[EM] Deliberation and voting

[Michael Allan]

Frank and Ronald, (cc Henry)

My own reply to Henry is here:
http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?A2=NCDD-DISCUSSION;3915ad12.1208d
So I would side with Frank against a phased approach:

  (a)  deliberation  ----->  voting'a

In favour of something more bi-directional or simultaneous:

  (b)  deliberation  <---->  voting'b

Note however that Ronald has called the left side "opinion forming"
and not "deliberation".  So I think he pictured something like this:

  (c)  opinion forming --->  voting'a

I agree with this, too.  But opinion forming (together with mutual
understanding) is the purpose of (b).  I think this equation holds:

  (d)  opinion forming  ==   deliberation  <---->  voting'b

Now combine (b), (c) and (d) to give a fuller technical picture:

  (e)  deliberation  <---->  voting'b  ---->  voting'a

The two voting facilities (a and b) differ in structure and function.
Voting'a is mass voting.  It does the heavy lifting.  It turns over
the power heavy offices of government, and that's about all it does.
It is the political equivalent of an earth mover, or a plough, and is
largely incompatible with deliberation.  It cannot be joined directly
with a fine-grained deliberative process.  But it can be joined
directly with voting'b, and voting'b is compatible with both. [1]

Moreover, the deliberative process depends on the structural support
of voting'b.  Without voting'b, there cannot be much in the way of
deliberation or public opinion.  In fact, this is the status quo:

  (f)                                 ?  ---->  voting'a

The left side may be characterized in different ways, but not as
deliberative opinion formation (b).  I think Mills draws the pertinent
distinction (e vs. f) best in this famous passage: [2]

   In a *public*, as we may understand the term, (1) virtually as many
   people express opinions as receive them.  (2) Public
   commununications are so organized that there is a chance
   immediately and effectively to answer back any opinion expressed in
   public.  Opinion formed by such discussion (3) readily finds an
   outlet in effective action, even against - if necessary - the
   prevailing system of authority.  And (4) authoritative institutions
   do not penetrate the public, which is thus more or less autonomous
   in its operation.  When these conditions prevail, we have the
   working model of a community of publics, and this model fits
   closely the several assumptions of classic democratic theory.

   At the opposite extreme, in a *mass*, (1) far fewer people express
   opinions than receive them; for the community of publics becomes an
   abstract collection of individuals who receive impressions from the
   mass media.  (2) The communications that prevail are so organized
   that it is difficult or impossible for the individual to answer
   back immediately or with any effect.  (3) The realization of
   opinion in action is controlled by authorities who organize and
   control the channels of such action.  (4) The mass has no autonomy
   from institutions; on the contrary, agents of authorized
   institutions penetrate this mass, reducing any autonomy it may have
   in the formation of opinion by discussion.

So (e) is the diagram of a public society in Mills' terms, (f) is a
mass society, and voting'b is the hinge on which the difference turns.
The technical problems are therefore on the left side of (e).  Recall:

  (e)  deliberation  <---->  voting'b  ---->  voting'a

(1) Voting'b is an extension of the human voice.  It has all the
freedom and ubiquity of ordinary speech, and none of the restrictions
of voting'a.  (2) When an opinion is expressed in voting'b, anyone can
immediately answer back with arguments for or against.  Likewise when
an argument is expressed during deliberation, opinion can immediately
shift in response.  This is the meaning of the bi-directional arrow
<----> on the left.  (3) The outlet for action is election day.  The
results of voting'b are carried to voting'a, voter by voter, and power
is restructured according to public opinion.  This is shown by the
uni-directional arrow ----> on the right side.  (4) Autonomy follows
from the preceding conditions.  It is also shown by the independence
of the left side from the right.  Compare this to the status quo (f),
which might be drawn as:

  (f)    +-->  money  --->  mass media  --->  voting'a
         |                                       |
         +-------------------- power  <----------+

We engineers have no control over the structure of voting'a on the
right side, which is constant in both (e) and (f), nor do we need any.
Voting'a is controlled purely by content, not by form.  Technically
all that matters, therefore, is the left side of (e).  This brings us
back to the process of opinion formation (b):

  (b)  deliberation  <---->  voting'b

With Votorola, we're currently working on the problem of visualizing
this process.  How do we show it where and when it is actually
happening?  What should it look like in the user interface?  [3]


  [1] Technically I label the two essential voting processes (a and b)
      as "authoritative" and "normative":
      http://zelea.com/project/votorola/d/theory.xht#conclusion

  [2] C. Wright Mills.  1956.  The power elite.  Oxford University
      Press, New York.  pp. 303-304.

  [3] Here are some mockups we've drawn:
      http://zelea.com/project/votorola/s/gwt/scene/vote/_/
      http://whiletaker.homeip.net/mockups/
      http://zelea.com/project/votorola/s/gwt/stage/_/mock/

      Here's a precise problem (2) that needs solving:
      http://mail.zelea.com/list/votorola/2012-August/001402.html

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
http://zelea.com/


fragro said:
> Ronald,
> 
> Open Assembly employed a similar system with a phased system. First users
> could prepare information, comments, arguments, or solutions, and after a
> period of time voting begins. However this structure was not well
> appreciated in testing because users found that it was stifling.
> Implementing it correctly is the hardest problem, and a static time did not
> work. There needs to be a dynamic way to determine when the right amount of
> information or arguments has formed that does not stifle the ability to
> vote.
> 
> For instance many of the concepts brought over to Open Assembly had a long
> history and users had a pre-defined notion of their opinion which often did
> not change, as they were already educated on that specific issue.
> 
> So for such a structure to work it must be individual and personalized.
> This means that employing some level of machine learning is necessary, or
> else users will quickly become disengaged from the inability to actually
> express their preference.
> 
> Frank Grove
> 
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Ronald Grindle <ronald at grindle.de> wrote:
> 
> >  Hello Henry,
> >
> > regarding your question about solutions to inform voters: in my concept,
> > the "Architecture for a Democracy 2.0"<http://www.metagovernment.org/wiki/Architecture_for_a_Democracy_2.0>,
> > (among other solutions) I am suggesting to extend the political process
> > with a phase that precedes the voting,  called "Opinion Forming". In this
> > phase Information is collected, statements are prepared and a first draft
> > of the citizens' opinion is established. These results are then passed on
> > to the actual voting.
> >
> > It allows comrade citizens to prepare information on an issue and offer a
> > recommendation how to vote  to the other citizens.
> >
> > The english translation of the concept should be available soon.
> >
> >  Mit freundlichen Grüßen
> >
> > Ronald D. Grindle
> > __________________
> > Tel: +49 (0)89-43573610
> > Mobil: +49 (0)177-3775162
> > E-Mail: ronald at grindle.de
> >  Am 22.08.2012 23:33, schrieb Michael Allan:
> >
> 
> -- 
> Libertas et Patria