5 ms·

I've got a few issues with this sort of idea, and to be frank, Internet-based pseudo-direct democracy has been raised many times before, although DemocracyOS.or

I've got a few issues with this sort of idea, and to be frank, Internet-based pseudo-direct democracy has been raised many times before, although DemocracyOS.org seems to have married the idea with political consultation software. 1. I don't see anyway that direct democracy by way of an online poll or consultation is any better than the representative democracy that many countries already have. Such an approach will result in a representative in a legislature who will be biased towards a more technical and engaged audience than the wider community. 2. If there is a need/desire for direct democracy to be more widespread, why not just bring about true direct democracy? It might take years or decades for the approach of The Net Party to spread to a wider number of jurisdictions. Why not put the same efforts into the wider adoption of true direct democracy, which will probably take the same amount of time. 3. In a (my) perfect world, a mixture of representative and direct democracy works best. I'm not sure turning representative democracy into a pseudo-direct democracy will have good long term consequences. I doubt (putting cynicism aside) that every voter in a democracy has the time and energy to put as much into politics as a paid politician puts into it nowadays, hence I think we'll always need a bit of representative democracy.

jdc 12y ago
Regarding (3), you have the success of Swiss direct democracy to content with.
- vezzy-fnord 12y ago
  Switzerland is often portrayed as this political paradise of neutrality and civil liberty, but the truth is nowhere near as rosy. There's plenty of dark spots and inefficiencies in Switzerland's history that can potentially put the idea of pure direct democracy into question. I can list some if you'd desire and are unaware.
seykron 12y ago
> although DemocracyOS.org seems to have married the idea with political consultation software Agree, as long as the legislatives have not a legal commitment with a system, it is just a very sophisticated poll. > 2. If there is a need/desire for direct democracy to be more widespread, why not just bring about true direct democracy? It might take years or decades for the approach of The Net Party to spread to a wider number of jurisdictions. Why not put the same efforts into the wider adoption of true direct democracy, which will probably take the same amount of time. I'm a member of the Pirate Party of Argentina, and we're trying to do just what you're saying. We've got a direct democracy platform[1] and we use our processes to collaborate with different social movements and government institutions. For instance, the previous year we participated in several actions and discussions about national bills using our transparent and open process[2]. In our experience, direct democracy works very well as a bridge between real people problems and the representative system. It encourage people participation and it provides real engagement within the organization. Thanks for pointing out these points! [1] https://wiki.partidopirata.com.ar/Carta_Orgánica/en https://wiki.partidopirata.com.ar/Carta_Orgánica/en [2] Here is an article about what we done the last year: https://piratetimes.net/a-report-from-the-argentinian-pirate-party-ga/ https://piratetimes.net/a-report-from-the-argentinian-pirate...
- thomasfoster96 12y ago
  I'd you don't mind me asking, how is your direct democracy platform any different to how most political parties work internally anyway? What that charter describes is how a lot of political parties reach policy decisions, and it doesn't really describe anything that resembles direct democracy that the whole electorate takes part in.
  - seykron 12y ago
    The platform is not for the whole electorate because we are no longer trying to participate in elections (it is explained in the journal article), we are now a non-electoral political organization. There is a lot of literature[1][2][3] and a bunch of experiences[4] related to the implementation of high-scale direct democracy, but looking at the argentinian politics it is a very far horizon at the moment. Despite of that, we're not that special. There are a lot of organizations (social movements, collectives, local assemblies) all around the world that do organize by using some kind of direct democracy strategy. But we want to bring direct democracy to institutional areas at some level[5]. In order to reach that purpose we've got three main values: direct democracy to take decisions, transparency as the social contract, and free culture as the foundation of our values and principles. Based on these values, we're focused in organizing actions related to the political space. Regarding direct democracy, we take decisions based on a consensus process rather than voting. This changes the people's mindset and promotes participation instead of competition, it breaks hierarchies and distributes the power among all members. We have not a "board", we have a process to take decisions that we call "dissensus-based process". We consider that consensus is a permanent status, and dissensus is the lack of consensus. So in order to take a decision there's a very simple constraint: the three pirates rule. If three persons want to organize an action, they just do it unless someone says "I DO NOT AGREE", so it must be discussed until there is consensus again. Regarding transparency, we have our own infrastructure and we adopt tools that helps with transparency: mailing lists, wikis, git, loomio, etc. There're are not "private activities", everything we do is public or "semi-public" (post-facto) when it is quite critical. Of course, it has several issues. It is a challenge to make the organization grow because it depends on people that think based on quite similar values. We've got a set of principles[6] and political guidelines[7] to appeal when there is dissensus. I hope you now could figure out yourself how different we are from other political parties. [1] Aaron Swarz - Parpolity or the power of exponents: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/parpolity http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/parpolity [2] A classic: The Principle of Federation - Proudhon: http://www.ditext.com/proudhon/federation/federation.html http://www.ditext.com/proudhon/federation/federation.html [3] The new anarchists - David Graeber: http://newleftreview.org/II/13/david-graeber-the-new-anarchists http://newleftreview.org/II/13/david-graeber-the-new-anarchi... [4] http://www.david-kilgour.com/mp/democracy.htm http://www.david-kilgour.com/mp/democracy.htm [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_insertion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_insertion [6] http://wiki.partidopirata.com.ar/Declaraci%C3%B3n_de_Principios_Partido_Pirata_Argentino http://wiki.partidopirata.com.ar/Declaraci%C3%B3n_de_Princip... [7] http://wiki.partidopirata.com.ar/Bases_de_Acci%C3%B3n_Pol%C3%ADtica http://wiki.partidopirata.com.ar/Bases_de_Acci%C3%B3n_Pol%C3...
santisiri 12y ago
Representative democracy today is 500 representatives for 300 million population. That's not representative democracy but corporation democracy. If you think you get to pick, think about who picks those you get to pick. That's why we also have a political party: The Net Party aims to provide DemocracyOS with a compatible political vehicle that guarantees that the decisions taken online have a REAL impact in the offline world.
- thomasfoster96 12y ago
  Well, what else should representative democracy be? It's a small number of full time legislators representing a larger population. Calling it a corporate democracy veils it in cynicism. If it want to represent my electorate in a parliament, I can stand at the next election (or ideally, I can attempt to initiate a recall election for the sitting member). Indeed, there is nothing in a well run representative democracy to prevent me from picking anyone who puts their hand up as a candidate. I think the problems you are referring to with representation are overwhelming concentrated in the United States. The U.S. does have problems with ballot access, voting systems, electorate size, etc., but those are problems with an implementation of representative democracy, and can, if anyone is willing to, be fixed.
piamancini 12y ago
What is true democracy in your mind?
- thomasfoster96 12y ago
  True direct democracy would be at the very least the common use of referenda, citizen initiated laws, recall elections, etc.

jdc 12y ago

Regarding (3), you have the success of Swiss direct democracy to content with.

vezzy-fnord 12y ago
Switzerland is often portrayed as this political paradise of neutrality and civil liberty, but the truth is nowhere near as rosy. There's plenty of dark spots and inefficiencies in Switzerland's history that can potentially put the idea of pure direct democracy into question. I can list some if you'd desire and are unaware.

seykron 12y ago

> although DemocracyOS.org seems to have married the idea with political consultation software Agree, as long as the legislatives have not a legal commitment with a system, it is just a very sophisticated poll. > 2. If there is a need/desire for direct democracy to be more widespread, why not just bring about true direct democracy? It might take years or decades for the approach of The Net Party to spread to a wider number of jurisdictions. Why not put the same efforts into the wider adoption of true direct democracy, which will probably take the same amount of time. I'm a member of the Pirate Party of Argentina, and we're trying to do just what you're saying. We've got a direct democracy platform[1] and we use our processes to collaborate with different social movements and government institutions. For instance, the previous year we participated in several actions and discussions about national bills using our transparent and open process[2]. In our experience, direct democracy works very well as a bridge between real people problems and the representative system. It encourage people participation and it provides real engagement within the organization. Thanks for pointing out these points! [1] https://wiki.partidopirata.com.ar/Carta_Orgánica/en https://wiki.partidopirata.com.ar/Carta_Orgánica/en [2] Here is an article about what we done the last year: https://piratetimes.net/a-report-from-the-argentinian-pirate-party-ga/ https://piratetimes.net/a-report-from-the-argentinian-pirate...

thomasfoster96 12y ago
I'd you don't mind me asking, how is your direct democracy platform any different to how most political parties work internally anyway? What that charter describes is how a lot of political parties reach policy decisions, and it doesn't really describe anything that resembles direct democracy that the whole electorate takes part in.
- seykron 12y ago
  The platform is not for the whole electorate because we are no longer trying to participate in elections (it is explained in the journal article), we are now a non-electoral political organization. There is a lot of literature[1][2][3] and a bunch of experiences[4] related to the implementation of high-scale direct democracy, but looking at the argentinian politics it is a very far horizon at the moment. Despite of that, we're not that special. There are a lot of organizations (social movements, collectives, local assemblies) all around the world that do organize by using some kind of direct democracy strategy. But we want to bring direct democracy to institutional areas at some level[5]. In order to reach that purpose we've got three main values: direct democracy to take decisions, transparency as the social contract, and free culture as the foundation of our values and principles. Based on these values, we're focused in organizing actions related to the political space. Regarding direct democracy, we take decisions based on a consensus process rather than voting. This changes the people's mindset and promotes participation instead of competition, it breaks hierarchies and distributes the power among all members. We have not a "board", we have a process to take decisions that we call "dissensus-based process". We consider that consensus is a permanent status, and dissensus is the lack of consensus. So in order to take a decision there's a very simple constraint: the three pirates rule. If three persons want to organize an action, they just do it unless someone says "I DO NOT AGREE", so it must be discussed until there is consensus again. Regarding transparency, we have our own infrastructure and we adopt tools that helps with transparency: mailing lists, wikis, git, loomio, etc. There're are not "private activities", everything we do is public or "semi-public" (post-facto) when it is quite critical. Of course, it has several issues. It is a challenge to make the organization grow because it depends on people that think based on quite similar values. We've got a set of principles[6] and political guidelines[7] to appeal when there is dissensus. I hope you now could figure out yourself how different we are from other political parties. [1] Aaron Swarz - Parpolity or the power of exponents: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/parpolity http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/parpolity [2] A classic: The Principle of Federation - Proudhon: http://www.ditext.com/proudhon/federation/federation.html http://www.ditext.com/proudhon/federation/federation.html [3] The new anarchists - David Graeber: http://newleftreview.org/II/13/david-graeber-the-new-anarchists http://newleftreview.org/II/13/david-graeber-the-new-anarchi... [4] http://www.david-kilgour.com/mp/democracy.htm http://www.david-kilgour.com/mp/democracy.htm [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_insertion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_insertion [6] http://wiki.partidopirata.com.ar/Declaraci%C3%B3n_de_Principios_Partido_Pirata_Argentino http://wiki.partidopirata.com.ar/Declaraci%C3%B3n_de_Princip... [7] http://wiki.partidopirata.com.ar/Bases_de_Acci%C3%B3n_Pol%C3%ADtica http://wiki.partidopirata.com.ar/Bases_de_Acci%C3%B3n_Pol%C3...

santisiri 12y ago

Representative democracy today is 500 representatives for 300 million population. That's not representative democracy but corporation democracy. If you think you get to pick, think about who picks those you get to pick. That's why we also have a political party: The Net Party aims to provide DemocracyOS with a compatible political vehicle that guarantees that the decisions taken online have a REAL impact in the offline world.

thomasfoster96 12y ago
Well, what else should representative democracy be? It's a small number of full time legislators representing a larger population. Calling it a corporate democracy veils it in cynicism. If it want to represent my electorate in a parliament, I can stand at the next election (or ideally, I can attempt to initiate a recall election for the sitting member). Indeed, there is nothing in a well run representative democracy to prevent me from picking anyone who puts their hand up as a candidate. I think the problems you are referring to with representation are overwhelming concentrated in the United States. The U.S. does have problems with ballot access, voting systems, electorate size, etc., but those are problems with an implementation of representative democracy, and can, if anyone is willing to, be fixed.

piamancini 12y ago

What is true democracy in your mind?

thomasfoster96 12y ago
True direct democracy would be at the very least the common use of referenda, citizen initiated laws, recall elections, etc.