Here’s what I actually feel about weighted voting.
Democracy.
If the type of government that will gain the greatest support
from the public involves weighted voting, then that should be a component of
their democratic government until such time as they choose to amend their
preference.
I would support a non-weighted version for simplicity’s sake,
but I would not be “against” a government that included weighting in some way,
so long as the public reserved the right to change its mind if things didn’t go
according to their well laid plans.
Any government that claims to be a democracy must grant the
public the ability to amend or abolish the same by sufficient support.
Whether weighted voting is right for a population will depend on
that population… if we believe in democracy. If we are oligarchs, then we will
second guess the public will, and do something “in their interest” that we deem
more effective… in our wisdumb.
Democracy. Pure. Untainted by “smart” people.
Parrhesia
From: Lata Gouveia
[latalondon(at)yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 11:17 AM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Weighted voting
Hi Antonio,
From the data I've collected so far, unfortunatelly I would have to go with
option 2.
"the people to change themselves first, in order to
become able to enter all the wanted DD
procedures
(encompassing Citizen Mundi) ?"
I wish it were not so.
However, I can think of one player (in 18 out of 3,000 hits) who joined some
weeks ago proclaiming to be "not smart enough" and "not
interested in politics" who has persevered and appears to be becoming
slightly more politicized.
I now believe that, with the input of people who can really see the true
potential and who can be creative (thank you Joseph), the model could be vastly
superior to what it is now. Most people just don't think about DD and voting
models in their day-to-day. But members of WDDM do!! So, if any of you feels
something can be improved, please jump right in. We need some people who really
"get it", in order to make it easier for those who don't.
Thank you for taking the time Antonio and Joseph
From: Antonio Rossin
<rossin(at)tin.it>
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent: Tuesday, 13 October, 2009 6:58:03
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Weighted voting
Hi Lata, and list
it seems to me, you are missing a core point.
Actually, you agreed "about people having to change first,
so that they can empower themselves to change the system."
Nice: but the question remains unsolved, when and where
people have to change first.
Let's suppose that this change may coincide with the people's
entering social direct participatory arrangements such as your
"Citizen Mundi" or alike procedures.
Really, the above when and where are not two, but one only
question. which reads:
1. Have the people to enter the Citizen Mundi procedure,
in order to become able to change themselves
towards
meeting the wanted DD goal ?
2. Have the people to change themselves first, in order to
become able to enter all the wanted DD
procedures
(encompassing Citizen Mundi) ?
Please answer, best regards,
antonio
Lata Gouveia ha scritto:
Thank you all for coming back to the issue of weighted
voting.
It seems obvious to me that the core issue of democratic
systems is, indeed, representation, no matter where the entry point to the
debate is.
It also seems obvious to me that the contributors here at WDDM are not your
average person.
On the whole, I think everyone had good points to make and I think our opinions
are not as different as our obstinate need to have the last word might
indicate.
My opinion remains that representative democracy is a contradiction in terms.
The reason why I made the argument about people being "too dumb to govern
themselves" was actually out of frustration and out of real people's
opinions. I have to agree with Antonio to a large extent about people having to
change first, so that they can empower themselves to change the system. The opposite
is unlikely to happen. A politician who has spent his whole life climbing up
that ladder is not just going to give it all up to a group of people he/she is
likely to view as tragically misinformed, lazy and disinterested in most
content, aside from gossip. I know, I know. It's the media and the politician
himself that create that situation, etc.
My frustration is based on the fact that, with roughly 3000 hits on the Citizen
Mundi website, the level of engagement has been around the 1% mark. Sure, it is
not a very well designed or user friendly site and it was presented as a game
in an attempt to attract other types of people (not just the type that you find
here at WDDM). But that's not the point. The point is that the potential for
the idea is something that totally goes over people's heads, even most of those
who are engaged in it. People have said, "oh it's just a game, I don't
have time for silly games". But it's a game that, I would hope, can create
the habit of regular group decision-making, not to mention the actual potential
for an anonymous group of people to prove that they can make sensible decisions
even if they are just voices in the dark.
So, this egg/chicken question of do the people need to change first or does the
system need to change first seems, to me, to be pretty much settled. People are
creatures of habit. They come to the site, use the debate forum and leave not
having engaged with the decision making process. Once they've had their say,
they believe they've actually had their say!! Does that make sense? I mean,
once they've spat their opinion onto the debate forum, they no longer feel the
need to vote on the topic!! Others complain about the lack of reward for
engaging.
Anyway, not to go on too much. Thank you for all your responses. If you did
want to have a fresh look at the actual procedures of Citizen Mundi, you are
welcome. Remember that everything about it can be changed from within,
including the weighted voting system and the entire rules, mission statement
etc. That's the beauty of it. It can easily turn into a community of Nazis or a
communist group or, even, a replication of the representative democracy model,
it's all up to the "players". The fact that it is virtual and not
based on a "shadowing approach" should not be that off putting. The
virtual World and the "real" World are literally merging in this day
and age. If you have any creativity, you will see some potential in it... but,
having said that, I've been proven wrong so far. Thanx again
Lata Gouveia
https://citizenmundi.wordpress.com/
|