simple,
is a Bad Idea when the scale becomes large, and
it can be untenable even on a small scale, long-term.
Direct democracy is what people do naturally,
when the scale is small. However, as the scale increases, difficulties arise.
The democracy that has been successful is
*deliberative* democracy. Deliberation on a large
scale can *seem* to work for a while, but
participation bias can kill it. Wikipedia is a case in point.
I don't know what Demoex is currently doing, but
this is from http://demoex.net/en/
Demoex concept is to mix direct- and
representative democracy. Our arena is this Internet site.
How does it work?
When Demoex get the summons to a new meeting we
sort out the issues we are interested in. These
issues are then debated before we finally send
our ballots the day before the meeting. Our
representatives in the local government votes like the majority of the members.
Demoex originally used Nordfors software, which
implemented delegable proxy. However, they
shifted to Membro software, and then, in 2008, to
their own. It is unclear whether or not they are using delegable proxy.
If they are, it could be working reasonably well,
but ... they are still apparently electing, not a
true representative, but a rubber-stamp for
majority opinion in the Demoex process. That does
not fit with the deliberative process in the local parliament.
The last reports I see show Demoex went from 1.7%
in the 2002 election, raised to 2.6% in 2006.
They elected one seat both years. For
perspective, the population of Vallentua is
reported in Wikipedia as 25,228. It is unclear if
the associated municipality, Taby, would be
represented in the parliament, if so, the population basis would be 85,425.
The page above refers to a blog for more information about Demoex.
http://pernor.wordpress.com/category/demoex/
This blog is obviously promoting Demoex and
deprecating at least one of the other parties
that took seats in the election, the Sweden
Democrats. In the latest post in this Demoex
section of the blog, Juluy 4, 2012, the Demoex
Way (roughly) is promoted for use around the world.
Posts of November 2 and December 12, 2011,
announced a book being published about Demoex and
plans to create software for on-line democracy,
following the Demoex model. Are they aware of Votorola?
January 18, 2011:
Demoex has tried, but failed, to create a
platform for joint public political debate on
the web. The elected representatives from the
traditional parties have refused to participate
in this democratic experiment. Instead they have
marginalised Demoex through out the eight years.
In other words, it's their fault we failed. The blog goes on:
The greatest obstacle is the party systems
hierarchical structure. Hierarchies in politics
mean that power is concentrated on only a
handful of people. None of them benefit from
sacrificing party interests for the benefit of a greater good.
This assumes that representatives "benefit" by
being elected. It totally ignores the other side
of this issue, and it identifies, as the problem,
what is probably inevitable in *any organization*
-- including Demoex. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy
There are solutions to the problem, but the Demoex model won't work.
What we see below is an assumption that members
of a town council will vote purely according to
party interests, rather than their own opinions.
Now, it looks like a system of PR is being used,
probably party-list. So members *are* identified
by party. In the US, town offices are commonly
elected without party designations. In hybrd
direct/representative democracy systems, as I've
been proposing, party-list and party
affiliations, while they might be known, would
not be on the ballot, and, indeed, there would be
no names on the ballot. Old-style ballot, the
name -- or a numerical code -- is written in.
But this assumes the election of
*representatives* with *discretion.* And the
system being proposed, Asset Voting, creates an
Electoral College of all those who received
votes, and it is *possible* that these "electors"
could cast their votes directly if they wish, on
issues. And *anyone* could become an elector.
Just register. So ... direct voting is possible,
but there is, essentially, a default vote that is
cast by elected members of the Assembly.
Demoex has actually demonstrated the problems of
the kind of direct democracy that they are
advocating. They call it, somewhere,
direct/representative, but the representative
does not represent people in the Council who
voted for them, but the party majority's
expressed position. This "representative" could
be replaced with a rubber stamp.
Direct democracy exists where public intiative
and referendum exist. And, I'd say, it is a
device for giving power to those whe can spend
the most money on a political campaign, or who
have the best media access. A true reform might
*use* the party system, where it exists, but
would, indeed, remove the influence -- and
necessity -- of money for campaigning.
Lots of people naively think that direct
democracy would be better than what we have. Town
Meeting government, which is direct democracy, is
still common in New England. As towns increase in
population, eventually, they move to a
Mayor/Council government. Amherst, MA, retained
what it called "Town Meeting," through a special
state law allowing it, but that "Meeting" is, as
I recall, something like 300 people, elected by
majority vote from small districts. And it's
famous for untenable discussions. *Far too many
people.* Unless it creates and uses an effective committee system.
So, Demoex may get a certain knee-jerk vote based
purely on the idea that it's "direct democracy."
They seem to have the support of about 1/40 of
the voters. I don't know the demographics, but
1/40 is not enough to give them two seats, and
about 1/60 was enough for one. That does *not*
mean that they actually had a direct quota,
necessarily, they might merely have been the largest block remaining.
If anyone can compile better statistics on Demoex, it could be useful.
It is unknown if they are using delegable proxy.
With delegable proxy, they should be able to
negotiate 2/3 consensus, and then only consider a
2/3 vote to be routinely binding on their
representative. For the representative to be
*obligated* to vote based on the opinions of
those *who did not participate in the parliament
deliberations* is directly contrary to strong
democratic traditions. It is because Robert's
Rules of Order thinks of proxy voting as being
"instructed voting" that they strongly discourage
it. Basic handbook of democracy....
They do mention "advisors." "Advisor" was
Nordfors word for what I called the "proxy." It
emphasizes the "outbound" flow of information,
the proxy designations and conversations between
proxies and clients is the inbound flow. So
Nordfors and I, at one point, wrote about the AP, the Advisor/Proxy....
Competition between ideas is important in
politics, but the hierarchical system harms
competition between ideas by blocking free flow
of information in order to protect the partys mandate. Two recent examples:
This is the claim and impression, and what may be
true about this is that the *official political
structure* is vulnerable to partisan politics.
However, in reality, and especially in small
towns, information flows readily *outside the
official structure.* My sense is that Demoex has
attracted "outsiders" who don't participate much
in the already-existing defacto communications
structure. They think of what goes on in terms of
insiders (the other people) and outsiders (them).
In small towns, though, from what I've seen, most
people volunteer to serve on councils because
they want to serve the town. Their friends and
neighbors. I lived in a small New England town
for some years, and, basically, it was difficult
to get people to volunteer for town offices. If
you wanted to serve, and weren't completely
crazy, you could do it. You could go to Town
Meeting if you wanted, and it was often difficult
to get a quorum, which I think was 30 or so. But
if there was some Huge Issue -- and as I recall,
this only had to do with outside political
issues, not actual town business! -- the room
would be packed to overflowing and nothing could
actually be done except to listen to a few speeches.
September 6th 2010: Demoex submitted an
interpellation to implement a democracy
experiment that streaches across party lines.
The majority of the City Council even prohibited
the interpellation from beeing put forward.
Further, Demoex inquired whether the
municipality would be willing to publish
politicians blogs on the municipalitys website
before the election. The mayor then claimed,
that he could not possibly answer the question
due to lack of information, although he had three months to investigate.
I.e., they "failed" because others didn't see the
need. What was the actual "experiment"? And why
should, indeed, those elected under the existing
system think that the system should be
"improved." They had seen, for eight years, how
Demoex worked, and the signs are that they disliked it.
What would stop Demoex from just going ahead with
their experiment? Indeed, isn't Demoex itself
supposed to be such an experiment, anyone can join.
And why should the city publish blogs from
politicians before the election? How is it chosen
whose blogs are published? Anything submitted?
This could create an administrative nightmare,
legal issues, etc. Why can't Demoex *just do it*?
Invite all candidates that it's willing to invite
to submit statements or blogs.
Basically, this blog is being written by Per
Norback, who "believes in" Demoex, and who
clearly doesn't see what *others involved in the
town's government" see. He is apparently the
current Demoex representative. So ... he's
*partisan*. Clearly. Just over a different set of
issues, perhaps, than other representatives.
September 13th 2010: Remuneration Committee
proposes a dramatic increase of fees for the
up-coming term. The municipality councils board
did not mention the issue beforehand on the
agenda. The board decided that the chairmen of
municipality boards together with the opposition
party leader will have 65 percent increase of
salaries. It seems like a deliberate strategy to
keep voters unaware of the increase.
If so, didn't work. Notice, why do "voters" need
to be "aware" of the recommendation of the
Renumeration Committee? (*Demoex* wants this. So,
I would expect Per to vote against this. But
wait, he didn't have instructions? Does he vote
his own opinion, or does he have specific
instructions for how to handle matters like this?
Does he vote his personal opinion on such matters
as Amendements, Table, Postpone?
This is someone who seems a bit paranoid about
what happens in the Council. But notice that the
salary increase was for the *opposition* party
leader. I'd assume that is the ordinary minority
party on the Council. Not the majority party or
party with the most seats. Per seems to have an
opinion that this is an *obvious* example of
system breakdown due to the party system. In
other words, he's only looking from his own
rather narrow point of view. What was the vote on
the Council? How much opposition was there to this proposal, and from whom?
The blog links to a book in preparation, one chapter
http://pernor.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/chapter-10-in-english1.pdf
In the past, I mentioned Wikipedia, a great example of what people
can do by working together with common visions and ideas. I would
like to see a »Wikimocracy« with the same commitment, but with
political issues in all kinds of languages in different countries instead
of dictionary words. The site would have referendums at all levels
municipal, regional, state or provincial and federal. People should have
the right to vote in the political bodies to which they belong.
He's totally naive. Wikipedia, that train-wreck,
as an example. I should acknowledge that
Wikipedia, in certain ways, worked, but
frequently breaks down where there is
controversy. That's because it never established
a workable, adequately efficient, deliberative
structure. There is some decent theory behind
Wikipedia, but the site actually never
implemented structures to enforce the "policies."
It's all done ad-hoc and with very high
unreliability.... and, supposedly, decisions on Wikipedia are not made by vote.
Yes, people should have the right to vote in "the
political bodies to which they belong." However,
the vast majority of people, in democracies, only
belong to one political body, the overall
electorate. They don't belong to the Town
Council, the State Legislature, the Federal
Legislature. They have the right to vote of
citizens in the city, state, nation. And they
vote for people to *represent them*.
Many of us here are working for systems that more
fairly create actual representation. Demoex
attempts to turn the governmental process into
direct democracy, which is classically known to
break down when the size gets above some value.
(I was just having this conversation, some think
it starts to break down at about 30 people,
long-term. If most of my small town's voters
actually showed up at Town Meeting, that would be
about 600 voters. Completely untenable for any
serious, deep discussion. If that discussion is
going to happen, it has to happen outside of Town
Meeting, which means it's advisory.
Giving advice, as distinct from attempting to
control, would have been the proper role of
Demoex. They can elect a member who is specially
pledged to *respect* that advice, and to review
the discussions, but I highly recommend electing
such a representative as being someone trusted to
make apparently contrary decisions, on the spot,
as the representative see's fit for the welfare of the town.
What has been set up with Demoex is a system
which, instead, serves the expressed opinions of
a *party*. Does it allow negotiated compromise?
To get more information, I'll need to look at
sites in Swedish. First of all, the election results are on this page:
http://www.val.se/val/val2010/slutresultat/K/kommun/01/15/index.html
It looks like there were 21,880 eligible voters.
Of these, 83.52% actually voted. There are 8
parties that got more votes than Demoex. One of
the pages, the Demoex or blog page, mentioned the
Swedish Democrats, as Bad in some way. Looking at
the election results, it's obvious why. For the
two parties, which are at the bottom of the list,
there being only a category of Other Parties that
got 0.7% of the vote, 2006 and 2010 results
follow, with percentages based on a total of
18,373 non-blank and non-spoiled votes:
2006 2010
Demoex 2.85% 1.76%
SD 1.12% 2.68%
In 2006, Demoex was supported by 471 voters. In
spite of total turnout increasing from 16528 to
18373, Demoex was only supported in 2010 by 323
voters. In 2010, they did no better than in 2002,
their first election. SD overtook them, but it's
totally unclear whether or not SD actually took votes from Demoex.
If Demoex reconstituted itself as an advisory
organization, with either an elected
representative, or a *report by Demoex process*
of a different party's representative (which
might, in fact, be cleaner and more sustainable),
they could still turn things around.
Another piece of information: The current
demoex.net site claims that if the number of
voters reaches 24,000 in 2014, there will be 51 seats elected.
So what they have is about one seat out of fifty.
If they elect to keep running a candidate, I'd
revise the conditions, and elect someone trusted
to review the Demoex deliberations, and, as I
mentioned above, to *respect* them, which does
not necessarily mean following them. It would
mean that arguments raised in Demoex would either
be rejected by Demoex's own representative, who
would explain his or her decision to the party
strucutre, or accepted and forwarded to the Council.
If the goal is to eliminate partisanship, then
*the process must eliminate partisanship,*
including "Demoex partisanship." To accomplish
the goal of *citizen participation,* Demoex only
needs one seat, but it could elect more.
Notice on the elections page, that they are *at
the bottom*, except for the very tiny result for "other parties."
Calling for the imitation of Demoex at this point
is calling for the imitation of a process that
has only been successful in a narrow way. It's
not growing, but Per is looking toward being a force on the world stage.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
