The process.

The problems I see with simple majority voting go deeper than the distortions and propaganda in our awful, and awfully inconsistent, media.

If citizens could create binding policies by simple majority voting, we could end up with many restrictive laws which could be quite upsetting to huge minorities of the population. Some of those laws could actively contradict the intentions of OTHER laws. It would depend on what gets voted on, and who framed the voting question(s), and why they framed it that way.

Of course, good education and media will tend to make more people reasonable over time. In fact, I think most people agree on most issues already-- but, those aren't the issues that get voted on. For instance, I bet over 2/3 of Americans right now would vote for a variety of campaign finance reform ideas, if they directly could. But obviously, that's not how the federal politics work. Instead, legislators lock horns on issues which have been precisely calculated to practically divide a nation in half.

Supermajority isn't harder to do than simple majority, IMO; it just requires a more inclusive attitude regarding the stakeholders in a given level of society.

The possibility of laws being made that contradict other laws is huge if the layout of the voting system isn't highly structured, there also needs to be a ratification process if this happens to decide which vote takes precedence.

With the question of majorities it's a hard one, you can hardly expect every person to vote on every issue, on the other hand it becomes possible for small factions to push through policy in their interests because the public didn't notice.

The first problem requires that we have sections for every aspect of governance and that votes are put through the correct sections.

The only way I can see the other being solved is by hyrbridising representative democracy with direct democracy

Certainly very much agree with Greg Cassel's last comments. Also the link to the TED talk -Link at the very top of the page is very much worthwhile watching (thanks Joum)

@robhayward

Loomio could still be a valuable tool for this process, however, the decisions made could feed into a wiki that would act as a living document for the evolution of policy and legislation.

I think this is a great idea. This is already basically how wikipedia works (there are talk pages behind every wiki page). I think that those pages could be improved a lot with a loomio-style system for discussion.

I think even in a situation where it's somewhat subjective, and it comes to votes, this type of discussion is really important. Not only for the immediate decision, but also for implementing that decision and any future decisions.

@dnephin
Thanks. I am currently in the process of launching a site running on the wikimedia platform for this purpose (anyone interested in helping please PM me).
Having been to a couple of Wikipedia meet-ups, one of the major issues is editing wars.
As you say, a loomio style system could be a great improvement on this.

@rorytb
Perhaps Wikis could also bring a much needed structural element that could avoid the contradiction and duplication of laws/legislation. They are perfect for mapping out vast, complex and intertwining subject matter in an organized fashion.

@directadmin you said ..

i believe the ted talk and others talking about this representative based DD, are a good place to transition through since just throwing a true direct democracy at people would be a fatal mistake.

there is a lot to be reworked in this kind of model, but there is more wrong with our system than just the way we vote, and i think we should use the opportunity of governance change to discuss this and come up with alternative suggestions.

I agree with this position and like @dnephin and @robhayward have bee looking at software tools and platforms that may help us work towards a better solution.

The issues facing this group who have expressed an interest in Online Direct Democracy are complex and varied. The "process" outlined by @lbjoum in the initial post I see as a starting point for discussion rather than a solution.

Today I stumbled across another platform called whatleads.to that describes itself as follows:

CauseHub is here to help with mechanics of collaboration. Wherever different people want to work on a shared aim, CauseHub provides the technology and support to make it happen.

Of particular interest is the What leads to an Intelligently Self Governed Society example.

I zoomed in on the aspect that I am most interested in to give a visual example of how the site is structured.

The above attachment is a little simplistic, here is another to show how it is "connected" to other areas.

I have signed up and started adding some of my own steps and comments to see how it works...

There are many decisions that need to be made that are not subjective in nature. Majority opinion should not necessarily be weighed more highly than quantifiable and qualifiable facts. For these decisions I am a fan of an “evidence based democracy”. Online tools such as wikis could be used to facilitate the decentralised collaboration of experts and knowledgable persons to create policy and plans for things like infrastructure, energy production etc. @robhayward

Rob,

Just a thought but I've previously suggested a feature that would be "Agreements" that get added to a discussion. Those could be set off to the side so people jumping into an existing discussion could get a quick idea at the foundation and not rehash certain topics.

Great line of thought on evidence based democracy... ABC provides great fact checking.

@BenBurton
As the community grows and the discussions become longer and more complex an "agree" function or some other conversation summery tool could be very useful.
I think the tough balance for Loomio will be to add useful features whilst retaining the simplicity and usability that is its main strength.
In my opinion, for what it's worth, I think that it is better to keep it simple and play to strengths, accept limitations and integrate wil other complementary platforms (like wikis!) which have their own set of strengths and weaknesses.