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

carlo von lynX lynX at pirate.my.buttharp.org
Sun Apr 27 17:25:50 CEST 2014

On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 02:53:25PM +0200, F?lix Robles wrote:
> No, I am sorry but I do not agree. I might be a member of a political party
> but that doesn't mean I am assuming a public role. You should ask yourself
> if citizens should make their vote public when they vote in a national
> referendum (because it's basically the same as what I am doing).

Ok, the issue is more complex, I agree.

1. Participating in a political party is NEVER akin to being the
   Sovereign who has the privilege of the last opinion on the matter.
   So the comparison is inappropriate. You can't have the privilege
   of anonymity like the sovereign.

2. Some choices the political party makes will have direct conseguences
   in a parliament. In those cases I would expect my political party
   to be transparent.

3. In other cases the party participation merely forms the basis of
   the party programme. In that case it is okay if transparency is
   not fully provided since the Sovereign will have the last word
   by not voting on the party's programme. Certainly it can bring
   the party on a false route if there is distortion in the procedures
   that produced the party programme, so transparency doesn't harm
   here either.

We can discuss how much transparency is necessary to fulfill our
requirements. The Italian PP allows for certain people to hide
their identity. It works if the number of people requesting anonymity
privilege stays under a certain percentage of the general membership.
Anonymous votes can tip the balance, but they can't be a majority by

German LQFB votings AFAICT fulfil this kind of trade-off as well,
so it is mostly anti-liquid paranoia to say LQFB is intransparent
in that case, too.

More information about the pp.international.general mailing list