[pp.int.general] 'Liquid Democrazy': Pirate Party Sinks amid Chaos and Bickering
streetdogg at gmx.net
Sun Feb 24 20:50:07 CET 2013
Am 24.02.2013 20:06, schrieb carlo von lynX:
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 07:07:18PM +0100, StreetDogg wrote:
>> There is no easy and obvious way. There are probably posibilities to
>> "hack" the law, but nobody really knows if it would stand before
> you can declare it to be a permanent assembly. then it works.
> i think several lands have worked their SMV's out quite nicely.
Not a single state has made a single decision by such a permanent
assembly, yet. The one which is furthest in the process of implementing
it is obviously trying to hack the law, by giving its normal assemby
some kind of shizophrenic nature. It has not been analyzed by any court,
yet. So nobody (can) know, if it "works" (legally) at this point.
>> courts. Also there are data protection laws that collide with
>> security needs.
> that is a myth that got stuck in the german pirate party and is
> really hard to fix. that's actually pretty scary that something
> like that can happen as it convinced an entire party that the only
> thing that could get them going can't be done.
> they asked some bureacrat if using LF in way xy would be legally
> valid and for reasons beyond my understanding they just believe
> whatever was said. truth is there had been previous lawyer
> consultations which simply affirmed that it is as with any software
> on the internet:
> if you click on the terms & conditions and declare to accept them,
> you declare to accept that your name is visible within the voting
> tool. end of story. no data protection problem at all.
By calling it a "myth" it does not go away. They did not ask "some
bureaucrat", but the official authorities of at least two states, which
are responsible for the oversight of public and private organisations in
regard of data protection. They both consistently stated that it's not
legal to force members of a party submit everything in an online system
under their full name, to exercise their rights. Additionally some more
or less irrelevant bodies have stated the same.
>>> "Time and again, a majority of the party's members express support
>>> online for a particular idea, only to scrap it at the party's next
>>> real-world meeting."
>>> Why that happens? Does that mean that different people vote in LF?
>>> People change their minds?
>> Only a more or less small subset of the party members use the system
>> to express their opinions. Basically the party is divided in fans of
> you can scrap liquid feedback rightaway if you use it like that.
> your party must collectively decide to either use it and work out
> the problems of it or to rot in hell of traditional democracy.
> the majority of implementations of LQFB are just plain wrong.
> am i talking to a german?
> in that case replace "your party" with "our party"
> there is a reason why LQFB in berlin works and fails in several
> other bundeslands. stubborness. so hard it rather makes the entire
> project fall to pieces.
> either the german pirates learn to embrace the future
> and to risk the problems of liquid democracy, or they can
> try their luck being just yet another political party.
> i bet my ass noone in germany cares for yet another party.
> so i see no alternative.
> all the LF critics should get together and present some really
> smart improvements and fixes (like 'pirate feedback' which at
> least is an okay alternative) but stop being fundamentalist
> against it as it will just tear the pirate movement apart.
Yes, you are talking to a german, and this tone is not helpful for the
debate in any way.
More information about the pp.international.general