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

StreetDogg streetdogg at gmx.net
Sun Apr 27 19:10:21 CEST 2014

Am 27.04.2014 14:26, schrieb Alessandro Ciofini:
> 2014-04-27 14:20 GMT+02:00 carlo von lynX <lynX at pirate.my.buttharp.org>:
>> Here are some recent LQFB votings.
>> https://lqfb.piratenpartei.de/lf/initiative/show/6544.html
>>      Pirates dislike segregating forms of school
>>      Ja: 148 (94%) · Enthaltung: 5 · Nein: 10 (6%) · Angenommen
>> https://lqfb.piratenpartei.de/lf/initiative/show/6557.html
>>      Regulations on how to use Pirate Party flags
>>       Ja: 87 (64%) · Enthaltung: 8 · Nein: 49 (36%) · Angenommen
>> https://lqfb.piratenpartei.de/lf/initiative/show/6580.html
>>      Specific text that summarizes official Pirate values (editorial voting)
>>       Ja: 39 (76%) · Enthaltung: 9 · Nein: 12 (24%) · Angenommen
>> https://lqfb.piratenpartei.de/lf/initiative/show/6558.html
>>      Decision to remove an unofficial pirate magazine from the website
>>       Ja: 97 (58%) · Enthaltung: 19 · Nein: 70 (42%) · Angenommen
>>       -> note how they still use simple majority in Germany,
>>          that indeed is a very bad habit. I am glad in Italy
>>          we try to at least have 2/3 if not 3/4 majorities
>>          in order to work harder on convincing everyone.
>> https://lqfb.piratenpartei.de/lf/initiative/show/6563.html
>>      Idea for a train reform
>>      Ja: 65 (76%) · Enthaltung: 1 · Nein: 20 (24%) · Angenommen
>> https://lqfb.piratenpartei.de/lf/initiative/show/6573.html
>>      Manifesto pro Rule of Law and against Medieval Shitstorm Practices
>>      Ja: 46 (77%) · Enthaltung: 3 · Nein: 14 (23%) · Angenommen
>> https://lqfb.piratenpartei.de/lf/initiative/show/6600.html
>>      Idea on organizing party politics into "Streams"
>>      Ja: 40 (55%) · Enthaltung: 3 · Nein: 33 (45%) · Angenommen
> As we can see, only last vote is relative to April and it's only
> 40+3+33 = 76 total vote.
> With a simple 1:2 delegation rate this means that less than 40 people
> were involved.
> So I think when we have such different reports the only way to
> understood is to access real raw data.
> Are they anywhere?

Here is a list of all issues that got a vote: http://pastebin.com/VRxwZZXf

The first of the 4 columns on the right is the number of direct voters, 
the second one is the number of those who used the automated decline 
function, the third are those who were delegating to a user who 
auto-declined (the feature got removed with a system update somewhere in 
the middle) and the fourth are those who delegated to someone who 
actually voted (direct or indirect delegation doesn't matter here, just 
that somebody actually used the vote).

It's sorted by date so the newest votes are on the bottom.

As the voters in each issue are not always the same ones I've tried to 
come up with other ideas to find out how many users are actually 
"active". However, in the end it's always a question of how you define 

In this case of this grafic here I define a user as active for the next 
four weeks after he actively takes part in a vote. So if you vote 
anything every four weeks you're always considered active, if you don't 
vote for five weeks you're considered inactive for one week: 

The first three peaks correlate with the invitation of a lot of new 
users, by the way. The first one was when the system was started. The 
second one was around the time of our first huge success in the Berlin 
elections (it started rising right after the election, when everyone was 
talking about it, even though it was pretty much dead before the 
election, but the peak came when the new party members got invited to 
the system). The third peak came when we were successfull in other (and 
bigger) states than Berlin and about 8000 new party members got invited 
at once. The fourth and a lot smaller peak was during the preparation of 
a general assembly where some people pushed for making the system 
binding (which was declined and chosen the previously mentioned 
"Basisentscheid / BEO" instead).

The whole debate is basically one big and frustrating time loop that 
goes round and round for years. It seems like not even the names are 
changing very much. ;)

But I agree that it's much more important (and probably much more hard) 
to find a way to discuss issues on a larger scale and inform party 
members and educated them about the issues. The whole voting process is 
meaningless if it isn't fed by some sort of competence and if the 
results don't reflect what the members of the party really are trying to 

More information about the pp.international.general mailing list