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

[Juho Laatu]

--- On Sat, 7/2/09, Michael Allan <mike at zelea.com> 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 correct.

> 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. 

Assuming that there is one agreed PD
process to participate (and that she
wants to influence this way this time).

> 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.

Yes, FS (free speech) and IT
(internet/information technology)
are "free".

> 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?

Citizens can maintain such systems in a
FS+IT society if they are sufficiently
active and persistent. That is at least
PO. PD might require a recognized
position as the de facto opinion former
(in my interpretation of it).

Juho



> 
> 
> [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/
> 
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see
> http://electorama.com/em for list info