[pp.int.general] LQFB: status quo in Germany // was: liquid feedback papers and/or data?

[carlo von lynX]

On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 03:34:12PM +0200, aloa5 wrote:
> Lynx as a normal LQFB-liker said "you have not understood LQFB" to

which I underscored with a long mail refuting your top 5 reasons
against LQFB as most are specific to the wrong way it was
deployed in Germany.

> Actually LQFB has a
> -> low quality of input (wich is not it?s job - per design)

That is incorrect. By having to reach a democratic quorum of
support no other tool I ever saw has a similarly high degree of
input. Italian LQFB actually has slightly too low quora, so we do
sometimes see populistic humbug make it to debating phase.

> -> no quality of discussion (wich is not it?s job -- per design)

LQFB tries to enforce debate on a strictly constructive level
(you have to make suggestions) and it includes democratic feedback
in each of those steps. Negating this is just stubborn.

We know this isn't enough. It isn't flexible enough, so there are
proposals to allow for a side webchat or pirate pad or whatever
and sometimes suggestions are used abusively - that is a disciplinary
problem and the pirate parties have been terrible at enforcing any
sort of discipline and conseguently justice. Without it you end
up having a bit less democracy.

These are TODOs, not reasons to throw away achievements and go
back to where politics already is.

> -> no quality of delegation (wich is not it?s job -- per design)

Social trust is the foundation of representative democracy. It sucks
and it fails frequently. If you have a suggestion on how to fix that,
that's great - but don't say that direct democracy is it, because
that is not true.

> -> no quality of output

We just won the 2011 elections wit it and you wouldn't be here if we
didn't. You are opinionated to the end corners of your brain and
have left all scientific approach to the problems at hand.

> 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.

The 2011 Berlin programme and subsequent election results are a proof
of how wrong you are. You are making up opinions, influenced by a
loud disinformed minority. You are not taking a scientific approach
to the problem.