[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

02384: Re: [WDDM] Weighted voting

From: Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:55:31 +0200
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Weighted voting

Lata Gouveia ha scritto:
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

Lata,

Let's agree, you are pointing out to us a best practice.

Let's but also remember Aldous Huxley's renown sentence:

    "Theory without practice is sterile;
     Practice without theory is blind."


Cheers,

antonio








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/



-- 
*********************************
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reifications (like biological entozoic infections of the gut) are
proto-socio-neurological enculturations and as useful  fictions 
are not  necessarily symbiotic with,  nor necessarily benignly
adjuvant to the welfare of their unwitting and often naive hosts.
Jud Evans.

Freedom in humans consists of the ability to liberate 
oneself  from the tyranny of  reificationalist imprinting.  
Antonio Rossin.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*********************************

[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]