[pp.int.general] Liquid Democracy - a summary attempt

[Cal.]

On 28 April 2014 11:35, Zbigniew Łukasiak <zzbbyy at gmail.com> wrote:
> In democracy everyone should have equal power

This is not a very true assumption and a simplistic image of
democracy. But I guess it depends on what we mean by "power." :D

I don't like voting systems where you have people, who has votes
descending from divine rights; that's not good in monarchies, and not
good in democracies. That's like giving everyone a gun, they'll use
those votes against each other—as indeed happens in liquids.

About this, I found another interesting article on a previously
mentioned website:

> Consensus is Not Unanimity: Making Decisions Co-operatively
> http://www.starhawk.org/activism/trainer-resources/consensus-nu.html

Much interesting is this paragraph:

> The final decision is often not the first preference of each individual in the
> group and they may not even like the final result. But it is a decision to
> which they all consent because it is best for the group.

obviously, consensus doesn't scale. it works within 30-people groups.
but... what happens when consensus is built from the ground up?
representatives who understand the consensus of their 30 people and
doesn't just throw votes onto upper levels (that makes an easy way to
represent 900 people without leaving anybody out. using three levels
makes them 30^3 = 27k) can work better and produce better results for
everyone. Assuming our opinions are somewhat representative of the
pirate movement, this very list can be an example of that, and it
hasn't got any "power."

Of course, they have one, little, necessary condition, for this to work:

> Consensus is a process for people who want to work together honestly in
> good faith to find good solutions for the group It cannot be used by people
> who do not, can not or will not co-operate.