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

(Jana) #21

Please note that the amount of “quiet revolutions” needed to optimize our three answers here before a “final resolution” (which could be next) increased with increasing size and complexity of the text. :wink:

The term “revolution” in physics is defined as the amount of revolutions needed to drill a hole into a board. From this background, we define “quiet revolutions” as the amount of mental revolutions, i.e. iterations of information and discussion phase, to solve a specific problem.

(Jana) #22

What’s up with you, Pirates?

You wanted to know what’s real liquid feedback. You wanted this thread to think out of the box of the fucking categorical accumulation error. But now, when you are informed, you keep quite and further praise politics without any quality measurement of people’s will?

What can be more important to change the system to meet the people’s needs and those of future generations?

(Mofosyne) #24

I like you to elaborate on the reason to not change. Is is because the current system is already responsive enough for you? Or is it a concern to the danger of testing a new system?

Or do you have some nuances between the two to elaborate upon?

(Laura) #26

Short answer is no.
Just look at the number of participating members.
Is participatory democracy not one of our core tenets?
In my experience we don’t use or even develop the tools to make group decision-making nuanced, scientifically grounded, systematic and effectively scaleable.

(Jana) #29

The reason why we don’t actually have a democracy, but a “demon(s)cracy” can be substantiated by at least 3 cornerstones:

  1. Our current political system – in terms of black-and-white framed decision-making by quality-unspecific majority voting and false dilemmas – is primarily based on ideology and psychological mechanisms of mass manipulation, similar to psychological experiments of conformity and authoritarianism by Asch (1951) and Milgram (1961). Thereby, instead of measuring the voter’s (free) will, representatives’ performance and common welfare, what is measured is the success of mass manipulation.

  2. There is an inherent homunculus (pseudo-explanation) within the current theory and practice of direct and representative democracy, when it comes to explaining psychologically how conscientious and value-oriented decisions and free will are concretely formed in best practice without reverting back to a god, demon or homunculus. We have a pseudo-democracy because no scientifically based discussion systems exist to transparently structure and implement collective intentions, to measure the will of the people, and performance or level of qualification of delegates, nor to prove claims of politicians working in the interest of welfare and representativeness.

  3. There is insufficient separation of state and church. In spite of scientific progress, the staged vowing under God (e.g. by members of the government) still replaces the measuring of reason and common welfare (i.e. a systematic, transparent and quality-oriented reality check combined with real-time control and protection of basic rights). Thereby, mental corruption, deterioration of values, and alienation can not be sensitively recognized, and external or political top-down control are the rule rather than the exception.

While in a Demon(s)cracy it is measured how well mass manipulation has worked while reverting to God, in a real democracy appropriate discussion tools such as an Extended Liquid Feedback concretely measures what the voter wants, how well someone is suited for an office, to what extend a proposal is suited to solve a specific problem of importance (or met specific quality criteria) and how much a solution matches our core values and universal human rights (the actual “Black CORRUPTION Box” before the final resolution).

s.a. https://janonymous-and-the-rabbit-hole.net/2018/05/24/enough-of-demonscracy/

We think that the actual political ideology-framed standard of pseudo-democracies, with socially repressing minorities instead of majorities and black-or-white-thinking psychologically interferes with free and conscientious decision making. Therefore the actual standard is not suited to intelligently solve complex problems of mankind and to transparently depict free, pluralistic opinion formation as a product of collective self-awareness, self-organisation and conscientious reasoning (i.e. something like the Weltgeist).

@mofosyne, what do you have against more (collective) self-consciousness and reason as a precondition of not mass-smashing against the Eisberg? :wink:

I do not see a reason to stay behind scientific innovation to improve decision making and learning of politics in coherence with human rights and to use digitalisation for empowerment of the people in conscientious reasoning, media competence and collective problem solving, except perhaps from the view of ruling elites.

Within ELD, there will be different or other mechanisms of an open, goal- and value-oriented collective problem-solving that teaches, and requires other and more sophistic soft skills and ideals than the actual used habits of persuasion and conformity associated with political carriers. I do not want to be successful in such a system, except in fixing the aforementioned bugs.

(Laura) #30

This. I want this. Power to the people!

the layout of the forum threads can be confusing, but I think mofosyne’s request to elaborate was directed at tim (who withdrew his post) rather than at you, and might not reflect mofosyne’s personal stance. :wink:

That said, I also think that self-consciousness of the collective and Reason are necessary for us to be able to navigate & sail around the iceberg.