[pp.int.general] LQFB: status quo in Germany // was: liquid feedback papers and/or data?
hyazinthe at emailn.de
hyazinthe at emailn.de
Sun Apr 27 03:32:40 CEST 2014
Currently the area "binding online resolution system" is heavily under construction in Germany.
We used to have an unbinding LQFB, but for various reasons it is not accepted to a worth mentioning degree.
Right now in April 2014 probably not more than 30 people use it; it easily could be thousands
of people in the scope of the german pirate party.
At the same time it got obvious, that we urgently need a binding online resolution system:
When you have special success, thousands of members and a couple of them in parliaments,
there is a strong structural need for making official basicdemocratic (!), fast resolutions
between party conventions; so being able to do that any time. You all better start early
establishing such a structure; you gonna need it. Most striking reason for needing this is the
history of the german pirate party: With success small, but very loud and aggressive groups came
to infiltrate the pirate party germany and try to set the tone by being loud and radical, and you know what ?
It actually works pretty well unless there is a way to make official, basicdemocratic, fast resolutions.
If a system is basicdemocratic, such destructive groups have no chance to dominate by simply being
very loud and aggressive.
We're in the process of establishing the "Basisentscheid" (translated "basis/grass route resolution"); that's
the name for a different online resolution system, which is binding. A lot of issues, which LQFB has, the
"Basisentscheid" doesn't have. I can't say, when it's going to be ready, but don't expect that to
be fast, because there are very, very less people actually indeed working on realizing it.
The problem with wishing and complaining on the one hand and actually indeed doing something on the other hand, you know ?
But on one of the last party conventions all gathered german pirate party members already voted for the resolution of
implementing the "Basisentscheid"; so, it's not just a theory or exercise it is seriously coming for sure.
Here are the TOP 5 reasons why LQFB fails in Pirate Party Germany:
5. No home developer team
Relying on LQFB without an own home developer team means making oneself independant from a problematic software, which
development is not in one's hand.
4. Not so good verification process
Establishing a verification process is an important preparation of making LQFB binding; you need to make sure that behind every
vote there is only one real person. The current verification process is not implemted, yet, but is really not the best and not really data reductive
One can fix it, but the attitude of the people behind LQFB is "this is not a problem, YOU are the problem".
Whenever there is any problem regarding LQFB, you instantly meet unwillingness to accept the issue as a problem and additionally solve it.
3. The interface is very unattractive and not very functional
The current interface scares a lot of people away, is very difficult to access, and doesn't make lust to deal with the system.
The team developping a new interface can't continue for more than 1 year now, because they need development of LQFB itself, and
1. the original developers refuse to do so, because they have better things to do and don't like pirates (anymore) and 2. there was just
one pirate, who was willing to do this development, but he stopped continuing to do a core re-design of LQFB, which then would have been
independant from the original LQFB developers 1 year ago - so, downtime.
2. Super delegation problem
A super delegation means, that extremely much votes are concentrated on one single person what enables this person to decide alone
about success of initiatives. I know that one can start arguing a lot at that spot ("it's not a bug, it's a feature !"), but what's it worth ?
In practice super delegations demotivated the masses to participate. The aim of e-Democracy is generating more democracy. When one
person alone sets the tone and masses boycott the system, then in practice you missed the aim of generating more democracy. Of course
now one can say "it's the fault of the super delegates" or "it's the fault of the masses; they don't understand", but does that change
anything at the fact, that this system in practice right now fails to generate more democracy ? No.
1. Unlawfulness & Voting machine problem
The Voting machine problem means, that technically a democratic election basically only can have 2 of the following 3 qualities:
Electronic, secret & open to scrutiny.
This is the No.1 problem: The Pirate Party Germany has EXTREME high expectations regarding democratic elections and the people pushing
for making LQFB binding in Germany simply don't take the demands on democratic elections serious; as a consequence, the solution
they've found renouncing secrecy and so making the election totally transparent with real name lists viewable for everyone doesn't satisfy
the masses and probably is against the constitution.
They don't have a problem with it; they don't care. But the masses do. Hence the downtime.
Because of all that, currently there is a dead unbinding LQFB in the german pirate party; since one
year on every party convention of the Pirate Party Germany, with a lot pathos a proposal comes up
to make LQFB binding, although all mentioned problems still exist unsolved.
Of course, such proposals get rejected every time.
Our alternative to LQFB (binding LQFB = #SMV), the "Basisentscheid (abbrev.: #BEO)", is not as famous as "the #SMV" but very promising:
The verification system of the "Basisentscheid" is more data reductive,
the super delegation problem is solved by renouncing delegations and so having a fully basicdemocratic web resolution system,
the time elite problem is solved by cyclic voting phases,
in contrast to the sMV the "Basisentscheid" doesn't exclude offliners,
in short or mid term the "Basisentscheid" will be staffed with an own
software, which is in our hand, so that we don't depend on the
LQFB developers, who are not favorable to us,
the "Basisentscheid" enables secret voting (switches to offline mode then),
the "Basisentscheid" is designed to be lawful.
In discussions with a huge amount of pirates, who are doing political work on
democracy and e-democracy or are interested in it, the idea came up and enjoyed popularity
to fill the hole, which removing delegations left, with a kind of advice/recommendation system;
so, you can't give your power to another person, who then technically decides for you, but
you can follow people you trust regarding certain topic areas or concrete topics, if you want;
when you follow them, that means, that you can read what they think of certain
proposals, if they make a comment on certain proposals.
These comments help you to do a competent voting decision and are time saving for you,
but they just help you instead of taking the actual voting off your hand; so,
you're still the one who has to make a vote; you just got advice(s) how to do it not more and not less.
So much to the know how and status quo of the german pirate party regarding binding online (web based) resolution systems.
In the course of the years another insight raised:
Discussion is more important than making a resolution.
And anologue speaking in systems:
A binding web-based resolution system is not enough,
we also especially need a web-based discussion system, which
is made for optimizing discussing instead of just enabling discussing.
Who's interested in this and what the status quo of this structural development is in the
german pirate party, just have a look at this:
- theory: http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/AG_Meinungsfindungstool/Ergebnisse/DieGrundidee
- practice: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1xulOzojrwx-Xcs3rYSwU0kftSgSyDHrWzb0VzGf4BTQ/pub?start=false&loop=false&delayms=60000#slide=id.p
- and if you're interested in helping developping a discussion system, then join the related working group: http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/AG_Meinungsfindungstool/Ergebnisse/Macht_mit#Regelm.C3.A4.C3.9Fige_Treffen - if you don't understand german, use https://translate.google.com/
/ aka Oliver
--- Ursprüngliche Nachricht ---
Von: "Cal." <peppecal at gmail.com>
Datum: 26.04.2014 21:55:21
An: Pirate Parties International -- General Talk <pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
Betreff: [pp.int.general] liquid feedback papers and/or data?
> Is there any _nationwide_ german data on satisfaction with using that software?
> Or some sociological studies on what happens inside?
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
More information about the pp.international.general