[EM] Time of trouble? Or put a lid on it? - Premise

[Juho Laatu]

--- On Thu, 5/2/09, Michael Allan <mike at zelea.com> 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 of the government. This
means that their nature will be different
than in the free discussion fora.

> 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.

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.

> 
> (There are non-political relations of PD too, with other
> parts of
> society, and with culture.  But we don't have a theory
> for those,
> yet.)
>  
> > 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.
> 
> So government does not act on PD, but ignores it.  But this
> is
> impossible in RD.  PD translates too easily to electoral
> support in
> RD. 
> For example:
> 
>   Curious to see what my MP is contributing to the bill
> (B), I trace
>   her vote.  I'm surprised to learn that she's
> voting for B6, a null
>   draft of the bill, meaning she's opposed to the whole
> thing.  I put
>   a filter on the poll results for B, restricting it to my
> own own
>   riding.  But the results are the same - over 50% of her
> constituents
>   are voting in support of B1.  And I am one of them.
> 
>   So I switch over to the poll for my MP's own seat in
> Parliament.
>   Sure enough, she's not doing so well there. 
> She's behind two
>   rivals, both of whom have been gaining in votes lately. 
> (I look to
>   see how they're voting for B.  Sure enough,
> they're both voting for
>   B1.)  I shift my vote over to one of them.  (Maybe my MP
> is intent
>   on retiring, and does not wish to be re-elected?)
>  
> > 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).
> 
> I'll first try to separate the parts, and define them
> clearly.
> Otherwise the structure of the whole is lost, and it's
> difficult to
> talk about function.  (Afterwards, anyone can argue that
> the parts are
> not actually separate, and I will reply.)  We have:
> 
>    i) public that discusses and expresses decisions (PD)
> 
>   ii) government that wields power and acts
> 
> You say that when (i) and (ii) are aligned, then the public
> has
> exercised power.  But it only seems so.  There is only a
> similar
> *effect* to what one might expect if the public could
> actually hold
> power - acting by force and threat of force - as a
> government does, or
> as an individual does.
> 
> PD is entirely de-coupled from power - in both time and
> space - and
> likewise de-coupled from action.  First, the public
> expresses PD,
> tentatively at first - a weak or young consensus.  Action
> follows at a
> later time, conditionally.  Meanwhile there is a dialogue
> between the
> public decider and the government actor, in which PD is
> likely to
> shift, e.g. in response to the bureaucratic realities of
> what can
> actually be done.  At no point will PD be able to force the
> machinery
> of the bureaucracy, and dictate the timing or form of
> action.  Only
> the government can do that.  So the public holds no power,
> in any real
> sense.
> 
> It is true that PD becomes associated with RD.  But I
> wouldn't say it
> becomes a structural part of RD, any more than RD becomes a
> part of
> it.  I would first emphasize the logical separation of the
> two systems
> as being a more rational way to look at the whole.  I think
> it is also
> a more efficient and more feasible way to build it - 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.

>  
> > 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.
> 
> Informal public opinion is not decision, then.  Its effects
> are too
> convoluted to speak clearly of.  Agreed.  It's like a
> control system
> in a pilotless craft, drifting now with the wind, and now
> with the
> bias of the engines.
> 
> Where there is no PD on a particular issue, we can expect
> no action in
> response.  Public votes may be split in a stable, 3-way
> consensus, for
> instance.  RD will have to muddle along, directionless on
> that
> particular issue.  So society reverts to the old way of
> doing things.
> (That's probably good.)
> 
> > 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).
> 
> But why would elected officials generally wish to oppose
> PD?

My assumption was that there could
be many PD processes, their opinions
could be weak, they could be
challenged, stamped as non-expert
opinions etc. You seem to assume that
there is one single official PD
process. In this case it is not as
easy to avoid taking into account the
messages emerging from the process.
(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.)

> 
> And how could they block action?  They could block for a
> single
> term, but likely at the cost of their careers.

RD representatives often make unwanted
decisions like tax raises but somehow
they manage to explain these to the
voters before the next election, or
alternatively the voters forget, or
they understand the politicians
although their opinion was different.

> 
> (An un-elected upper assembly could block for longer - say
> for a
> couple of decades - depending on its turn-over rate. 
> Likewise the
> un-elected judiciary, such as the supreme courts.  These
> would
> mitigate the dangers of DD, just as they mitigate the
> dangers of
> democracy, in general.)

RD is by definition indirect and
therefore "mitigated" decision making.
Upper bodies may add one layer of
indirectness (and delegation of
responsibility) to this process.


What I learned at this round is that
you see the PD to consist of one single
official or de facto recognized process.
In this case the opinion formation may
be clear and the messages heard by the
RD representatives. The process may not
be a free public sphere process any more
but if it is well managed it may
represent in many aspects the true
feelings of the people quite well
(~= "official continuous polls").

In some aspects the process gets closer
to an election process with hysteresis.
The opinions can be expressed continuously
but the RD seats will be reallocated only
maybe once in few years.

Juho



> 
> > > ... 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...
> 
> (will reply shortly, in separate post)
> 
> [1] On the voting mechanism, see section 1 of original
> post.  Or:
>     http://zelea.com/project/votorola/d/theory.xht#medium
> 
> -- 
> Michael Allan
> 
> Toronto, 647-436-4521
> http://zelea.com/
> 
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see
> http://electorama.com/em for list info