What's your thought on the current state of PPAU internal democracy? Should we experiment with a new voting system?


(Mofosyne) #1

Here’s another question I would pose as part of Designing Open Democracy.

I forgot what voting system PPAU has, but I would say that this party has a pretty advance voting system compared to most other political parties. And being that there is a lot of technically capable members, we do have the capacity to experiment with more complex voting systems.

So the question here is:

What’s your thought on how PPAU internal democracy is functioning? Is it fostering the kind of political dynamism that is needed for this party to function effectively? Or is there a structural changes to the party that may need to be considered?

Would we need to switch to a more per issue based voting system? Should we vote via phone apps? Should we vote more often? How do we reduce internal division and factionalism? Etc…

Let’s hear your thoughts!


(Alex Jago) #2

Refer also to this thread on liquid democracy for what we think we ought to use and some reasons why we currently don’t.


(Ben McGinnes) #3

Seconded! That’s a great thread.


(Mofosyne) #4

So keep going with polly? Is there progress in internal party structural improvements? E.g. app development? Juries? Vote tokens?


(Ben McGinnes) #5

Polly has a lot to commend it, but needs a lot more work. No one here would mind if you decided to have a crack at that. :wink:


(Mofosyne) #6

Is it something we can get other political parties to be interested in working on it together with PPAU? It sounds like something that would be better done professionally if we can get a professional to do it fulltime (Via crowdfunding etc…). Plus it’s a technology that would be good if shared rather than kept internally to one party.

I am also looking around to see if there is already software that does what polly does anyhow, just in case we are duplicating work as well. (I had a look at https://nationbuilder.com/software, but it doesn’t seem to implement any voting system inside).


(Ben McGinnes) #7

Of course it’s completely open. There are links in the thread that @alexjago linked to above. Read through them and most, if not all, of these questions will be answered.


(Alex Jago) #8

There’s one issue with casually reading up on Polly now, which is that the associated web site has finally gone down.

Good thing there’s an archive…

https://web.archive.org/web/20161006225910/http://polly-project.org/

Anyway, the thing that we were sort-of waiting on last time this came up was for a German person’s work to be translated, in case it radically changed what we thought we needed. @LMK knows more.


(Andrew Downing) #9

I wrote the original Polly requirements.
I did read a translation of @LMK’s German friends work, but my recollection of it was very much more a description of the need for such a system than any kind of description of how it should operate.

I’ll try to dig up the links tonight.


(Andrew Downing) #10

Here you go … the translated document:


(Maus) #11

Yes, so if anyone with programming skills feels inspired to work with Jano (and myself) to write these ideas into a software system, please do get in touch :slight_smile:


(Ben McGinnes) #12

While I do want to see this thing reach a functional and useful stage, I’m afraid I can’t answer this call to arms. I’ve already committed to the project which is now paying my bills and I can’t over-extend; which would do no one any good anyway.