[Ag Meinungsfindungstool] Additional Notes on the Presentation of the "Architecture for a Democracy 2.0" and the EIPW

[Ronald Grindle <ronald AT grindle.de>]

Hello,

 

I am not good in presence meetings, so my answers to your questions where only second best. With a little time my answer improve significantly, in structure and content.

 

On the question “How does the Architecture for a Democracy 2.0 handle the problem of the advantage of those who can spend a lot of time and thus dominate the political process?” my more complete answer would be:

 

I do not believe that there can be an entirely fair system, but I think we can improve things significantly.

• By using an online-system for voting the time-poor people can participate whenever it suits them.
• They can decide how much time they want to spend on a topic.
• Voting can be done from wherever you are and takes less that a minute.

(This applies to all online voting systems)

 

The special advantages of the EIPW:

• With the top ten of topics the time-poor can focus on the topics that are have the highest attention.
• By voting over people they can express whether they trust or distrust a person or a group and so hopefully support the right ones and discourage the wrong ones.
  
• In the personal section of the EIPW one can express oneself without being disturbed by Forum Trolls and speaking time Time-Hogs.
  

Additionally the AoD2.0 specifies that

 

• the Core Assemblies, i.e. the meetings that, where the decision forming takes place is limited in time and number of meeting per month, so the average member cannot be outperformed by the time-rich
• The outcome of the decision forming process can be voted on post mortem. Should any member or group make use of their advantages to promote something past the democratic process, this gives a chance to detect this.

Another thing I forgot to mention:

 

the EIPW solves the problem of Zombie-Discussion (Discussions that bubble up, although a consensus has already be found). As all documents from the opinion forming process as well as the decision forming process remain archived in the EIPW, anyone starting a zombie-discussion can be pointed to these documents. Also the political Wiki should refer to these documents.

 

What I also expressed at the end of my concept: I think of the AoD2.0 as a starting point, from where it can evolve into something better.

 

What we are doing right now is judging the current situation from the frog perspective. We are not used to participating in a democratic environment. From day one everything is hierarchical. In Kindergarden, at school, at work. We never have the right to speak our mind and make our own judgement. We send our children off to school to learn how to compete each other, but not how to cooperatly find a consensus. Our whole society values are about winners and losers, almost never about cooperation and mutual support.

So, to me it's no surprise that our first attempts in democratic behaviour are clumsly and frustrating. I believe that we do not necessarily need smart solutions to overcomes the problems of handling the democratic process. We simply need a culture of democraticly dealing with each other.

In my family I was part of the first generation that dared to speak their mind and not just obey to some, simply because his is older. I treat my children not as equal, but as tantamount. I teach them to speak their mind and stand in for their rights, but also to be cooperative. And maybe their children will be eagles and see the whole thing form a different point of view.

Best regards
Ronald

__________________
Tel: +49 (0)89-43573610
Mobil: +49 (0)177-3775162
E-Mail: ronald AT grindle.de