[pp.int.general] liquidfeedback myths? /was Re: LQFB: status quo in Germany // was: liquid feedback papers and/or data?
alessandro.ciofini at gmail.com
Sun Apr 27 17:21:15 CEST 2014
Il 27/apr/2014 17:02 "carlo von lynX" <lynX at pirate.my.buttharp.org> ha
> I'll skip the irrelevant parts (still not enough, sorry).
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 04:16:10PM +0200, Cal. wrote:
> > The electorate deserves? It's not you who decide what the electorate
> > deserves. They decide by themselves in a periodic event called
> > "elections."
> We once upon a time voted in favor of a principle called transparency.
> If you prefer an intransparent party, there is a broad choice.
> > Whatever. You are focusing on people instead of decisions. A good
> > decision should stand up on its own. What are you fearing, with this
> > enormous authority principle appeal?
> It's easy to say wise sounding words. It's populism at work. You
> are claiming that a good proposal needs no social structure of
> supporters. That is a naive ideal that no tool or democratic
> model is capable of implementing. So please stay on the grounds
> of the least worse options that we have - not illusionary and
> unscientific propositions which are just populistic.
> Stop bashing, start proposing.
> > > The Meinungsfindungstool that refuses delegations is yet another
> > > direct democratic tool. The Internet is full of those and the reason
> > > LQFB stands out is because of its liquid democracy principle.
> > Circular reasoning. liquid feedback is better because is liquid
> Go back to page #1 explaining how liquid democracy is less worse than
> forms of democracy. You will always be able to dissect things I say if you
> pretend the other parts of the reasoning weren't there.
> > and solely propaganda, is that LIQUID FEEDBACK IS A FAILURE (it. only.
> You only proved that it failed for you.
> Saying it in CAPS won't make it more scientific.
> > >> You are assuming that a person without time to vote has time to
> > >> control and validate their delegates' ones.
> > >
> > > No, I assume that if a person votes on something in a scandalous
> > > way that everybody starts talking about, that person will immediately
> > > stop having such a strong political influence.
> > Protection against scandals? Is this all we get?
> You are welcome to have a better idea than liquid democracy.
> > > This is a huge advance-
> > > ment compared to representative democracy were you can yell at your
> > > political leadership day-in day-out for betraying your interests,
> > > and after 4-5 years you are back at having to choose the least worst
> > > evil. People who speak of superdelegates as being similarly bad as
> > > representative democracy are just lying to themselves, being emotional
> > > on the topic rather then scientific.
> > You have no faint idea of scientific process. We have 3 year data run,
> > but I need you to remind me what your thesis was, when we started this
> > liquid experiment.
> LQFB has produced the PP-IT a quite impressive political programme,
> considering that we never got close to the necessary participation
> The problems of the PP-IT are in regulation and most of all in the respect
> of rule of law (but apparently most young parties start out like that).
> > > Usually they are the types who
> > > would like to be the bosses of the movement and actual democratic
> > > consensus has not been in their favour.
> > ad hominem?
> No, it's a large social phenomenon.
> As long as party structures aren't solid enough to protect against
> that kind fo rhethoric, it's just natural to advance it.
> Everyone by nature feels he is right, no?
> > you inserted a causal relationship between secret voting and voting on
> > people. you said that secret vote is only needed when voting on
> > people.
> Yes, that is the law in Germany and several other countries.
> Italy is currently discussing this kind of law and we have discussed
> it for our internal elections in the party, too. Where were you?
> > there are secret votes that are not about people, and this is your
> > counterexample.
> Name me an example where it is reasonable to have secret vote on a
> issue and not have a reason to question the outcome. Secret vote is a
> vector for vote trading.corruption.
> > language analysis and antispam in a voting tool? will your party be
> > taken over by some bot?
> Democratic parties have an elected justice system. If certain types
> of rhethoric tricks are clearly identified and banned, this can be
> enforced. My favorite example here is the straw-man argumentation
> which is extremily popular in Italy and generally accepted.
> > > Stop expecting perfection from liquid democracy. Accept that it
> > > is merely the least bad of democracies and do something on how to
> > > improve it - if that is really your goal.
> > ad hominem?
> You are talking to me, I am talking to you.
> Of course you can inflate the meaning of the words "ad hominem"
The only awful thing I've notice is that before you took massively part of
this topic there was an interesting debate involving e-democracy and liquid
democracy and liquid feedback too.
After I'm not so sure :(
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the pp.international.general