Political use for Loomio

I love that TED talk, one of my favourites!

@joaomarcelloortega you'll be happy to hear we're in a partnership with Pia and the Democracy OS people, exploring ways that our platforms can integrate.

Loomio is really focussed on relatively small groups of people that want to organise democratically, whereas Democracy OS has much larger groups in mind. So some kind of integration would be nice, so each project can keep focussed on their own specific part of the problem, but users can move smoothly from one scale to the next.

Great!
Here in Brazil we also have something like that, but not being used as DemocracyOS. Graphic interface is really nice and some benchmarking is always positive. Check it out: www.votenaweb.com.br

;)

That's one of my favorite TED talks too; thanks for reminding me of it. Very good to know that Loomio and Democracy OS are trying to coordinate their efforts. :)

@joaomarcelloortega Thanks for providing the link, a very well delivered talk in plain language, something all "modern citizens" should watch.

I followed the links through to Pia's webpage, the Democracy.OS and Partio de la Red websites. Pia has her sights set on the "Big Table" and a quick look at the DOS beta gives me hope that she will get there.

What we should all be doing is forming or joining groups to engage with our communities and demand this form of "representation through consultation" from our local councils (smaller groups) and pushing this from grassroots all the way to National government.

I don't personally think that direct democracy is always preferable to representative government-- not yet, anyway. Pia mentions the incomprehensibility of government in her TED talk: a system designed "for lawyers, by lawyers." There are few things I want more than to reduce the complexities within which inefficiencies and corruption breed.

One of my main personal focuses is the fundamental difference between voluntary membership and citizenship. Loomio, of course, is generally oriented towards the free association of peers of whatever sort. Groups with voluntary membership. Government, by contrast, defines people as members of a group regardless of whether they want it or not. Membership involves varying degrees of personal agency, depending on the scale of government-- it's much easier to move to a new town than a new country-- and one's social and material resources.

Government therefore, in my view, suggests a different approach than that of voluntary organizations. For one thing, it practically demands minority rights as well as human rights. Additionally, the existence of the "Block" sentiment must be at least somewhat tolerated in a citizenry, especially for larger scales of organization.

I do passionately feel that government can and should be driven towards consensus-based process, and that it should seek supermajority agreement instead of unstable alliances of simple majority sentiment among currently elected officials. In many places, perhaps especially the US, polarized parties play unsustainable majoritarian games, based on coercive desires instead of the general will of the people.

@gregorycassel Perhaps we have been looking at different material. I don't think anybody is advocating direct democracy but representation through consultation. Every day the UK government passes new bills and laws that affect it's citizens. Unless like Pia states - you devote your life to politics or are prepared to travel several hours to physically attend meetings these decisions and processes are beyond the reach of the general populace.

What I am saying is that we should make a start and by doing so support and test the software and ecosystems that I believe will form the political engagement tools of the future.

If only 1% of the decisions made are via engaging with citizens who will be directly affected by those decisions then even that it better than doing nothing.

@alandavison , I think I started my last comment in an excessively vague and generic way. I didn't mean to imply that many people advocate direct voting by citizens on most issues. In the video, Pia does mention that some people ran for office in Buenos Aires with a promise to always vote according to Democracy OS results. That was a very cool idea to explore, but I don't think the world's ready for its universal application.

As far as I know, Democracy OS intends to provide a flexible tool which can be used in varied ways by citizens and officials. I think that's a fantastic idea.

@joaomarcelloortega I also really liked the look and feel of the other link provided earlier in this discussion

http://www.votenaweb.com.br/

The pie-chart and regional infographics are a great feature when combined with the soundbyte topic and posterboard style home page.

Without Loomio and it's members I wouldn't be aware of any of these tools or developments.

@gregorycasell @alandavison Why settle for "consultative representation" when you can take the lot?
I also watched the TED Talk and was amused at the "by lawyers for lawyers remark" since I am a lawyer, and yes, of course, we write everything with other lawyers in mind. You'd be mad not to.
And as a lawyer, I will tell you this: if there is a black & white decision-making process with clear consequences, such as clear internet majority-rules voting, it's harder to game that system, because there's not as much wiggle room. But give me "consultative representation" and I will have no problem paying lip service to that while doing whatever I wanted to do in the first place and convincing you that actually you wanted me to do it.

RE: supermajority - it's minority rule by another name. Just blocking motions can be so effective. In fact, I am willing to bet that I could easily rule any decision-making process that depended on supermajorities being achieved, because all I would need to do would be to cobble together a minority to vote as I desire. Fear, uncertainty and doubt will easily do the trick here. So I would effectively be in charge without it looking like I am in charge. From a lawyer point of view, that's as good as it gets.

I don't know about everyone else, but I AM advocating direct democracy to the point that I am planning to run as an Independent in the next Irish general election and hold at least one vote a month via internet voting for my constituents. Then I vote as they want whether I agree with them or not. I would like to do more, but am not sure if the logistics of the situation would permit enough time for me to get the issue up for discussion in time more often than that, given as I am only one person. However, I will figure this out as I go along. One's chances of being elected the first time around are not extraordinarily high, but there is a first time for everything.
I find that being 'ready' is a relative thing - I learned to swim when my parents started chucking me into a pool with a pair of water-wings on. Life's been much the same since then.

P.S. I am glad that Loomio and DemocracyOS are working together - I think that's a really good idea. Also, that so many people around the world have independently come up with the idea of internet voting shows how natural of a thought it is.

To clarify my point of view - there's nothing wrong with using Loomio/DemocracyOS locally or within organizations - I think that is great. I just wouldn't settle (not even mentally) for the consultative role nationally for the reasons outlined above.