[pp.int.general] LQFB: status quo in Germany // was: liquid feedback papers and/or data?
piratenpartei at t-online.de
Sun Apr 27 15:34:12 CEST 2014
Eduardo Robles Elvira schrieb:
> Hello Aloa:
> the whole system fail. This is why I usually prefer to have them first
> separated, then maybe we can try to join two successful methods, one for
> voting and another for discussion. Maybe I'm wrong and too conservative
> here, that's just what I feel right.....
It´s (not?) a question if there is a possibility.
What I wrote is a "fact". It´s that what LQFB does - how it works (or not).
Lynx as a normal LQFB-liker said "you have not understood LQFB" to me.
Well. It is not a question if LQFB was made for working in a special way
or not. It is also not a question if it works how it should or not. The
core problem is that this tool requires a special enviroment so that the
outcome in the end is acceptable. It´s not a question if there is a
binding or if it is transparent or not.
---> Which quality [input]
---> Wich quality ["discussion"-phase.... what is a joke if we speak
about some hundred of special questions at the same time]
---> Wich quality [delegation phase]
---> Wich quality [output]
The technical point of view is not really important. For every of these
4 quality-steps we can see the problem not only of a working tool but
also of this type of democracy.
Actually LQFB has a
-> low quality of input (wich is not it´s job - per design)
-> no quality of discussion (wich is not it´s job -- per design)
-> no quality of delegation (wich is not it´s job -- per design)
-> no quality of output
That are no problems if you use the tool for voting e.g. in a meeting of
100 specialists. HQ input, discussed thousand times before, everyone
knows about the knowledge of the others, HQ output related to the steps
And again: it´s not a question if you use 1 tool for both or 2 tools or
5 tools or if you discuss via twitter or find a suitable person on whom
you wish to delegate at the toilet. The "fact" is that the enviroment of
"informed people" [topic; potential delegations; whatever] does not
exist. And because of this it´s just an accident if the output is HQ.
More information about the pp.international.general