Political use for Loomio

@michaelsoth Really good points raised here...

The problem, of course, with internet voting is that it might degenerate into X-factor style mob rule, gravitating to lowest common denominators, if we were to implement it today.

This is something that also worries me. At least now voters have to make some effort. Physically going to ballot boxes, or ticking a box and dropping a card in a post box.

For very simple (almost trivial*), clearly defined decisions that is not a big problem. But giving large volumes of people the ability to affect an outcome without even reading a discussion or adding something to the debate is worrying.

• see X-Factor

@lbjoum

I would imagine we will not get many people elected so it won’t be any more dangerous to our political system then the one or two crazy people we have elected now. But it could possibly give our government the shake up it needs.

This is what I was thinking when I commented earlier in this discussion but didn't articulate. I don't see "representation through consultation" as a replacement for the current system (at least not until the sorts of issues outlined here can be discussed, ratified and implemented which is going to take time and collaborative development by groups such as Loomio and Democracy.os) but like you say it is something that needs to be tested in a live political environment.

"Collaborative representatives" in government; translating policy decisions into plain, accessible language that can be discussed and voted on by a distributed population is the first step. As I have said before doing something is better than doing nothing and hoping that things will change.

@joum @michaelsoth @alandavison

I'd like to point out here that a look at the last 2000 years of civilisation might put the dangers of 'mob rule' into perspective. Also, X-Factor - while hair-raising - is not exactly a reliable measure of how the people in a society would behave, because a) who 'participates' there is self-selecting and b) participants and viewers KNOW they are operating in a consequence-free environment that encourages excess .
And the total damage that X-Factor has wreaked on the world pales into insignificance when compared with what elected politicians do every day.
The vast majority of elected representatives get their seats through loyalty to the party and always vote the party line. They also do not read, much less understand, the vast majority of motions that they vote on.
Also, as a bona fide expert, I will say that there is nothing mysterious out there that 'the people' are incapable of understanding. Most stuff just isn't really that complicated. You don't need to understand every line of a legal code to decide that eg. tax loopholes should be closed. These things are not getting done because it is really hard or complicated to do so - it's not. They are not getting done because parties are, quite literally, being paid not to. They are already well aware of what their constituents want. That they fail to fulfil that is not due to a lack of communication.

To return to mob rule: there are, I think, a few things you'd have to do to keep people as decent as they come: no anonymity in commenting and decision-making (I think the way Loomio gets people to open accounts is a really good step in this direction); force people to participate in a debate in order to be allowed to vote. That way they can't make a 'knee-jerk' decision. And then as soon as possible try to break up the cartel that is mass media. THAT is the real problem - that people are subjected to 24/7 misinformation. This takes its toll. In fact, considering what people are exposed to, I am amazed that they are as reasonable as they are.

But despite all of that, I absolutely agree with @joum - I've decided to trust in humanity, too. There actually aren't any other options.
After all, trusting in a few self-selecting, born-and-raised elite individuals hasn't, oddly enough, worked out very well for most of us.

@joum @joaomarcelloortega @alandavison @gregorycassel

Also - since a lot of us are campaigning on a Loomio-aided platform or similar, should we open a group for this, where we can keep in touch and discuss these things/try to help each other out?
The first thing the media industry will try to do is make us all look like a bunch of fringe loonies and 'dreamers', so I think having some sort of cooperation that 'normalises' this movement would be really helpful, even if we have slightly different ideas of the exact modalities of our operations. Also, if successful, how could we support Loomio financially/what would the operators feel is an appropriate contribution?

@roslyn
As always, so much to consider when reading your posts. My reference to X-Factor was more to highlight "trivial" decisions, and as you say the people who vote on these things are self-selecting.

Most stuff just isn't really that complicated. You don't need to understand every line of a legal code to decide that eg. tax loopholes should be closed. These things are not getting done because it is really hard or complicated to do so - it's not. They are not getting done because parties are, quite literally, being paid not to.

Now we are starting to highlight the real crux of the issue. As you say, large numbers of elected officials don't read or understand what they vote on and are simply following the party line. Some may have a personal agenda or focus and pay attention to certain types of legislation but again this is not representative of the people who elected them or necessarily in the best interest of the wider population.

Also - since a lot of us are campaigning on a Loomio-aided platform or similar, should we open a group for this, where we can keep in touch and discuss these things/try to help each other out?

Agreed, and since we are on this platform perhaps we should include the Loomio team and decide where is the best place to create this proposal in order to attract the attention of as many community members and Loomio users as possible.

My suggestion would be to try and "tag" comments within the discussion posts somehow to indicate the nature or focus of the information on a post, comment, paragraph or statement basis (if this is not clear please let me know and I will try to explain it better).

So many of the points you raised are not only highly relevant but should form the basis of an informed discussion.

@lbjoum I agree with you. We must give option to society to decide. We cannot elect some guys and let them decide for us. We don't know what influences are taking part in their decisions. There is a need to change something here.
When I hire a gardener, I count on his know-how to do his job based on what I want. I listen to what he has to say about the job to be done, because I don't have the technical information to do that. But the final decision is up to me. Why can't the same be valid for public management? I don't want to deal with burocracy, laws, financial control, but I want the most important things (at least) being presented to me, explained in a plain text with its benefits and consequences in a way I can vote for it. I also intend to run for elections in 2016 using this model of 'consultative representation' as a test. I'm very curious to see how will people react once I give them information and the power to decide. My responsability will be inform them, through technical analysis of my team, what their decisions will affect them. I have no right to decide something for them, unless they abdicate their decision and let that for me.

@roslyn I think that's a very good idea. We have people from different countries, cultures and scenarios here and each of us can add to an idea that can help us to improve possibilities.

When we consider the presentation of issues to be directly decided by popular vote, we must ask ourselves: who is framing the questions, how, and why?

In theory, we can have a system in which 'collective wisdom' is used to generate yes/no proposals for public voting. Perhaps it would reflect principles similar to Loomio's coming 'Ideas' feature. I'm really interested in this.

I have to say, for clarity's sake, that I'm deeply opposed to the concept of simple majority rule with respect to most decisions which coerce anyone, either through the direct discipline of behaviors (via laws) or by conscripting taxation towards purposes approved by a simple majority. My views are always subject to new information, inter-action and reflection, but it's hard to imagine how I would be convinced that a simple majority ought to be able to force up to almost 50% of a non-voluntary (citizenship) group to bend to its will.

I qualified with the word most above, because I do think that simple majority can make sense when choosing between alternatives which have been mutually agreed to be reasonably comparable. For instance, when people are choosing between two plans which strive to achieve the same results. That's kind of a tricky subject though: alternate strategies often have significantly different side effects.

I do agree entirely that there is nothing mysterious out there that ‘the people’ are incapable of understanding-- especially if we reform government towards reasonably simplicity, clarity and efficiency.

I'm very interested in these types of discussions, and I think that a related group is a great idea @roslyn . Thanks everyone for your powerful ideas here.

Why do we have to set "majority" as 50%? Why can't we set other values according to the subject? For example: 80% approval required to go on in controversial decisions or that involves lots of people. or even defining 1.5x or 2x values to votes that are directly affected by something being voted (this one may be dangerous). We don't need to follow a rule like majority = 50%+1.

@joaomarcelloortega This is something I was looking at previously and how I ended up finding Loomio.

I tested and evaluated various systems (a software engineer from a technical viewpoint looking at features, and from a UI/UX [User Interface / User Experience] point of view).

Generally I was looking at open source software because it can be forked and modified to suit a particular groups needs. One such product that ceased active development over 2 years ago was called OpenMind. Users could post an idea, suggestion, proposal or whatever and others could vote. It had a simple interface, was fairly intuitive but what set it apart was a "weighted voting system" users had 10 votes which they could use individually or as a block (there may have been a maximum number of votes for a single proposal I don't remember).

What I am trying to get at is there are a number of different ways the actual vote can be structured depending on the nature of the item being voted on. Different voting methods could be handled via plug-ins.

I have included a link for some OpenMind screenshots and also attached a couple which should display in Loomio Beta.