Loomio
Fri 3 Oct 2014 5:02AM

What could a single, global democracy look like? How would it work?

PS Peter Schurman Public Seen by 46

Would a representative or direct democracy make more sense?

What about liquid democracy? See: http://youtu.be/fg0_Vhldz-8

What checks and balances should we have?

What basic rights should be guaranteed to everyone?

KB

Kevin Bayuk Fri 3 Oct 2014 10:08PM

The following portion of the wikipedia entry about direct democracy leads me to wonder where technology could intervene in making direct democracy more effective and less expensive:

"Democratic theorists have identified a trilemma due to the presence of three desirable characteristics of an ideal system of direct democracy, which are challenging to deliver all at once. These three characteristics are participation – widespread participation in the decision making process by the people affected; deliberation – a rational discussion where all major points of view are weighted according to evidence; and equality – all members of the population on whose behalf decisions are taken have an equal chance of having their views taken into account. Empirical evidence from dozens of studies suggests deliberation leads to better decision making.[4][15][16] The most popularly disputed form of direct popular participation is the referendum on constitutional matters.[17]

However, the more participants there are the more time and money is needed to set up good quality discussions with clear neutrally presented briefings.[citation needed] Also it is hard for each individual to contribute substantially to the discussion when large numbers are involved.[citation needed]

For the system to respect the principle of political equality, either everyone needs to be involved or there needs to be a representative random sample of people chosen to take part in the discussion. In the definition used by scholars such as James Fishkin, deliberative democracy is a form of direct democracy which satisfies the requirement for deliberation and equality but does not make provision to involve everyone who wants to be included in the discussion. Participatory democracy, by Fishkin's definition, allows inclusive participation and deliberation, but at a cost of sacrificing equality – because widespread participation is allowed there will rarely be sufficient resources to compensate people who give up their time to take part in the deliberation, and so the participants tend to be those with a strong interest in the issue to be decided, and therefore will often not be representative of the overall population.[18] Fishkin instead argues that random sampling should be used to select a small but still representative number of people from the general public.[3][4]

Fishkin concedes it is possible to imagine a system that transcends the trilemma, but it would require very radical reforms if such a system is to be integrated into mainstream politics. To an extent, the Occupy movement attempted to create a system that satisfies all three desirable requirements at once, but at a cost of the resulting system being widely criticized for being slow and unwieldy.[3][19][20][21]"

JP

Jordan Parker Sat 8 Nov 2014 10:20PM

I believe it would need to start on a micro level in order to ever be functional at the macro level. Starting with an individual, their immediate family, their neighborhood, and their community. How can we create a true democracy within small communities that would open the way for a global democracy?

DEJ

David Elsbree Jr. Sat 8 Nov 2014 10:26PM

To get everyone globally to have the opportunity to participate in a single discussion, the language barrier issue would need to be addressed.

PS

Peter Schurman Sun 9 Nov 2014 12:52AM

Kevin, Jordan, and David - Thanks for jumping in here.

Kevin - I think Bobby Fishkin's random-sample idea (which you cite) is interesting, and it's one possible structure. Personally, I'd prefer to see universal inclusion.

Jordan - Yes, that may a good path forward. I'd encourage you to post it also at:
https://www.loomio.org/d/eCX7h9Lw/how-could-we-get-there

David - You're right. And there are sites such as Wikipedia that seem to do a very good job of handling language barriers now. This appears to be a soluble problem.

BB

Poll Created Sun 23 Nov 2014 12:52AM

A blend of crowdsourcing and deliberation might do best! Closed Thu 26 Nov 2015 12:07AM

A lot of direct democracy is text-centric, and web-based, and used to arrive at 51% approval, but that leads frequently to bad ideas getting implemented. There's something wise about a council or legislature, when well-constructed, but in the age of the internet it's foolish to limit problem-sovling to a small group of people. Instead, I think the best solutions will involve a blend of crowdsourcing and deliberation, and will allow citizens to either participate, or pass their vote on to someone else. For example, every citizen who wants to participate is an a council of 8 (often on specific topics, but also integrators at every level). What proposals can get 7/8 people to agree to them as advances over the current state, in 80 or 90% of the relevant councils? With creativity, a process for handling concerns, and a deliberation process that looks for ways to transcend polarities (like left and right), I think better outcomes are more likely.

For something equivalent to the supreme court, there are elements of the current system we'd want to keep (e.g. choosing wise people for fixed terms).

BTW, Tom Atlee and I are putting together a global thought leader gathering of participatory democracy thinkers for the spring ... so have been giving this a lot of thought lately...

Results

Results Option % of points Voters
Agree 75.0% 3 DU BB NH
Abstain 0.0% 0  
Disagree 25.0% 1 DB
Block 0.0% 0  
Undecided 0% 46 PC AT AM KB JB PS SP BM LG DV AM JH MT MC DR N DS JP DEJ DC

4 of 50 people have participated (8%)

BB

Brian Burt
Agree
Sun 23 Nov 2014 12:52AM

Because it's so true :-)

NH

Nader Hekmati
Agree
Sat 4 Apr 2015 5:36PM

Huge improvement over the 51% method; I've never thought this method worked to put the best choices in place

DB

Daniel Blewitt
Disagree
Sat 11 Apr 2015 5:22PM

I love the thinking here, my main concern though would be that private interests might gain even more power than they currently do by nonstop, incessant advertising campaigns. I think this is always going to be a risk with bottom line voting styles.

DU

William Asiata
Agree
Thu 8 Oct 2015 8:40PM

A wise blend of "collaborative e-democracy", "federated sociocracy", and "inclusive democracy" I think are key.

LG

Lawrence Grodeska Wed 26 Nov 2014 4:35AM

I like the idea of crowdsourcing feedback from as many as possible on a given idea or proposal, and using that as input for a smaller group process, a la Fishkin's random sample or Atlee's citizen deliberative councils: http://www.co-intelligence.org/CDCUsesAndPotency.html

Speaking of Tom Atlee, Brian, please keep us posted on the participatory democracy gathering you and Tom are putting together. Sounds great, and would love to be of service or in attendance if at all possible!

Load More