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

[Michael Allan]

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.  The drafter she is voting for (most likely a
citizen) will then decide whether to accept her recommendations.  And
so on, up to the consensus drafter.  Or the legislator may think of
shifting her vote to another drafter.  There will be many, all part of
the consensus cascade.  So if the legislator's views are acceptable to
the public, they will eventually be heeded.  If not, she may continue
to express them.

> > 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.

PO does not forget, however.  Votes that shift today do not
automatically shift back tomorrow.  So if an MP disappoints her voters
today, she must do something about it tomorrow, or the votes will stay
away.  Where did they go?  To rivals.  The rivals will not forget the
reason, and will not allow the voters to forget.

> RD is by definition indirect and
> therefore "mitigated" decision making.

It's something... but RD is on a short leash.  It must either shift
PD, as with arguments (barking), or follow its lead.  And it must do
so within a few years, at most.  Else PD will replace RD at the next
general election.

> Upper bodies may add one layer of
> indirectness (and delegation of
> responsibility) to this process.

The judiciary too.  These bodies are on a longer leash.  They are much
better at mitigating the danger.  It takes decades to move them.  They
can stand against the public, if need be.  Nothing else can.

> 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").

No longer of the public sphere?  That makes me think that the
institution of PD might have a history like that of Parliament.
Parliament was once situated in the public sphere and opposed to the
government (King and ministers).  Then, in the latter half of the
1800's, it effectively became an institution of the government.  Mind,
it wasn't so much captured by government, as goverenment was captured
by it.  But it definitely left the public sphere.^[1]

At issue is eqn (a), and the long-term existence of PD:

  (a)  FS + IT ~= PD  (public sphere decision-making)

I'm wondering how government could capture the institution of FS + IT.
I'm thinking it would be difficult, almost as difficult as capturing
the press, especially because of the way the IT is likely to be
distributed.  Briefly, see just the diagrams here:

  http://zelea.com/project/votorola/a/design.xht

Consider Paris, for example.  The pollserver (IT) for the 20th
arrondissement is administered by a local graduate student.  She,
along with a dozen neighbourhood registrars, and various other unpaid
"un-officials" were elected to their posts by their fellow residents.
Together they keep the IT running, and help to maintain the trust
network that underpins the voter list.  FS is well guarded in France,
so PD is being freely produced on a range of issues, including the the
makeup of the arrondissement Council, the nomination of the Mayor, and
local members of the National Assembly.  Likewise, there is an
independent pollserver in each of the other 19 arrondissements, and so
on, right across the country - thousands of them.  Can such an
institution be uprooted from the public sphere?


[1] Jürgen Habermas.  1962.  The Structural Transformation of the
    Public Sphere.  Translated by Thomas Burger, 1989.  MIT Press,
    Cambridge, Massachusetts.

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, 647-436-4521
http://zelea.com/