Re: [EM] Time of trouble? Or put a lid on it? - Premise
--- On Sat, 7/2/09, Michael Allan wrote: > Juho Laatu wrote: > > > Let me take another example, election > > method discussion lists. People there > > do have voting machines available, and > > many of them have similar opinions on > > many central questions, but where is > > the consensus (or majority decisions). > > Sometimes I also get the feeling that > > those people that take part in the > > joint opinion building discussions are > > actually people who are more > > interested in disagreeing with all > > (except with their own opinion) than > > agreeing with them ;-). > > (I'm trying to get away from all that...) > > > What I mean is that the tools may be > > available but that may not necessarily > > lead to optimal use of those tools. > > Here you say there's FS and IT, with no PO. But > really, there is no > IT. For example: > > 1. Someone posts the question, "What voting method > ought Helsinki to > use in Council elections?" > > 2. All kinds of opinions are expressed, left and right. > Many people > from Helsinki join the list. This could maybe already be called PO (public sphere opinion-formation) where people form opinions, but that does not necessarily lead to formation of one unified opinion (=> PD, public sphere decision-making). > > 3. Voting commences using the available IT, but there are > problems: > > a) Authentication of voters as real people, not bots > > b) Restriction of vote to residents of Helsinki > > c) Enforcement of a single vote per resident, no sock > puppets > > d) Allowance to propose options at issue, and not just > to vote on >them > > e) Possibility of consensus, despite the proliferation > of minor >variations (a hundred Condorcet methods) that > fragment the >results > > f) Assurance of action on the issue, by Helsinki > Council > > There's no IT that does all that, yet. When there is, > I think that > consenus will build, even in the face of dissent. (more on > this > below) The communication part of IT is there. There are also voting machines available in the internet but obviously this community has no agreement on which one to use or whether to use its own (the members are skilled enough to build one). > > > I was thinking that opinion formation > > may still be vague and there may be > > many opinions while decisions are > > clear and there is only on decision. > > Only PD must be decisive, because only it must be > actionable. So > maybe the criterion that distinguishes it from PO is the > singularity > of a stable consensus (however defined): > > PO in stable consensus ~= PD Yes. One should have an agreement on which process is the one that is used to determine the consensus opinion. If there is an agreement then that opinion will be respected as the consensus opinion. > > > > ... For contrast, consider decision making in > state-run > > > elections... > > > > It sounded to me like a proper decision > > but not in the public sphere like the > > decisions discussed above. > > I agree, traditional general elections are decisive. > > > My intention was that PO does not yet > > cover any clear decision making but > > all can interpret the results of the > > discussion as they wish. > > I am thinking that PO is nevertheless expressed in formal > votes, > mediated by IT. (I do not consider informal opinion, > whether public > or private, except as a precursor of PO.) My thinking was that anything above (public sphere) random chatting and below forming one (society wide) unified opinion is PO. > Votes are > numerically > precise. If the voters are a quorum (however defined), > then the > result is PO, and it is clear in a numerical sense. But it > won't > necessarilly be PD. If it's a 3-way split, or unstable > and shifting, > then the issue is unclear. Then it's not PD. Or if there are multiple competing opinion formation camps. > > > This is important. Are the decisions made > > by PD official, unique (no competing > > processes) and respected by all. If they > > are then they are part of the formal > > decision making process, and maybe not in > > the public sphere any more but official > > mandated tools of the government. This > > means that their nature will be different > > than in the free discussion fora. > > (interesting... picked up at end) > > > The interesting question to me is if we > > have one official PD process or if PD > > consists of various free and separate > > activities and processes built by the > > citizens. > > I think both - the former from the latter. The institution > of PD is a > natural monopoly. Helsinki may have two competing > pollservers, for > example, both launched as citizen initiatives. But that > situation is > unstable; only one is likely to survive. It could also be that different "parties" would concentrate around their favourite system and claim it to be the leading one, or at least the one that is corr
Re: [EM] Time of trouble? Or put a lid on it? - Premise
Juho Laatu wrote: > Let me take another example, election > method discussion lists. People there > do have voting machines available, and > many of them have similar opinions on > many central questions, but where is > the consensus (or majority decisions). > Sometimes I also get the feeling that > those people that take part in the > joint opinion building discussions are > actually people who are more > interested in disagreeing with all > (except with their own opinion) than > agreeing with them ;-). (I'm trying to get away from all that...) > What I mean is that the tools may be > available but that may not necessarily > lead to optimal use of those tools. Here you say there's FS and IT, with no PO. But really, there is no IT. For example: 1. Someone posts the question, "What voting method ought Helsinki to use in Council elections?" 2. All kinds of opinions are expressed, left and right. Many people from Helsinki join the list. 3. Voting commences using the available IT, but there are problems: a) Authentication of voters as real people, not bots b) Restriction of vote to residents of Helsinki c) Enforcement of a single vote per resident, no sock puppets d) Allowance to propose options at issue, and not just to vote on them e) Possibility of consensus, despite the proliferation of minor variations (a hundred Condorcet methods) that fragment the results f) Assurance of action on the issue, by Helsinki Council There's no IT that does all that, yet. When there is, I think that consenus will build, even in the face of dissent. (more on this below) > I was thinking that opinion formation > may still be vague and there may be > many opinions while decisions are > clear and there is only on decision. Only PD must be decisive, because only it must be actionable. So maybe the criterion that distinguishes it from PO is the singularity of a stable consensus (however defined): PO in stable consensus ~= PD > > ... For contrast, consider decision making in state-run > > elections... > > It sounded to me like a proper decision > but not in the public sphere like the > decisions discussed above. I agree, traditional general elections are decisive. > My intention was that PO does not yet > cover any clear decision making but > all can interpret the results of the > discussion as they wish. I am thinking that PO is nevertheless expressed in formal votes, mediated by IT. (I do not consider informal opinion, whether public or private, except as a precursor of PO.) Votes are numerically precise. If the voters are a quorum (however defined), then the result is PO, and it is clear in a numerical sense. But it won't necessarilly be PD. If it's a 3-way split, or unstable and shifting, then the issue is unclear. Then it's not PD. > This is important. Are the decisions made > by PD official, unique (no competing > processes) and respected by all. If they > are then they are part of the formal > decision making process, and maybe not in > the public sphere any more but official > mandated tools of the government. This > means that their nature will be different > than in the free discussion fora. (interesting... picked up at end) > The interesting question to me is if we > have one official PD process or if PD > consists of various free and separate > activities and processes built by the > citizens. I think both - the former from the latter. The institution of PD is a natural monopoly. Helsinki may have two competing pollservers, for example, both launched as citizen initiatives. But that situation is unstable; only one is likely to survive. Mutatis mutandis, the voting system with the most participants is the most attractive. > > ... PD as the "control system", and RD > > as the "power system". > > Ok, now I'm convinced that you assume > that there is one official or recognized > PD process that the RD representatives > listen to. Even though these processes > have no decision power on the matters > of each others the decisions obviously > easily flow from PD to RD. One way to > characterize this type of PD is that it > is an official and continuous opinion > polling organization. (maybe... picked up at end) > (The elected officials have generally > no interest to "oppose PD" but they > have strong interest to promote their > own viewpoints, often against some > opinions expressed in the PD processes.) Ordinary cascade voting can help with that kind of tension. The official legislator can express it by participating in the PD, as a voter. She can broadly assent to the public consensus, while simultaneously dissenting on any number of details, all with a single vote. So the tension is both contained and expressed in the structure. For diagrams and refs, see this post: http://groups.dowire.org/r/post/2IbPilDgy4CLnyMHbSjPLB Thus she can say, I agree with you, but please consider making the following changes. Th
Re: [EM] Time of trouble? Or put a lid on it? - Premise
--- On Thu, 5/2/09, Michael Allan wrote: > (In this sub-thread 'Premise', we discuss the > probability of DD. In > the parent thread, we discuss the danger of it.) > > (Reiterating the premise) Where: > > DD = direct democracy > FS = free speech > IT = Internet/information technology > PD = public sphere decision-making > RD = representative (modern) democracy > > FS is a constitutional fact. IT is a technical fact. > From the original post (section 1), it follows that > PD is probable: > > (a) FS + IT ~= PD > > Juho Laatu wrote: > > > Some new (temporary) definitions: > >PC = public sphere communication > >PO = public sphere opinion-formation > > > > In this framework one could say that > >FS + IT ~= PC > > > > But it is not yet guaranteed that > >PC => PO > > But IT includes a voting mechanism.^[1] So assent in PC > (agreement > expressed in public) may take the form of a vote. And the > summation > of all such votes is formal PO. > > Considering only this much, PO is similar to the expression > of opinion > in state-run elections. The difference, of course, is > it's all done > in public. Example: > > I am in discussion with a group (PC). One of the group > informs us > of a recently proposed bill (B) that would rewrite the > state's > inheritance taxes. She feels strongly about B. As she > speaks, I > find myself nodding in agreement with her. I think > she's right. So > I take out my mobile phone (IT), and I cast a vote for > her (formal > agreement). I trace the vote, and see how it cascades > (along with > hers) to some particular consensus draft (B1). I note > that B1 is > leading with 30% of the votes, and growing. > > That's PO. Let me take another example, election method discussion lists. People there do have voting machines available, and many of them have similar opinions on many central questions, but where is the consensus (or majority decisions). Sometimes I also get the feeling that those people that take part in the joint opinion building discussions are actually people who are more interested in disagreeing with all (except with their own opinion) than agreeing with them ;-). What I mean is that the tools may be available but that may not necessarily lead to optimal use of those tools. > > > and > >PO => PD > > How to distinguish "opinion" from > "decision"? (Thinking out loud.) I was thinking that opinion formation may still be vague and there may be many opinions while decisions are clear and there is only on decision. > I > guess a decision must be deliberate, in all the senses of > that word. > What else must it be? For contrast, consider decision > making in > state-run elections: > > 0700. I wake up. I realize that it's election day. > Today, we the > public will decide the issue. > > 1500. I vote at the polling station. > > 2000. I turn on my radio. I'm wondering, "What > exactly did we the > public decide, today?" > > That can't properly be called a "public > decision". It's definitely a > decision because it decided an issue. It sounded to me like a proper decision but not in the public sphere like the decisions discussed above. > But anything > that's blind and > deaf to itself cannot be a public. (Mind, the electorate > is not > completely senseless, as it has polsters for feelers.) > > There's nothing blind or deaf about PO, of course. The > voting is > public, and the results are continuously expressed. The > quality of > information goes beyond what's available to the > electorate, per se. > > I can see clearly: today, B1 has exactly 30% of all > votes. I can > trace every one of those votes to an actual person who > expressed her > support for B1, exactly as I did. And those people too > can see the > same information. We're all aware of *who* we are > (collectively), > and *what* we are engaged in doing, even as we proceed to > do it. > > But if PO is actually to decide an issue (and thus be PD), > where is > the issue it decides? My intention was that PO does not yet cover any clear decision making but all can interpret the results of the discussion as they wish. > Of course, it hasn't happened > yet. The > decision must always precede the action. So maybe the only > requirement here is that of intent. It will help if the > voter > believes that eqn (b) will generally hold. > > Maybe even that is unnecessary. As long as PO is > understood as an > *ought* expression (we think the issue *ought* to be > resolved thus) > then that will be sufficient to elevate PO to PD. The > "ought" implies > an underlying normative basis of decision making by popular > assent. This is important. Are the decisions made by PD official, unique (no competing processes) and respected by all. If they are then they are part of the formal decision making process, and maybe not in the public sphere any more but official mandated tools
[EM] Time of trouble? Or put a lid on it? - Premise
(In this sub-thread 'Premise', we discuss the probability of DD. In the parent thread, we discuss the danger of it.) (Reiterating the premise) Where: DD = direct democracy FS = free speech IT = Internet/information technology PD = public sphere decision-making RD = representative (modern) democracy FS is a constitutional fact. IT is a technical fact. From the original post (section 1), it follows that PD is probable: (a) FS + IT ~= PD Juho Laatu wrote: > Some new (temporary) definitions: >PC = public sphere communication >PO = public sphere opinion-formation > > In this framework one could say that >FS + IT ~= PC > > But it is not yet guaranteed that >PC => PO But IT includes a voting mechanism.^[1] So assent in PC (agreement expressed in public) may take the form of a vote. And the summation of all such votes is formal PO. Considering only this much, PO is similar to the expression of opinion in state-run elections. The difference, of course, is it's all done in public. Example: I am in discussion with a group (PC). One of the group informs us of a recently proposed bill (B) that would rewrite the state's inheritance taxes. She feels strongly about B. As she speaks, I find myself nodding in agreement with her. I think she's right. So I take out my mobile phone (IT), and I cast a vote for her (formal agreement). I trace the vote, and see how it cascades (along with hers) to some particular consensus draft (B1). I note that B1 is leading with 30% of the votes, and growing. That's PO. > and >PO => PD How to distinguish "opinion" from "decision"? (Thinking out loud.) I guess a decision must be deliberate, in all the senses of that word. What else must it be? For contrast, consider decision making in state-run elections: 0700. I wake up. I realize that it's election day. Today, we the public will decide the issue. 1500. I vote at the polling station. 2000. I turn on my radio. I'm wondering, "What exactly did we the public decide, today?" That can't properly be called a "public decision". It's definitely a decision because it decided an issue. But anything that's blind and deaf to itself cannot be a public. (Mind, the electorate is not completely senseless, as it has polsters for feelers.) There's nothing blind or deaf about PO, of course. The voting is public, and the results are continuously expressed. The quality of information goes beyond what's available to the electorate, per se. I can see clearly: today, B1 has exactly 30% of all votes. I can trace every one of those votes to an actual person who expressed her support for B1, exactly as I did. And those people too can see the same information. We're all aware of *who* we are (collectively), and *what* we are engaged in doing, even as we proceed to do it. But if PO is actually to decide an issue (and thus be PD), where is the issue it decides? Of course, it hasn't happened yet. The decision must always precede the action. So maybe the only requirement here is that of intent. It will help if the voter believes that eqn (b) will generally hold. Maybe even that is unnecessary. As long as PO is understood as an *ought* expression (we think the issue *ought* to be resolved thus) then that will be sufficient to elevate PO to PD. The "ought" implies an underlying normative basis of decision making by popular assent. But RD is a fact, and RD rests on just such a norm, which we call democracy. Six months later, turnout for B is approaching the level of a general election. Among its consensus drafts, B2 has climbed to 30%, but B1 has passed 50%. Everyone is talking about it. In a democratic society, that's a legitimate expression of the public will. What's more, everyone knows it. That's PD. (Reiterating the premise, continued) RD is a constitutional fact. From the original post, (sections 2 and 3), it follows that DD is probable: (b) PD + RD ~= DD > > Note: this is an *effective* DD. The qualification is necessary > > because the public sphere cannot (by its nature) hold power. > > Although it can express decisions, it cannot take action on them. > > DD and RD are often defined as two > alternatives. Here DD (= *effective* DD) > seems to refer to a RD that works as if > it was a DD (= *actual* DD) because of > the impact of PD. Yes, I say "direct democracy" only because of similar effects. I'm wrong to use that term. Maybe let DD stand, instead, for "decoupled democracy". What matters is the relation between the people and government. In a direct democracy, the people *are* the government, and they hold direct power. Not so in this DD. The equivalent relation in DD is this: PD from the people (as a public) is answered by action from the government. The two agents (people and government) are separate. (There are non-political relations of PD too, with other parts of society, an
Re: [EM] Time of trouble? Or put a lid on it?
--- On Tue, 3/2/09, Michael Allan wrote:
> > > 3. Eventually reason prevails. The dwellers in
> the favelas and
> > > the peasents in the villages (despite long
> suppressed bitterness
> > > and anger)
>
> Juho Laatu wrote:
>
> > No need to be suppressed nor angry. Some
> > may be but better results could be
> > achieved if everyone just understands how
> > the system might benefit better all its
> > members.
>
> You premise an ideal. To see the danger, we must premise
> facts and
> probabilities. The crucial probability is a popular direct
> democracy
> (DD). Here is a "proof" of it, in summary of the
> original post and
> thread ("The Structuring of Power"):
> http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2009-January/thread.html#23872
>
> Where:
>
> DD = direct democracy
> FS = free speech
> IT = Internet/information technology
> PD = public sphere decision-making
> RD = representative (modern) democracy
>
> FS is a constitutional fact. IT is a technical fact. From
> the
> original post (section 1), it follows that PD is probable:
>
> (a) FS + IT ~= PD
Some new (temporary) definitions:
PC = public sphere communication
PO = public sphere opinion-formation
In this framework one could say that
FS + IT ~= PC
But it is not yet guaranteed that
PC => PO
and
PO => PD
>
> PD is a formalization of speech. It is separate from
> power, and is
> not a "democracy", nor any other kind of
> "-cracy". But PD is also a
> primary electoral/legislative mechanism, and RD is a
> constitutional
> fact. From the original post, (sections 2 and 3), it
> follows that DD
> is probable:
>
> (b) PD + RD ~= DD
>
> Note: this is an *effective* DD. The qualification is
> necessary
> because the public sphere cannot (by its nature) hold
> power. Although
> it can express decisions, it cannot take action on them.
DD and RD are often defined as two
alternatives. Here DD (= *effective* DD)
seems to refer to a RD that works as if
it was a DD (= *actual* DD) because of
the impact of PD.
One possible problem with the equation
above is that PD may remain as a
"discussion club" that the RD politicians
may ignore at the same level as they
ignore media and poll opinions.
If PD is tied more tightly to the
formal/actual decision making process (RD)
(to make it stronger than a "discussion
club") then it becomes part of RD, or maybe
an *actual* DD. In that case PD is no more
separated from the power (and the dynamics
will change accordingly) (I'll skip further
speculation on this).
> Only the
> private sphere (individuals and families) and the
> admininstrative
> systems (of government, business, etc.) have the necessary
> power
> (force and threat of force) to act. Nevertheless, the
> effect is
> largely DD - effectively the public sphere will force
> action. It will
> begin to do so in the near future, and it will do so
> deliberately
> (such is its nature).
In a way public discussion, media and private
discussions do set the opinions and they do
force action, but the chain of consequences
may be so long and complex that it is not
possible to master it. The decisions may get
corrupted and unrecognizable on the way. RD
and *actual* DD have clear procedures for
decision making but informal discussions may
be interpreted in various ways, and PD may
have alternative competing branches, and as a
result people (e.g. RD representatives) may
justify many different decisions/conclusions
based on the non-uniform non-agreed input.
It is thus also easy to find ways around the
potentially unwanted PD input and the
situation may remain much the same as today
(with FS, free media, influencing via parties
and other organizations and movements).
>
> > - With the "strength of the masses" the
> > modern (post 18th century) society with
> > high number of rich and independent
> > consumers (= commercial decision makers,
> > often with less political interest) (I
> > mean, what the society in rich countries
> > is now after the turmoil of industrial
> > revolution and related extreme capitalism
> > and socialism) is just a bit more complex
> > to control than the old and simpler
> > "cultured gentlemen" approach. One must
> > take a positive approach and trust that
> > we find good ways forward.
>
> Better to be skeptical. Better to take a negative outlook
> and to
> venture forward with eyes wide open. Accepting the
> probability of DD,
> what are the dangers ahead? What bad things can happen?
The problem that I referred to above
consisted mostly of the complexity of a
"widely democratized" society that has large
number of different opinions coming from
(rather rich and independent) people with
different needs, education, culture, and
level of interest in decision making. That
is no more a club of "cultured gentlemen"
(as Russell maybe saw it).
>
> 1. Class strife. The majority of the world's people
> are
> economically marginalized, and will use their votes t
Re: [EM] Time of trouble? Or put a lid on it?
> > 3. Eventually reason prevails. The dwellers in the favelas and
> > the peasents in the villages (despite long suppressed bitterness
> > and anger)
Juho Laatu wrote:
> No need to be suppressed nor angry. Some
> may be but better results could be
> achieved if everyone just understands how
> the system might benefit better all its
> members.
You premise an ideal. To see the danger, we must premise facts and
probabilities. The crucial probability is a popular direct democracy
(DD). Here is a "proof" of it, in summary of the original post and
thread ("The Structuring of Power"):
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2009-January/thread.html#23872
Where:
DD = direct democracy
FS = free speech
IT = Internet/information technology
PD = public sphere decision-making
RD = representative (modern) democracy
FS is a constitutional fact. IT is a technical fact. From the
original post (section 1), it follows that PD is probable:
(a) FS + IT ~= PD
PD is a formalization of speech. It is separate from power, and is
not a "democracy", nor any other kind of "-cracy". But PD is also a
primary electoral/legislative mechanism, and RD is a constitutional
fact. From the original post, (sections 2 and 3), it follows that DD
is probable:
(b) PD + RD ~= DD
Note: this is an *effective* DD. The qualification is necessary
because the public sphere cannot (by its nature) hold power. Although
it can express decisions, it cannot take action on them. Only the
private sphere (individuals and families) and the admininstrative
systems (of government, business, etc.) have the necessary power
(force and threat of force) to act. Nevertheless, the effect is
largely DD - effectively the public sphere will force action. It will
begin to do so in the near future, and it will do so deliberately
(such is its nature).
> - With the "strength of the masses" the
> modern (post 18th century) society with
> high number of rich and independent
> consumers (= commercial decision makers,
> often with less political interest) (I
> mean, what the society in rich countries
> is now after the turmoil of industrial
> revolution and related extreme capitalism
> and socialism) is just a bit more complex
> to control than the old and simpler
> "cultured gentlemen" approach. One must
> take a positive approach and trust that
> we find good ways forward.
Better to be skeptical. Better to take a negative outlook and to
venture forward with eyes wide open. Accepting the probability of DD,
what are the dangers ahead? What bad things can happen?
1. Class strife. The majority of the world's people are
economically marginalized, and will use their votes to (i) attack
the wealthy, entrepreunerial and middle classes and the economic
infrastructure that supports them; while those classes (ii) will
attack back.
2. Instability in quasi-democracies. Introduction of PD in
quasi-democracies (like Russia) will threaten the authorities,
resulting in (i) the imposition of open tyranny (to suppress FS);
or (ii) the retreat of authority, a power vacuum, and civil
strife to fill it.
3. International war. Direct democacies are aggressive and
unpredictable. They will fighten skittish non-democracies (like
China) and ultimately provoke an international war.
(others? please add your own)
Mitigating factors:
A. Slow adoption of PD to underprivledged classes owning to
inaccessiblity of IT. So eqn (a) is dampened and delayed.
B. Unelected upper assemblies can block action in defiance of the
public and their elected counterparts. So, at least in some
states, eqn (b) is dampened and delayed.
(others? please add your own)
--
Michael Allan
Toronto, 647-436-4521
http://zelea.com/
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Time of trouble? Or put a lid on it?
--- On Mon, 2/2/09, Michael Allan wrote: > Juho Laatu wrote: > > > I'm not sure that inequality would be a > > requirement. Full equality in terms of > > wealth and power is impossible to achieve, > > but we can approximate that at some > > agreed/suitable level (e.g. by balancing > > the differences a bit where needed) - and > > still keep the natural competitive forces > > alive as the forward driving force in the > > society (and its economy). > > So the realm of possiblity may contain mechanisms to > correct the gross > inequalities of opportunity etc. that divide class from > class, and > nation from nation. You and I can discuss this possiblity > in abstract > terms, like "cultured gentleman".^[1] But what is > the path from > possiblity to actuality? Many mechanisms are already in place (both in "public sphere" and more officially). In many ways we are already in phases 7 and 8 (see below). > And what are the danger points > along the > way? > > 1. A voting system is instituted in the public sphere, > thus lifting > the lid of the pot. > > People are free to express themselves on issues of > gross > disparity, to be heard, and to build consensus. The > inter-class Some societies have clear classes (inherited or culturally separate), but there are also lesser deviations, and there are differences between individuals of otherwise homogeneous groups. > and inter-national tensions that were formerly > suppressed and > suspended Or simply in worse position, maybe due to recent changes, and maybe without any suppression. > are thus thematized in discussion and > floated for > political action. Or the society as a whole decides to discuss and then act for the benefit of all. > What shall the action be? Everyone > is > talking, voting... > > 2. Stuff happens. To me the most interesting part here might be the formation of widely shared concepts and understanding. > > 3. Eventually reason prevails. The dwellers in the > favelas and the > peasents in the villages (despite long suppressed > bitterness and > anger) No need to be suppressed nor angry. Some may be but better results could be achieved if everyone just understands how the system might benefit better all its members. > enter into a more-or-less rational discussion > with the > weathly entrepreneurs and landowners. Maybe all should discuss more. In most democratic societies all have had the opportunity for a long time now. Involvement and understanding of all segments of the society is needed. Also the rich and powerful may have lost touch and may also benefit of the new ideas. > > 4. A promising "disparity correction" mechanism > is discovered, and > talked about. Or old ones used as they are, or they are balanced in order to respond better to the needs. > > 5. A rough consensus emerges that, yes, this is the very > mechanism > we want. > > 6. Political action follows. The mechanism is emplaced. > > 7. It fails. Continuously - at least there is the risk of continuous erosion. > > 8. Stuff happens. Hopefully already in step 7 and earlier. I'd like to see a system that includes both practical implementation and theoretical consensus targets above the practical level. This makes it easier to adjust the system on the fly (without going from one disaster to decision, frozen positions and next disaster). Politics are too often just bottom level tug-of-war type activities where decisions are made based on who is strongest at this very moment. > > Steps 2 and 8 are problematic. What kind of stuff can > happen? I tried to emphasize the need to generate consensus models that allow high level principles to be implemented and adjusted using some practical mechanisms. That'd be better than revolutions and the tug-of-war game. > > > [1] In Bertrand Russell's History of Western > Philosophy, in the > chapter on Aristotle's Politics, the last few > paragraphs frame a > broad context for discussing the extremes of democracy, > reaction > and counter-reaction. > > > http://books.google.ca/books?id=Ey94E3sOMA0C&pg=PA187#PPA187,M1 > > That's p. 187, which contains the text > "Aristotle's fundamental > assumptions... the rise of industrialism... Both for > good and > evil, therefore, the day of the cultured gentleman is > past." Yes, quite interesting section. - I always appreciate the courage to say that the highest achievements / acme are not here, now or in the future. - Democracy in Athens was a democracy of the top level of the society. That allowed a stronger "cultured gentlemen" approach than the modern approach that serves all and where the highest decision making and consumption potential is quite low in the society (=> "populism" in both politics and consumption). - With the "strength of the masses" the modern (post 18th century) society with high number of rich and independent consumers (= commercial decisi
Re: [EM] Time of trouble? Or put a lid on it?
Juho Laatu wrote: > I'm not sure that inequality would be a > requirement. Full equality in terms of > wealth and power is impossible to achieve, > but we can approximate that at some > agreed/suitable level (e.g. by balancing > the differences a bit where needed) - and > still keep the natural competitive forces > alive as the forward driving force in the > society (and its economy). So the realm of possiblity may contain mechanisms to correct the gross inequalities of opportunity etc. that divide class from class, and nation from nation. You and I can discuss this possiblity in abstract terms, like "cultured gentleman".^[1] But what is the path from possiblity to actuality? And what are the danger points along the way? 1. A voting system is instituted in the public sphere, thus lifting the lid of the pot. People are free to express themselves on issues of gross disparity, to be heard, and to build consensus. The inter-class and inter-national tensions that were formerly suppressed and suspended are thus thematized in discussion and floated for political action. What shall the action be? Everyone is talking, voting... 2. Stuff happens. 3. Eventually reason prevails. The dwellers in the favelas and the peasents in the villages (despite long suppressed bitterness and anger) enter into a more-or-less rational discussion with the weathly entrepreneurs and landowners. 4. A promising "disparity correction" mechanism is discovered, and talked about. 5. A rough consensus emerges that, yes, this is the very mechanism we want. 6. Political action follows. The mechanism is emplaced. 7. It fails. 8. Stuff happens. Steps 2 and 8 are problematic. What kind of stuff can happen? [1] In Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy, in the chapter on Aristotle's Politics, the last few paragraphs frame a broad context for discussing the extremes of democracy, reaction and counter-reaction. http://books.google.ca/books?id=Ey94E3sOMA0C&pg=PA187#PPA187,M1 That's p. 187, which contains the text "Aristotle's fundamental assumptions... the rise of industrialism... Both for good and evil, therefore, the day of the cultured gentleman is past." -- Michael Allan Toronto, 647-436-4521 http://zelea.com/ Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Time of trouble? Or put a lid on it?
--- On Sun, 1/2/09, Michael Allan wrote: > Juho Laatu wrote: > > > > > (I hope the role of public image > > > > doesn't get so strong that people > > > > would start thinking that their > > > > whitened teeth and wide smile are > > > > what they are, more than their > > > > internal thoughts. :-) > > > > > > All of us shaking hands and kissing babies. :) > > > > Yes, usually that comes from the heart, > > which is just a sign of health. :-) > > I guess we're just bantering. Yes. (I had also some interest in confirming that by default the sincere preferences of people can be said to be a key driver behind their external behaviour. Politicians may use an external mask intentionally. Also citizens without any such public position often have a mask on. But hopefully their life is not too much bound by that mask (and internal thoughts not forced to reflect the image given by the mask).) > If we were being > serious, I'd say the > necessity of the "whitened teeth and wide smile" > dates from the advent > of TV in politics. (Wasn't it Richard Nixon who first > learned about > that, back in the 60's or 70's?) So the systematic > of image making is > more on the side of mass media and mass voting - a problem > in the > status quo. And granted all is not problematic there, much > is healthy > too. I respect our arrangements. > > The problematic I would like to discuss, without quite > knowing how, or > with whom, is more on the social side. The proposed voting > method > itself has no systematic flaws, none we've been able to > uncover to > date (and maybe we need to wait for empirical data). But I > can easily > forsee social problems that may be released as an indirect > consequence > of it. > > We have tensions in our societies that are held in a frozen > suspension > by our political arrangements, not least by our voting > methods. I tend to think that all systems easily get frozen spots for various reasons. No set of rules is perfect enough to keep the system viable and flexible forever. One has to monitor and take care and make also small improvements to the system to keep it fresh and to respond to changes in the environment. There will be also many attempts to go around, twist, change and forget the rules. Better watch out and keep one's mind and discussions open. > Some > in this list who may ordinarilly be comfortable with > discussing the > social side of voting, may nevertheless be uncomfortable > with > discussing these particular tensions. Like Madison or > Jefferson, who > feared an unmoderated, unrestrained democracy, they might > rather keep > a lid on such issues. Yet, although it is simple enough to > moderate > and restrain discussion here in the list, it may no longer > be possible > to keep a lid on these issues in reality. I guess there is a balance between total freedom and control of the society as a whole. One could characterize large part of the features of our societies as an evolution story from the "laws of jungle" towards systems that we consider to give better results to us as a society and as individuals. The democratic societies even try to allow all the members of the society to decide the best direction of evolution themselves. Such systems require freedom and discipline/control/rules to be in good balance. > > The main axis of tension is probably the gross disparity in > wealth, > freedom and other goods that extends both locally > (inter-class) and > globally (inter-national). Yes, this is one of the key problems. Too large gaps tend to lead e.g. to revolutions and also various other forms of violence. > What will happen when that > disparity is > thematized in formal voting and discussion, and floated in > political > action? Locally, will people continue to accept the degree > of > inequality that our economic system seems to require, in > order to keep > on functioning and producing goods? I'm not sure that inequality would be a requirement. Full equality in terms of wealth and power is impossible to achieve, but we can approximate that at some agreed/suitable level (e.g. by balancing the differences a bit where needed) - and still keep the natural competitive forces alive as the forward driving force in the society (and its economy). Juho > And globally, if we > open > democracy to all the world's people, are we also > prepared to open our > borders to them? > > -- > Michael Allan > > Toronto, 647-436-4521 > http://zelea.com/ > > > Election-Methods mailing list - see > http://electorama.com/em for list info Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[EM] Time of trouble? Or put a lid on it?
Juho Laatu wrote: > > > (I hope the role of public image > > > doesn't get so strong that people > > > would start thinking that their > > > whitened teeth and wide smile are > > > what they are, more than their > > > internal thoughts. :-) > > > > All of us shaking hands and kissing babies. :) > > Yes, usually that comes from the heart, > which is just a sign of health. :-) I guess we're just bantering. If we were being serious, I'd say the necessity of the "whitened teeth and wide smile" dates from the advent of TV in politics. (Wasn't it Richard Nixon who first learned about that, back in the 60's or 70's?) So the systematic of image making is more on the side of mass media and mass voting - a problem in the status quo. And granted all is not problematic there, much is healthy too. I respect our arrangements. The problematic I would like to discuss, without quite knowing how, or with whom, is more on the social side. The proposed voting method itself has no systematic flaws, none we've been able to uncover to date (and maybe we need to wait for empirical data). But I can easily forsee social problems that may be released as an indirect consequence of it. We have tensions in our societies that are held in a frozen suspension by our political arrangements, not least by our voting methods. Some in this list who may ordinarilly be comfortable with discussing the social side of voting, may nevertheless be uncomfortable with discussing these particular tensions. Like Madison or Jefferson, who feared an unmoderated, unrestrained democracy, they might rather keep a lid on such issues. Yet, although it is simple enough to moderate and restrain discussion here in the list, it may no longer be possible to keep a lid on these issues in reality. The main axis of tension is probably the gross disparity in wealth, freedom and other goods that extends both locally (inter-class) and globally (inter-national). What will happen when that disparity is thematized in formal voting and discussion, and floated in political action? Locally, will people continue to accept the degree of inequality that our economic system seems to require, in order to keep on functioning and producing goods? And globally, if we open democracy to all the world's people, are we also prepared to open our borders to them? -- Michael Allan Toronto, 647-436-4521 http://zelea.com/ Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
