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

Félix Robles felrobelv at gmail.com
Sun Apr 27 17:23:22 CEST 2014

Transparency does not necessarily mean public votes, that's a fallacy. Of
course it means that the result, the voting count, must be public, but not
each individual casted ballot. But what do I know, it's your flame anyway.

On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 5:02 PM, carlo von lynX <lynX at pirate.my.buttharp.org
> wrote:

> 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 feedback.
> Go back to page #1 explaining how liquid democracy is less worse than other
> 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 numbers.
> 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
> political
> 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"
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20140427/1f20c3a5/attachment.html>

More information about the pp.international.general mailing list