All posts in the topic UK ePetitioning (Short link)

Anthony

--
Anthony Zacharzewski
The Democratic Society
http://www.demsoc.org



On 19 Jan 2010, at 16:46, <email obscured> wrote:

> 1.On the local ePetitioning systems in UK the most famous are in
> Bristol and Kingston-upon-thames, are their other ones?
>
> 2. When did the UK National local E-Democracy Project end, which
> Pilot-Projects have been realised?
>
> Thanks!
>
> dan
> -----------------------------------------
> Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
>
> Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts
> on this topic here:
> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/2HnSzKlWMupOwr7gbwSKNR
>
> For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange,
> email <email obscured>
> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
>
> Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
http://dowire.org
> .

Anna

> From: <email obscured>
> To: <email obscured>
> Subject: Re: [DW-X] UK ePetitioning
> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 18:20:35 +0000
>
> One has just started in Brighton & Hove (Brighton-hove.gov.UK) but
> there will soon be many more as all local councils in the UK will
> shortly have a legal duty to introduce e-petitioning.
>
> Anthony
>
> --
> Anthony Zacharzewski
> The Democratic Society
> http://www.demsoc.org
>
>
>
> On 19 Jan 2010, at 16:46, <email obscured> wrote:
>
> > 1.On the local ePetitioning systems in UK the most famous are in
> > Bristol and Kingston-upon-thames, are their other ones?
> >
> > 2. When did the UK National local E-Democracy Project end, which
> > Pilot-Projects have been realised?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > dan
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
> > http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
> >
> > Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts
> > on this topic here:
> > http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/2HnSzKlWMupOwr7gbwSKNR
> >
> > For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange,
> > email <email obscured>
> > with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
> >
> > Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
http://dowire.org
> > .
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
>
> Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts on this
topic here:
> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/Zz71CdAXjfxWJvixdwgvW
>
> For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange,
> email <email obscured>
> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
>
> Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
http://dowire.org.

_________________________________________________________________
We want to hear all your funny, exciting and crazy Hotmail stories. Tell us now
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/

-----Original Message-----
From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On
Behalf Of Cruickshank, Peter
Sent: 19 January 2010 19:19
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [DW-X] UK ePetitioning


Hi Anthony

Interesting!

For the benefit of the folks on the list, the link to the e-petitions page
on the council website is:
http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/index.cfm?request=c1211554

So far, I'm mainly aware of Public-i's systems through my involvement the
EuroPetition project, so it's good to hear about other approaches that are
being taken. Were you (DemSoc) involved in the implementation of Brighton &
Hove's system? Do you know if the system is going to be implemented by other
councils?

It's worth noting the requirement for local councils to implement
e-petitions does not apply in Scotland or Northern Ireland, and is being
implemented slightly differently in England and in Wales.

Kind Regards

Peter

w: http://itc.napier.ac.uk | b: http://spartakan.wordpress.com


-----Original Message-----
From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On
Behalf Of Anthony Zacharzewski
Sent: 19 January 2010 18:21
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [DW-X] UK ePetitioning

One has just started in Brighton & Hove (Brighton-hove.gov.UK) but
there will soon be many more as all local councils in the UK will
shortly have a legal duty to introduce e-petitioning.

Anthony

--
Anthony Zacharzewski
The Democratic Society
http://www.demsoc.org



On 19 Jan 2010, at 16:46, <email obscured> wrote:

> 1.On the local ePetitioning systems in UK the most famous are in
> Bristol and Kingston-upon-thames, are their other ones?
>
> 2. When did the UK National local E-Democracy Project end, which
> Pilot-Projects have been realised?
>
> Thanks!
>
> dan
> -----------------------------------------
> Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
>
> Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts
> on this topic here:
> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/2HnSzKlWMupOwr7gbwSKNR
>
> For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange, email
> <email obscured> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the
> *subject*.
>
> Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
> http://dowire.org
> .

-----------------------------------------
Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange

Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts on this
topic here: http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/Zz71CdAXjfxWJvixdwgvW

For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange,
email <email obscured>
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.

Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
http://dowire.org.


On 25 February 2009, the University launched its new name, Edinburgh Napier
University.

For more information please visit our website.

Edinburgh Napier University is one of the top 10 universities in the UK for
graduate employability (HESA 2009)

This message is intended for the addressee(s) only and should not be read,
copied or disclosed to anyone else out-with the University without the
permission of the sender. It is your responsibility to ensure that this
message and any attachments are scanned for viruses or other defects.
Edinburgh Napier University does not accept liability for any loss or damage
which may result from this email or any attachment, or for errors or
omissions arising after it was sent. Email is not a secure medium. Email
entering the University's system is subject to routine monitoring and
filtering by the University.

Edinburgh Napier University is a registered Scottish charity. Registration
number SC018373


-----------------------------------------
Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange

Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts on this
topic here: http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/FMlkvpBWyonIvCtzZqo4N

For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange,
email <email obscured>
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.

Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
http://dowire.org.

Craig

-----Original Message-----
From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On
Behalf Of Anthony Zacharzewski
Sent: 19 January 2010 22:37
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [DW-X] UK ePetitioning

Demsoc didn't have anything to do with it directly although until 1
February I'm Head of Policy at the Council so I had a lot to do with it
personally. There are some other councils that use modern.gov, so I'm
guessing that company will have a head start in those authorities. Can't
think of any off the top of my head, I'm afraid.

I see free addons to existing systems being the first wave of
implementation, because they're cheap and easy. There will be some
councils, smaller districts for instance, who don't have webcasting or
modern.gov yet - they may be in the market for a paid-for solution. In a
way, epetitioning is too small scale to really justify a big investment
in edemocracy tools on its own, so I suspect authorities who are short
of cash (most of them) will try to minimise expenditure instead of
maximising use.

Anthony



On 19 Jan 2010, at 19:18, Cruickshank, Peter wrote:

> Hi Anthony
>
> Interesting!
>
> For the benefit of the folks on the list, the link to the e-petitions
page on the council website is:
> http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/index.cfm?request=c1211554
>
> So far, I'm mainly aware of Public-i's systems through my involvement
the EuroPetition project, so it's good to hear about other approaches
that are being taken. Were you (DemSoc) involved in the implementation
of Brighton & Hove's system? Do you know if the system is going to be
implemented by other councils?
>
> It's worth noting the requirement for local councils to implement
e-petitions does not apply in Scotland or Northern Ireland, and is being
implemented slightly differently in England and in Wales.
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Peter
>
> w: http://itc.napier.ac.uk | b: http://spartakan.wordpress.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <email obscured> <email obscured>]
> On Behalf Of Anthony Zacharzewski
> Sent: 19 January 2010 18:21
> To: <email obscured>
> Subject: Re: [DW-X] UK ePetitioning
>
> One has just started in Brighton & Hove (Brighton-hove.gov.UK) but
> there will soon be many more as all local councils in the UK will
> shortly have a legal duty to introduce e-petitioning.
>
> Anthony
>
> --
> Anthony Zacharzewski
> The Democratic Society
> http://www.demsoc.org
>
>
>
> On 19 Jan 2010, at 16:46, <email obscured> wrote:
>
>> 1.On the local ePetitioning systems in UK the most famous are in
>> Bristol and Kingston-upon-thames, are their other ones?
>>
>> 2. When did the UK National local E-Democracy Project end, which
>> Pilot-Projects have been realised?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> dan
>> -----------------------------------------
>> Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
>> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
>>
>> Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts
>> on this topic here:
>> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/2HnSzKlWMupOwr7gbwSKNR
>>
>> For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange, email
>> <email obscured> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the
>> *subject*.
>>
>> Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
>> http://dowire.org .
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
>
> Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts on
this topic here:
> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/Zz71CdAXjfxWJvixdwgvW
>
> For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange, email
> <email obscured> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the
> *subject*.
>
> Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
http://dowire.org.
>
>
> On 25 February 2009, the University launched its new name, Edinburgh
Napier University.
>
> For more information please visit our website.
>
> Edinburgh Napier University is one of the top 10 universities in the
> UK for graduate employability (HESA 2009)
>
> This message is intended for the addressee(s) only and should not be
read, copied or disclosed to anyone else out-with the University without
the permission of the sender.
> It is your responsibility to ensure that this message and any
attachments are scanned for viruses or other defects. Edinburgh Napier
University does not accept liability for any loss or damage which may
result from this email or any attachment, or for errors or omissions
arising after it was sent. Email is not a secure medium. Email entering
the University's system is subject to routine monitoring and filtering
by the University.
>
> Edinburgh Napier University is a registered Scottish charity.
> Registration number SC018373
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
>
> Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts on
this topic here:
> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/FMlkvpBWyonIvCtzZqo4N
>
> For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange, email
> <email obscured> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the
> *subject*.
>
> Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
http://dowire.org.


-----------------------------------------
Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange

Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts on
this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/7jFvGVxfBPfpLCkFMWQfhZ

For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange, email
<email obscured> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the
*subject*.

Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
http://dowire.org.

This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government
Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless in
partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In
case of problems, please call your organisation's IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.


This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.


The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure
Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership with
MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this
email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

> Lambeth Council worked quite closely with modern.gov to help them
> develop the e-petitioning add-on to their committee system and have had
> it running for around a year now.
>
> Craig
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On
> Behalf Of Anthony Zacharzewski
> Sent: 19 January 2010 22:37
> To: <email obscured>
> Subject: Re: [DW-X] UK ePetitioning
>
> Demsoc didn't have anything to do with it directly although until 1
> February I'm Head of Policy at the Council so I had a lot to do with it
> personally. There are some other councils that use modern.gov, so I'm
> guessing that company will have a head start in those authorities. Can't
> think of any off the top of my head, I'm afraid.
>
> I see free addons to existing systems being the first wave of
> implementation, because they're cheap and easy. There will be some
> councils, smaller districts for instance, who don't have webcasting or
> modern.gov yet - they may be in the market for a paid-for solution. In a
> way, epetitioning is too small scale to really justify a big investment
> in edemocracy tools on its own, so I suspect authorities who are short
> of cash (most of them) will try to minimise expenditure instead of
> maximising use.
>
> Anthony
>
>
>
> On 19 Jan 2010, at 19:18, Cruickshank, Peter wrote:
>
>
>> Hi Anthony
>>
>> Interesting!
>>
>> For the benefit of the folks on the list, the link to the e-petitions
>>
> page on the council website is:
>
>> http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/index.cfm?request=c1211554
>>
>> So far, I'm mainly aware of Public-i's systems through my involvement
>>
> the EuroPetition project, so it's good to hear about other approaches
> that are being taken. Were you (DemSoc) involved in the implementation
> of Brighton & Hove's system? Do you know if the system is going to be
> implemented by other councils?
>
>> It's worth noting the requirement for local councils to implement
>>
> e-petitions does not apply in Scotland or Northern Ireland, and is being
> implemented slightly differently in England and in Wales.
>
>> Kind Regards
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> w: http://itc.napier.ac.uk | b: http://spartakan.wordpress.com
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: <email obscured> <email obscured>]
>> On Behalf Of Anthony Zacharzewski
>> Sent: 19 January 2010 18:21
>> To: <email obscured>
>> Subject: Re: [DW-X] UK ePetitioning
>>
>> One has just started in Brighton & Hove (Brighton-hove.gov.UK) but
>> there will soon be many more as all local councils in the UK will
>> shortly have a legal duty to introduce e-petitioning.
>>
>> Anthony
>>
>> --
>> Anthony Zacharzewski
>> The Democratic Society
>> http://www.demsoc.org
>>
>>
>>
>> On 19 Jan 2010, at 16:46, <email obscured> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 1.On the local ePetitioning systems in UK the most famous are in
>>> Bristol and Kingston-upon-thames, are their other ones?
>>>
>>> 2. When did the UK National local E-Democracy Project end, which
>>> Pilot-Projects have been realised?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> dan
>>> -----------------------------------------
>>> Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
>>> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
>>>
>>> Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts
>>> on this topic here:
>>> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/2HnSzKlWMupOwr7gbwSKNR
>>>
>>> For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange, email
>>> <email obscured> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the
>>> *subject*.
>>>
>>> Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
>>> http://dowire.org .
>>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>> Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
>> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
>>
>> Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts on
>>
> this topic here:
>
>> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/Zz71CdAXjfxWJvixdwgvW
>>
>> For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange, email
>> <email obscured> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the
>> *subject*.
>>
>> Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
>>
> http://dowire.org.
>
>> On 25 February 2009, the University launched its new name, Edinburgh
>>
> Napier University.
>
>> For more information please visit our website.
>>
>> Edinburgh Napier University is one of the top 10 universities in the
>> UK for graduate employability (HESA 2009)
>>
>> This message is intended for the addressee(s) only and should not be
>>
> read, copied or disclosed to anyone else out-with the University without
> the permission of the sender.
>
>> It is your responsibility to ensure that this message and any
>>
> attachments are scanned for viruses or other defects. Edinburgh Napier
> University does not accept liability for any loss or damage which may
> result from this email or any attachment, or for errors or omissions
> arising after it was sent. Email is not a secure medium. Email entering
> the University's system is subject to routine monitoring and filtering
> by the University.
>
>> Edinburgh Napier University is a registered Scottish charity.
>> Registration number SC018373
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>> Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
>> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
>>
>> Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts on
>>
> this topic here:
>
>> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/FMlkvpBWyonIvCtzZqo4N
>>
>> For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange, email
>> <email obscured> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the
>> *subject*.
>>
>> Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
>>
> http://dowire.org.
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
>
> Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts on
> this topic here:
> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/7jFvGVxfBPfpLCkFMWQfhZ
>
> For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange, email
> <email obscured> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the
> *subject*.
>
> Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
> http://dowire.org.
>
> This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government
> Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless in
> partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In
> case of problems, please call your organisation's IT Helpdesk.
> Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
> recorded for legal purposes.
>
>
> This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
> the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
> is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
> copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
>
> Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
> could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
> mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
> by e-mail.
>
> This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
> monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
> monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
> read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
> broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
>
>
> The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure
Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership with
MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this
email was certified virus free.
> Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
>
> Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts on this
topic here:
> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/3GTljMrhqjbYRmrgNunMS0
>
> For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange,
> email <email obscured>
> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
>
> Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
http://dowire.org.
>

> > What should be the key points within a E-Petition system like the one I
> am
> > building for the Facebook platform.
> >
> > best regards
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Donald Eastwood <
> > <email obscured>> wrote:
> >
> >> The Lambeth solution allows you to either agree or disagree on an
> >> ePetition.
> >> When you sign a paper petition in the street, do you sign it because you
> >> agree with it or disagree with it? Actually, do you ever get a choice?
> >>
> >> I would argue that the Lambeth system is indeed a poll rather than a
> >> petition. You sign petitions because you agree with the wording or the
> >> cause of that petition. If you disagree, you create a counter petition,
> >> as can be seen recently on the Bristol system.
> >>
> >> Donald
> >>
> >>
> >> on 20/01/2010 09:26 Barney, Craig (Petty France) said the following:
> >> > Lambeth Council worked quite closely with modern.gov to help them
> >> > develop the e-petitioning add-on to their committee system and have
> had
> >> > it running for around a year now.
> >> >
> >> > Craig
> >> >
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: <email obscured> <email obscured>]
> On
> >> > Behalf Of Anthony Zacharzewski
> >> > Sent: 19 January 2010 22:37
> >> > To: <email obscured>
> >> > Subject: Re: [DW-X] UK ePetitioning
> >> >
> >> > Demsoc didn't have anything to do with it directly although until 1
> >> > February I'm Head of Policy at the Council so I had a lot to do with
> it
> >> > personally. There are some other councils that use modern.gov, so I'm
> >> > guessing that company will have a head start in those authorities.
> Can't
> >> > think of any off the top of my head, I'm afraid.
> >> >
> >> > I see free addons to existing systems being the first wave of
> >> > implementation, because they're cheap and easy. There will be some
> >> > councils, smaller districts for instance, who don't have webcasting or
> >> > modern.gov yet - they may be in the market for a paid-for solution.
> In
> >> a
> >> > way, epetitioning is too small scale to really justify a big
> investment
> >> > in edemocracy tools on its own, so I suspect authorities who are short
> >> > of cash (most of them) will try to minimise expenditure instead of
> >> > maximising use.
> >> >
> >> > Anthony
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 19 Jan 2010, at 19:18, Cruickshank, Peter wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Hi Anthony
> >> >>
> >> >> Interesting!
> >> >>
> >> >> For the benefit of the folks on the list, the link to the e-petitions
> >> >>
> >> > page on the council website is:
> >> >
> >> >> http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/index.cfm?request=c1211554
> >> >>
> >> >> So far, I'm mainly aware of Public-i's systems through my involvement
> >> >>
> >> > the EuroPetition project, so it's good to hear about other approaches
> >> > that are being taken. Were you (DemSoc) involved in the implementation
> >> > of Brighton & Hove's system? Do you know if the system is going to be
> >> > implemented by other councils?
> >> >
> >> >> It's worth noting the requirement for local councils to implement
> >> >>
> >> > e-petitions does not apply in Scotland or Northern Ireland, and is
> being
> >> > implemented slightly differently in England and in Wales.
> >> >
> >> >> Kind Regards
> >> >>
> >> >> Peter
> >> >>
> >> >> w: http://itc.napier.ac.uk | b: http://spartakan.wordpress.com
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> From: <email obscured> <email obscured>]
> >> >> On Behalf Of Anthony Zacharzewski
> >> >> Sent: 19 January 2010 18:21
> >> >> To: <email obscured>
> >> >> Subject: Re: [DW-X] UK ePetitioning
> >> >>
> >> >> One has just started in Brighton & Hove (Brighton-hove.gov.UK) but
> >> >> there will soon be many more as all local councils in the UK will
> >> >> shortly have a legal duty to introduce e-petitioning.
> >> >>
> >> >> Anthony
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Anthony Zacharzewski
> >> >> The Democratic Society
> >> >> http://www.demsoc.org
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On 19 Jan 2010, at 16:46, <email obscured> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>> 1.On the local ePetitioning systems in UK the most famous are in
> >> >>> Bristol and Kingston-upon-thames, are their other ones?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 2. When did the UK National local E-Democracy Project end, which
> >> >>> Pilot-Projects have been realised?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Thanks!
> >> >>>
> >> >>> dan
> >> >>> -----------------------------------------
> >> >>> Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
> >> >>> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts
> >> >>> on this topic here:
> >> >>> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/2HnSzKlWMupOwr7gbwSKNR
> >> >>>
> >> >>> For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange, email
> >> >>> <email obscured> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the
> >> >>> *subject*.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
> >> >>> http://dowire.org .
> >> >>>
> >> >> -----------------------------------------
> >> >> Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
> >> >> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
> >> >>
> >> >> Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts
> on
> >> >>
> >> > this topic here:
> >> >
> >> >> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/Zz71CdAXjfxWJvixdwgvW
> >> >>
> >> >> For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange, email
> >> >> <email obscured> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the
> >> >> *subject*.
> >> >>
> >> >> Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
> >> >>
> >> > http://dowire.org.
> >> >
> >> >> On 25 February 2009, the University launched its new name, Edinburgh
> >> >>
> >> > Napier University.
> >> >
> >> >> For more information please visit our website.
> >> >>
> >> >> Edinburgh Napier University is one of the top 10 universities in the
> >> >> UK for graduate employability (HESA 2009)
> >> >>
> >> >> This message is intended for the addressee(s) only and should not be
> >> >>
> >> > read, copied or disclosed to anyone else out-with the University
> without
> >> > the permission of the sender.
> >> >
> >> >> It is your responsibility to ensure that this message and any
> >> >>
> >> > attachments are scanned for viruses or other defects. Edinburgh Napier
> >> > University does not accept liability for any loss or damage which may
> >> > result from this email or any attachment, or for errors or omissions
> >> > arising after it was sent. Email is not a secure medium. Email
> entering
> >> > the University's system is subject to routine monitoring and filtering
> >> > by the University.
> >> >
> >> >> Edinburgh Napier University is a registered Scottish charity.
> >> >> Registration number SC018373
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> -----------------------------------------
> >> >> Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
> >> >> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
> >> >>
> >> >> Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts
> on
> >> >>
> >> > this topic here:
> >> >
> >> >> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/FMlkvpBWyonIvCtzZqo4N
> >> >>
> >> >> For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange, email
> >> >> <email obscured> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the
> >> >> *subject*.
> >> >>
> >> >> Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
> >> >>
> >> > http://dowire.org.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > -----------------------------------------
> >> > Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
> >> > http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
> >> >
> >> > Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts on
> >> > this topic here:
> >> > http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/7jFvGVxfBPfpLCkFMWQfhZ
> >> >
> >> > For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange, email
> >> > <email obscured> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the
> >> > *subject*.
> >> >
> >> > Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
> >> > http://dowire.org.
> >> >
> >> > This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the
> Government
> >> > Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless in
> >> > partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.)
> In
> >> > case of problems, please call your organisation's IT Helpdesk.
> >> > Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored
> and/or
> >> > recorded for legal purposes.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
> >> > the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
> >> > is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please
> destroy
> >> all
> >> > copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
> >> >
> >> > Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
> >> > could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
> >> > mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this
> message
> >> > by e-mail.
> >> >
> >> > This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
> >> > monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
> >> > monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
> >> > read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
> >> > broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government
> >> Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless in
> >> partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On
> >> leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
> >> > Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored
> and/or
> >> recorded for legal purposes.
> >> >
> >> > -----------------------------------------
> >> > Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
> >> > http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
> >> >
> >> > Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts on
> >> this topic here:
> >> > http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/3GTljMrhqjbYRmrgNunMS0
> >> >
> >> > For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange,
> >> > email <email obscured>
> >> > with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
> >> >
> >> > Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
> >> http://dowire.org.
> >> >
> >>
> >> -----------------------------------------
> >> Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
> >> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
> >>
> >> Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts on
> >> this topic here:
> >> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/2ZT9zdYGmsciAm16QxfVAT
> >>
> >> For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange,
> >> email <email obscured>
> >> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
> >>
> >> Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
> >> http://dowire.org.
> >>
> >
> >
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
>
> Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts on this
> topic here:
> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/3U5LpPbQFLLuJDTYDfhQsH
>
> For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange,
> email <email obscured>
> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
>
> Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
> http://dowire.org.
>

>
> I think the fact that in the model that the SP is working to, there is an
> informal stage at the beginning at which point there is a discussion between
> Parliament's officers and the petitioner on how best to word the petition so
> that is in the remit of the Scottish Parliament has discouraged frivolous
> petitions (NB The officers cannot stop the petitioner submitting a petition
> if they absolutely insist, but I don't think that has been a major problem
> in practice).
>
> I believe Bristol and Kingston councils have also had a positive experience
> with (e-)petitions.
>
> Bottom line: Number 10 is not a great example of how to run a serious
> petitioning process. I think Paul and I would agree there.
>
> Peter
>
> w: itc.napier.ac.uk | b: spartakan.wordpress.com | t: +44 (0)131 455 2309
> or 455 4175
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On
> Behalf Of Paul Evans
> Sent: 20 January 2010 16:57
> To: <email obscured>
> Subject: Re: [DW-X] UK ePetitioning
>
> I posted something about what the legal obligations are a few months ago
> here:
>
>
>
http://blog.localdemocracy.org.uk/2009/09/14/petitions-and-e-petitions-a-few-observations/
>
> I read the legislation quite closely and said what I thought the issues for
> councils were. Reading it back, I think I soft-pedalled a bit - I think
> e-petitioning is a stupid thing to ask councils to do. Paper petitions are
> pretty worthless as far as I can see, and e-petitions (being easier to
> deploy and more whimsical to respond to) are even more worthless. This bill
> means that councils can't ignore them.
>
> 2010/1/20 Patrick Lismore <email obscured>>
>
> > > What should be the key points within a E-Petition system like the one I
> > am
> > > building for the Facebook platform.
> > >
> > > best regards
> > >
> > > Patrick
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Donald Eastwood <
> > > <email obscured>> wrote:
> > >
> > >> The Lambeth solution allows you to either agree or disagree on an
> > >> ePetition.
> > >> When you sign a paper petition in the street, do you sign it because
> you
> > >> agree with it or disagree with it? Actually, do you ever get a choice?
> > >>
> > >> I would argue that the Lambeth system is indeed a poll rather than a
> > >> petition. You sign petitions because you agree with the wording or the
> > >> cause of that petition. If you disagree, you create a counter
> petition,
> > >> as can be seen recently on the Bristol system.
> > >>
> > >> Donald
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> on 20/01/2010 09:26 Barney, Craig (Petty France) said the following:
> > >> > Lambeth Council worked quite closely with modern.gov to help them
> > >> > develop the e-petitioning add-on to their committee system and have
> > had
> > >> > it running for around a year now.
> > >> >
> > >> > Craig
> > >> >
> > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > >> > From: <email obscured> <email obscured>
> ]
> > On
> > >> > Behalf Of Anthony Zacharzewski
> > >> > Sent: 19 January 2010 22:37
> > >> > To: <email obscured>
> > >> > Subject: Re: [DW-X] UK ePetitioning
> > >> >
> > >> > Demsoc didn't have anything to do with it directly although until 1
> > >> > February I'm Head of Policy at the Council so I had a lot to do with
> > it
> > >> > personally. There are some other councils that use modern.gov, so
> I'm
> > >> > guessing that company will have a head start in those authorities.
> > Can't
> > >> > think of any off the top of my head, I'm afraid.
> > >> >
> > >> > I see free addons to existing systems being the first wave of
> > >> > implementation, because they're cheap and easy. There will be some
> > >> > councils, smaller districts for instance, who don't have webcasting
> or
> > >> > modern.gov yet - they may be in the market for a paid-for solution.
> > In
> > >> a
> > >> > way, epetitioning is too small scale to really justify a big
> > investment
> > >> > in edemocracy tools on its own, so I suspect authorities who are
> short
> > >> > of cash (most of them) will try to minimise expenditure instead of
> > >> > maximising use.
> > >> >
> > >> > Anthony
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On 19 Jan 2010, at 19:18, Cruickshank, Peter wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >> Hi Anthony
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Interesting!
> > >> >>
> > >> >> For the benefit of the folks on the list, the link to the
> e-petitions
> > >> >>
> > >> > page on the council website is:
> > >> >
> > >> >> http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/index.cfm?request=c1211554
> > >> >>
> > >> >> So far, I'm mainly aware of Public-i's systems through my
> involvement
> > >> >>
> > >> > the EuroPetition project, so it's good to hear about other
> approaches
> > >> > that are being taken. Were you (DemSoc) involved in the
> implementation
> > >> > of Brighton & Hove's system? Do you know if the system is going to
> be
> > >> > implemented by other councils?
> > >> >
> > >> >> It's worth noting the requirement for local councils to implement
> > >> >>
> > >> > e-petitions does not apply in Scotland or Northern Ireland, and is
> > being
> > >> > implemented slightly differently in England and in Wales.
> > >> >
> > >> >> Kind Regards
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Peter
> > >> >>
> > >> >> w: http://itc.napier.ac.uk | b: http://spartakan.wordpress.com
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> >> From: <email obscured> [mailto:
> <email obscured>]
> > >> >> On Behalf Of Anthony Zacharzewski
> > >> >> Sent: 19 January 2010 18:21
> > >> >> To: <email obscured>
> > >> >> Subject: Re: [DW-X] UK ePetitioning
> > >> >>
> > >> >> One has just started in Brighton & Hove (Brighton-hove.gov.UK) but
> > >> >> there will soon be many more as all local councils in the UK will
> > >> >> shortly have a legal duty to introduce e-petitioning.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Anthony
> > >> >>
> > >> >> --
> > >> >> Anthony Zacharzewski
> > >> >> The Democratic Society
> > >> >> http://www.demsoc.org
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On 19 Jan 2010, at 16:46, <email obscured> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> 1.On the local ePetitioning systems in UK the most famous are in
> > >> >>> Bristol and Kingston-upon-thames, are their other ones?
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> 2. When did the UK National local E-Democracy Project end, which
> > >> >>> Pilot-Projects have been realised?
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Thanks!
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> dan
> > >> >>> -----------------------------------------
> > >> >>> Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
> > >> >>> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all
> posts
> > >> >>> on this topic here:
> > >> >>> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/2HnSzKlWMupOwr7gbwSKNR
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange, email
> > >> >>> <email obscured> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in
> the
> > >> >>> *subject*.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
> > >> >>> http://dowire.org .
> > >> >>>
> > >> >> -----------------------------------------
> > >> >> Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
> > >> >> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts
> > on
> > >> >>
> > >> > this topic here:
> > >> >
> > >> >> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/Zz71CdAXjfxWJvixdwgvW
> > >> >>
> > >> >> For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange, email
> > >> >> <email obscured> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in
> the
> > >> >> *subject*.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
> > >> >>
> > >> > http://dowire.org.
> > >> >
> > >> >> On 25 February 2009, the University launched its new name,
> Edinburgh
> > >> >>
> > >> > Napier University.
> > >> >
> > >> >> For more information please visit our website.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Edinburgh Napier University is one of the top 10 universities in
> the
> > >> >> UK for graduate employability (HESA 2009)
> > >> >>
> > >> >> This message is intended for the addressee(s) only and should not
> be
> > >> >>
> > >> > read, copied or disclosed to anyone else out-with the University
> > without
> > >> > the permission of the sender.
> > >> >
> > >> >> It is your responsibility to ensure that this message and any
> > >> >>
> > >> > attachments are scanned for viruses or other defects. Edinburgh
> Napier
> > >> > University does not accept liability for any loss or damage which
> may
> > >> > result from this email or any attachment, or for errors or omissions
> > >> > arising after it was sent. Email is not a secure medium. Email
> > entering
> > >> > the University's system is subject to routine monitoring and
> filtering
> > >> > by the University.
> > >> >
> > >> >> Edinburgh Napier University is a registered Scottish charity.
> > >> >> Registration number SC018373
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> -----------------------------------------
> > >> >> Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
> > >> >> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts
> > on
> > >> >>
> > >> > this topic here:
> > >> >
> > >> >> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/FMlkvpBWyonIvCtzZqo4N
> > >> >>
> > >> >> For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange, email
> > >> >> <email obscured> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in
> the
> > >> >> *subject*.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
> > >> >>
> > >> > http://dowire.org.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > -----------------------------------------
> > >> > Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
> > >> > http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
> > >> >
> > >> > Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts
> on
> > >> > this topic here:
> > >> > http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/7jFvGVxfBPfpLCkFMWQfhZ
> > >> >
> > >> > For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange, email
> > >> > <email obscured> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the
> > >> > *subject*.
> > >> >
> > >> > Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
> > >> > http://dowire.org.
> > >> >
> > >> > This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the
> > Government
> > >> > Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless in
> > >> > partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number
> 2009/09/0052.)
> > In
> > >> > case of problems, please call your organisation's IT Helpdesk.
> > >> > Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored
> > and/or
> > >> > recorded for legal purposes.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention
> of
> > >> > the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or
> copying
> > >> > is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please
> > destroy
> > >> all
> > >> > copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
> > >> >
> > >> > Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
> > >> > could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
> > >> > mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this
> > message
> > >> > by e-mail.
> > >> >
> > >> > This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
> > >> > monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
> > >> > monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may
> be
> > >> > read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
> > >> > broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government
> > >> Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless in
> > >> partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.)
> On
> > >> leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
> > >> > Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored
> > and/or
> > >> recorded for legal purposes.
> > >> >
> > >> > -----------------------------------------
> > >> > Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
> > >> > http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
> > >> >
> > >> > Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts
> on
> > >> this topic here:
> > >> > http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/3GTljMrhqjbYRmrgNunMS0
> > >> >
> > >> > For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange,
> > >> > email <email obscured>
> > >> > with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
> > >> >
> > >> > Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
> > >> http://dowire.org.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> -----------------------------------------
> > >> Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
> > >> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
> > >>
> > >> Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts on
> > >> this topic here:
> > >> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/2ZT9zdYGmsciAm16QxfVAT
> > >>
> > >> For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange,
> > >> email <email obscured>
> > >> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
> > >>
> > >> Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
> > >> http://dowire.org.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
> > http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
> >
> > Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts on
> this
> > topic here:
> > http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/3U5LpPbQFLLuJDTYDfhQsH
> >
> > For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange,
> > email <email obscured>
> > with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
> >
> > Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
> > http://dowire.org.
> >
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
>
> Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts on this
> topic here:
> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/3Nsu6HU2xmruVeFzLJyH4m
>
> For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange,
> email <email obscured>
> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
>
> Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
> http://dowire.org.
>
>
> On 25 February 2009, the University launched its new name, Edinburgh Napier
> University.
>
> For more information please visit our website.
>
> Edinburgh Napier University is one of the top 10 universities in the UK for
> graduate employability (HESA 2009)
>
> This message is intended for the addressee(s) only and should not be read,
> copied or disclosed to anyone else out-with the University without the
> permission of the sender.
> It is your responsibility to ensure that this message and any attachments
> are scanned for viruses or other defects. Edinburgh Napier University does
> not accept liability for any loss or damage which may result from this email
> or any attachment, or for errors or omissions arising after it was sent.
> Email is not a secure medium. Email entering the University's system is
> subject to routine monitoring and filtering by the University.
>
> Edinburgh Napier University is a registered Scottish charity. Registration
> number SC018373
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
>
> Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts on this
> topic here:
> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/7Mdy1Gex0G1eznTFN7solh
>
> For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange,
> email <email obscured>
> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
>
> Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
> http://dowire.org.
>

>
>
> ALEXANDER R. COHEN
> Doctoral student in philosophy
> University of Virginia
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
>
> Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts on this
topic here:
> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/4kMh3cyPyNV2bWgOgJTHbz
>
> For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange,
> email <email obscured>
> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
>
> Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
http://dowire.org.


--

Brian Sullivan
Practical Evolution, LLC
San Francisco, CA USA
<email obscured>
415.305.3651

Sponsor of CivicEvolution
http://civicevolution.org

<email obscured>> wrote:
> I think both petitions and referendums (or is it referendi) are part of
> the toolbox of democracy. They should never be the prime way of getting
> citizen views but are good at testing or allowing general public views
> to be surfaced. The problem with both, and with most of the other
> channels apart from intensive community engagement work, is that they
> can be very one dimensional and tend to engage the people who are
> already engaged. Peter is right that the Scottish Parliament model is a
> lot better than the PM Petition site and can be used as a way of
> building consensus online which can then be quantified, but at the end
> of the day elected members supported by good quality information and
> their links to their local community should be able to come up with
> decisions that reflect the long term best interest of the people they
> represent rather than a quick response to "issues".
>
> Tim Anderson
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On
> Behalf Of Paul Evans
> Sent: 20 January 2010 18:56
> To: <email obscured>
> Subject: Re: [DW-X] UK ePetitioning
>
> Peter - it's a general principle that I'll defend in a ditch if I have
> to.
> Referendums are always, in every way, a bit of sticking plaster on
> democracy
> and the way it's communicated. It is less inclusive and more open to
> manipulation by powerful interests than representative government is and
> their conclusions are less legitimate in a democratic sense. There are
> times
> when you are forced by political contingencies to concede them, but it's
> always a sign of weakness and unprincipled governance. The same is true
> to a
> lesser extent with petitions. If you are useless at listening to the
> public,
> understanding their views and responding to them, then sure! Go ahead
> and
> invite petitions and take them seriously.
>
> But doing either of these things addresses the symptom rather than the
> illness - and postpones treatment of the illness itself.
>
> 2010/1/20 Cruickshank, Peter <email obscured>>
>
>> I accept that Paul may have good reasons for his beliefs, but I don't
> think
>> this has been the experience of the Scottish Parliament at least: in
> fact,
>> the MSPs have been very positive about the process, seeing it as a
> chance to
>> engage directly with voters between elections and away from the floor
> of
>> Parliament.
>>
>> Links to the various reports via my blog here:
>>
> http://spartakan.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/review-of-petitions-at-the-sco
> ttish-parliament/
>>
>> I think the fact that in the model that the SP is working to, there is
> an
>> informal stage at the beginning at which point there is a discussion
> between
>> Parliament's officers and the petitioner on how best to word the
> petition so
>> that is in the remit of the Scottish Parliament has discouraged
> frivolous
>> petitions (NB The officers cannot stop the petitioner submitting a
> petition
>> if they absolutely insist, but I don't think that has been a major
> problem
>> in practice).
>>
>> I believe Bristol and Kingston councils have also had a positive
> experience
>> with (e-)petitions.
>>
>> Bottom line: Number 10 is not a great example of how to run a serious
>> petitioning process. I think Paul and I would agree there.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> w: itc.napier.ac.uk | b: spartakan.wordpress.com | t: +44 (0)131 455
> 2309
>> or 455 4175
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: <email obscured> <email obscured>]
> On
>> Behalf Of Paul Evans
>> Sent: 20 January 2010 16:57
>> To: <email obscured>
>> Subject: Re: [DW-X] UK ePetitioning
>>
>> I posted something about what the legal obligations are a few months
> ago
>> here:
>>
>>
>>
> http://blog.localdemocracy.org.uk/2009/09/14/petitions-and-e-petitions-a
> -few-observations/
>>
>> I read the legislation quite closely and said what I thought the
> issues for
>> councils were. Reading it back, I think I soft-pedalled a bit - I
> think
>> e-petitioning is a stupid thing to ask councils to do. Paper petitions
> are
>> pretty worthless as far as I can see, and e-petitions (being easier to
>> deploy and more whimsical to respond to) are even more worthless. This
> bill
>> means that councils can't ignore them.
>>
>> 2010/1/20 Patrick Lismore <email obscured>>
>>
>> > > What should be the key points within a E-Petition system like the
> one I
>> > am
>> > > building for the Facebook platform.
>> > >
>> > > best regards
>> > >
>> > > Patrick
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Donald Eastwood <
>> > > <email obscured>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> The Lambeth solution allows you to either agree or disagree on an
>> > >> ePetition.
>> > >> When you sign a paper petition in the street, do you sign it
> because
>> you
>> > >> agree with it or disagree with it? Actually, do you ever get a
> choice?
>> > >>
>> > >> I would argue that the Lambeth system is indeed a poll rather
> than a
>> > >> petition. You sign petitions because you agree with the wording
> or the
>> > >> cause of that petition. If you disagree, you create a counter
>> petition,
>> > >> as can be seen recently on the Bristol system.
>> > >>
>> > >> Donald
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> on 20/01/2010 09:26 Barney, Craig (Petty France) said the
> following:
>> > >> > Lambeth Council worked quite closely with modern.gov to help
> them
>> > >> > develop the e-petitioning add-on to their committee system and
> have
>> > had
>> > >> > it running for around a year now.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Craig
>> > >> >
>> > >> > -----Original Message-----
>> > >> > From: <email obscured>
> <email obscured>
>> ]
>> > On
>> > >> > Behalf Of Anthony Zacharzewski
>> > >> > Sent: 19 January 2010 22:37
>> > >> > To: <email obscured>
>> > >> > Subject: Re: [DW-X] UK ePetitioning
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Demsoc didn't have anything to do with it directly although
> until 1
>> > >> > February I'm Head of Policy at the Council so I had a lot to do
> with
>> > it
>> > >> > personally. There are some other councils that use modern.gov,
> so
>> I'm
>> > >> > guessing that company will have a head start in those
> authorities.
>> > Can't
>> > >> > think of any off the top of my head, I'm afraid.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > I see free addons to existing systems being the first wave of
>> > >> > implementation, because they're cheap and easy. There will be
> some
>> > >> > councils, smaller districts for instance, who don't have
> webcasting
>> or
>> > >> > modern.gov yet - they may be in the market for a paid-for
> solution.
>> > In
>> > >> a
>> > >> > way, epetitioning is too small scale to really justify a big
>> > investment
>> > >> > in edemocracy tools on its own, so I suspect authorities who
> are
>> short
>> > >> > of cash (most of them) will try to minimise expenditure instead
> of
>> > >> > maximising use.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Anthony
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > On 19 Jan 2010, at 19:18, Cruickshank, Peter wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> Hi Anthony
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Interesting!
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> For the benefit of the folks on the list, the link to the
>> e-petitions
>> > >> >>
>> > >> > page on the council website is:
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/index.cfm?request=c1211554
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> So far, I'm mainly aware of Public-i's systems through my
>> involvement
>> > >> >>
>> > >> > the EuroPetition project, so it's good to hear about other
>> approaches
>> > >> > that are being taken. Were you (DemSoc) involved in the
>> implementation
>> > >> > of Brighton & Hove's system? Do you know if the system is going
> to
>> be
>> > >> > implemented by other councils?
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> It's worth noting the requirement for local councils to
> implement
>> > >> >>
>> > >> > e-petitions does not apply in Scotland or Northern Ireland, and
> is
>> > being
>> > >> > implemented slightly differently in England and in Wales.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> Kind Regards
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Peter
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> w: http://itc.napier.ac.uk | b: http://spartakan.wordpress.com
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> -----Original Message-----
>> > >> >> From: <email obscured> [mailto:
>> <email obscured>]
>> > >> >> On Behalf Of Anthony Zacharzewski
>> > >> >> Sent: 19 January 2010 18:21
>> > >> >> To: <email obscured>
>> > >> >> Subject: Re: [DW-X] UK ePetitioning
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> One has just started in Brighton & Hove (Brighton-hove.gov.UK)
> but
>> > >> >> there will soon be many more as all local councils in the UK
> will
>> > >> >> shortly have a legal duty to introduce e-petitioning.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Anthony
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> --
>> > >> >> Anthony Zacharzewski
>> > >> >> The Democratic Society
>> > >> >> http://www.demsoc.org
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> On 19 Jan 2010, at 16:46, <email obscured>
> wrote:
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>> 1.On the local ePetitioning systems in UK the most famous are
> in
>> > >> >>> Bristol and Kingston-upon-thames, are their other ones?
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>> 2. When did the UK National local E-Democracy Project end,
> which
>> > >> >>> Pilot-Projects have been realised?
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>> Thanks!
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>> dan
>> > >> >>> -----------------------------------------
>> > >> >>> Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
>> > >> >>> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>> Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all
>> posts
>> > >> >>> on this topic here:
>> > >> >>> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/2HnSzKlWMupOwr7gbwSKNR
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>> For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange,
> email
>> > >> >>> <email obscured> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe"
> in
>> the
>> > >> >>> *subject*.
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>> Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
>> > >> >>> http://dowire.org .
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >> -----------------------------------------
>> > >> >> Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
>> > >> >> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all
> posts
>> > on
>> > >> >>
>> > >> > this topic here:
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/Zz71CdAXjfxWJvixdwgvW
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange,
> email
>> > >> >> <email obscured> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe"
> in
>> the
>> > >> >> *subject*.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
>> > >> >>
>> > >> > http://dowire.org.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> On 25 February 2009, the University launched its new name,
>> Edinburgh
>> > >> >>
>> > >> > Napier University.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> For more information please visit our website.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Edinburgh Napier University is one of the top 10 universities
> in
>> the
>> > >> >> UK for graduate employability (HESA 2009)
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> This message is intended for the addressee(s) only and should
> not
>> be
>> > >> >>
>> > >> > read, copied or disclosed to anyone else out-with the
> University
>> > without
>> > >> > the permission of the sender.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> It is your responsibility to ensure that this message and any
>> > >> >>
>> > >> > attachments are scanned for viruses or other defects. Edinburgh
>> Napier
>> > >> > University does not accept liability for any loss or damage
> which
>> may
>> > >> > result from this email or any attachment, or for errors or
> omissions
>> > >> > arising after it was sent. Email is not a secure medium. Email
>> > entering
>> > >> > the University's system is subject to routine monitoring and
>> filtering
>> > >> > by the University.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> Edinburgh Napier University is a registered Scottish charity.
>> > >> >> Registration number SC018373
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> -----------------------------------------
>> > >> >> Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
>> > >> >> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all
> posts
>> > on
>> > >> >>
>> > >> > this topic here:
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/FMlkvpBWyonIvCtzZqo4N
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange,
> email
>> > >> >> <email obscured> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe"
> in
>> the
>> > >> >> *subject*.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
>> > >> >>
>> > >> > http://dowire.org.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > -----------------------------------------
>> > >> > Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
>> > >> > http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all
> posts
>> on
>> > >> > this topic here:
>> > >> > http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/7jFvGVxfBPfpLCkFMWQfhZ
>> > >> >
>> > >> > For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange,
> email
>> > >> > <email obscured> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in
> the
>> > >> > *subject*.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
>> > >> > http://dowire.org.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the
>> > Government
>> > >> > Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless
> in
>> > >> > partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number
>> 2009/09/0052.)
>> > In
>> > >> > case of problems, please call your organisation's IT Helpdesk.
>> > >> > Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged,
> monitored
>> > and/or
>> > >> > recorded for legal purposes.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the
> attention
>> of
>> > >> > the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or
>> copying
>> > >> > is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please
>> > destroy
>> > >> all
>> > >> > copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this
> message
>> > >> > could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that
> in
>> > >> > mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this
>> > message
>> > >> > by e-mail.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may
> be
>> > >> > monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice.
> E-mail
>> > >> > monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content
> may
>> be
>> > >> > read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are
> not
>> > >> > broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the
> Government
>> > >> Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless
> in
>> > >> partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number
> 2009/09/0052.)
>> On
>> > >> leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
>> > >> > Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged,
> monitored
>> > and/or
>> > >> recorded for legal purposes.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > -----------------------------------------
>> > >> > Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
>> > >> > http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all
> posts
>> on
>> > >> this topic here:
>> > >> > http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/3GTljMrhqjbYRmrgNunMS0
>> > >> >
>> > >> > For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange,
>> > >> > email <email obscured>
>> > >> > with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
>> > >> http://dowire.org.
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >> -----------------------------------------
>> > >> Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
>> > >> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
>> > >>
>> > >> Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all
> posts on
>> > >> this topic here:
>> > >> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/2ZT9zdYGmsciAm16QxfVAT
>> > >>
>> > >> For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange,
>> > >> email <email obscured>
>> > >> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
>> > >>
>> > >> Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
>> > >> http://dowire.org.
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > -----------------------------------------
>> > Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
>> > http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
>> >
>> > Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts
> on
>> this
>> > topic here:
>> > http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/3U5LpPbQFLLuJDTYDfhQsH
>> >
>> > For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange,
>> > email <email obscured>
>> > with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
>> >
>> > Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
>> > http://dowire.org.
>> >
>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>> Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
>> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
>>
>> Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts on
> this
>> topic here:
>> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/3Nsu6HU2xmruVeFzLJyH4m
>>
>> For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange,
>> email <email obscured>
>> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
>>
>> Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
>> http://dowire.org.
>>
>>
>> On 25 February 2009, the University launched its new name, Edinburgh
> Napier
>> University.
>>
>> For more information please visit our website.
>>
>> Edinburgh Napier University is one of the top 10 universities in the
> UK for
>> graduate employability (HESA 2009)
>>
>> This message is intended for the addressee(s) only and should not be
> read,
>> copied or disclosed to anyone else out-with the University without the
>> permission of the sender.
>> It is your responsibility to ensure that this message and any
> attachments
>> are scanned for viruses or other defects. Edinburgh Napier University
> does
>> not accept liability for any loss or damage which may result from this
> email
>> or any attachment, or for errors or omissions arising after it was
> sent.
>> Email is not a secure medium. Email entering the University's system
> is
>> subject to routine monitoring and filtering by the University.
>>
>> Edinburgh Napier University is a registered Scottish charity.
> Registration
>> number SC018373
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>> Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
>> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
>>
>> Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts on
> this
>> topic here:
>> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/7Mdy1Gex0G1eznTFN7solh
>>
>> For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange,
>> email <email obscured>
>> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
>>
>> Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
>> http://dowire.org.
>>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
>
> Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts on
> this topic here:
> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/4UnIL4SemcRAxRDCqSRP2e
>
> For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange,
> email <email obscured>
> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
>
> Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
> http://dowire.org.
>
> The information contained in this email is intended only for the person or
organization to which it is addressed.  If you have received it by mistake,
please disregard and notify the sender immediately.  Unauthorized disclosure or
use of such information may be a breach of legislation or confidentiality and
may be legally privileged.
>
> Emails sent from and received by Members and employees of Norfolk County
Council may be monitored.  They may also be disclosed to other people under
legislation, particularly the Freedom Of Information Act 2000.
>
> Unless this email relates to Norfolk County Council business it will be
regarded by the Council as personal and will not be authorized by or sent on
behalf of the Council.  The sender will have sole responsibility for any legal
actions or disputes that may arise.
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
>
> Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts on this
topic here:
> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/3XkBFDGU5s0DdoQX3wKxEk
>
> For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange,
> email <email obscured>
> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
>
> Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
http://dowire.org.
>

> >Referendums are always, in every way, a bit of sticking plaster on
> democracy
> >and the way it's communicated. It is less inclusive and more open to
> >manipulation by powerful interests than representative government is and
> >their conclusions are less legitimate in a democratic sense.
>
> This strikes me as a very curious position, to say the least.
>
> Suppose that the goal is for political decisions to be those that a
> majority of the people believe are correct. In a referendum, the decision is
> the one that a majority of the voters (theoretically, all the people who
> care enough about the issue to turn up and vote) think is correct. It is
> difficult to see how representative government could better reflect the
> views of the public than that.
>
> It is easy, on the other hand, to see how representative government could
> do worse. Suppose that I care about two issues, on one of which I agree with
> the Democrats, and on the other of which I agree with the Republicans. Then
> (if I am to have any chance of getting my candidate elected) I must abandon
> one issue or the other.
>
> Worse, it may be the case that all major parties agree on an issue, in
> which case a dissenting portion of the population may not have a chance to
> have its voice heard. (For example, my understanding is that in Britain,
> both the Labor and Conservative parties favored the European
> Constitution/Lisbon Treaty, but a substantial portion of the population --
> perhaps a majority, perhaps not -- opposed it.) The public can punish party
> A by voting for party B, but it's difficult to punish A and B for conspiring
> together against the people. And depending on how the parties are
> structured, whether they have primary elections, and so forth, it may be
> difficult or impossible to change the view of either party.
>
> One might suppose that, as in the market, either a third party will emerge
> to represent those whose views are not being represented, or a major party
> will move toward that view. And to an extent this works. But to vote for a
> third party, especially in a presidential system (as exists in the US and I
> believe each of its states), you have to be willing to give up the
> possibility of helping elect your second-choice candidate (rather than your
> third choice) in order to express support for your first choice (who won't
> win). You have to give up all the issues on which you agree with one of the
> viable candidates and not the other.
>
> Notice that this poses a particular problem when an issue divides people
> along a line perpendicular to the usual political spectrum. If elected
> officials left and right agree on a plan that is opposed by a majority of
> voters left and right, the elected officials can pass the plan easily (even
> when a multi-branch government is split among parties) and, if they get the
> chance, the voters can reject it easily in a referendum. But it is very
> difficult for the voters who oppose the plan to unite around candidates,
> because they disagree on most other issues.
>
> In any event, this sort of political change happens very slowly, and
> meanwhile elected officials are imposing their agendas, which may be
> difficult or impossible to reverse. Referenda can be much faster.
>
> Now, perhaps the public is more susceptible to bad influences than its
> elected officials are, although I doubt it. But the question of legitimacy
> has nothing to do with whether the best policies are enacted: It has to do
> with the relations among the people's views, the political structure, and
> the policies that are adopted.
>
>
> ALEXANDER R. COHEN
> Doctoral student in philosophy
> University of Virginia
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
>
> Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts on this
> topic here:
> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/4kMh3cyPyNV2bWgOgJTHbz
>
> For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange,
> email <email obscured>
> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
>
> Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
> http://dowire.org.
>

> Paul,
> something similar could be performed with your own argument. Let me show:
>
> "What?? 'Suppose that the goal is for political decisions to be those
> that a majority of the people believe are correct' Your whole premise
> here is so spectacularly wrong that the rest of your points are irrelevant"
>
> Now we reached the point where I say:
>
> What!?! Your whole premise here is so spectacularly wrong that the rest
> of your points are irrelevant.
> Additionally: please notice that your lines sound so /arrogant/ that I
> was not the only reader tempted to fuly ignore you, and dismiss your
> "spectacular arguments" and your "vast knowledge" about Burke, Paine,
> Schumpeter and all those democracy prophets that infalibly hold the one
> and only TRUTH about democracy. Which is what you actualy did, with the
> very valid points that Alexander expressed: you just (wrongly) dismissed
> them as irrelevant.
>
> In your contribution, you make a lot of questions (12, actually) whose
> answers seem to be self-evident for you. Well. Let this unbeliever
> disillusion you: they are not.
> In the same way that economists will never be able to explain economy
> based on a stupid understanding of human beings as just "homo
> economicus", your Burl-Pain-Schpeter-Hobbys will never accurately
> understand human societies and government, if they are just able to see
> "wolves with vested interests".
>
> You seem to think that "liberal representative democracy" is the best
> and perfect way to solve the issues you mentioned (trade-offs,
> interests, evicende, weighted preferences, consistency, etc.), and the
> many other issues you don't even imagine (some of which, by the way,
> were presented here by several people (but it seems you did't even "see
> their point")).
>
> But liberal representative democracy is not perfect. What most of the
> world call "democracies" are a very primitive and perfectible form of
> human government. At best, "liberal representative democracies" are a
> prototype, and they are actually not working working very well.
> Have a look around you, see the world as a whole and stare at its worst
> parts (Africa, Central-America, USA, Haiti, etc. :-) ) and ask yourself
> "what the hell is wrong with this world!?". Remember what recently
> happened in Copenaghe (in short: nothing), and wonder whether our
> leaders and representives are doing the best for their represented (the
> whole humanity, in this case), or actually protecting the "vested
> interests" of some of their powerful lobby-friends.
>
> It has been argued previously that "petitions", "referenda", and many
> other semi-direct democracy mechanisms can be used to improve the
> overall working of representative democracy. That they could help to
> correctly set the incentives for politicians, so they are motivated to
> do a better job.
> As Alexander and others explained, the "I won't vote for you anymore if
> you do wrong!!" mechanism, doesn't seem to be (neither in practice nor
> in theory) a very good way of setting goals and incentives for
> politicians. Specially when you have bi-partisan political systems that
> force you to vote between the "lobby-friend PINK" (the Pink Panther,
> let's say), and the "lobby-friend DARK BLUE" (the Batman, for us :-) ).
>
> If we want to speak seriously about democracy, and about the capability
> of the "represented" to set incentives and orientation for their
> "representatives", the most promising way is clearly the one tried in
> Switzerland: well legislated "revoking referenda", that give citizens
> the last voice in the few cases where politicians do a bad job.
>
> Thus, if the parliament creates a law that is contrary to the interest
> of the people (or a big minority of the people), let them call for a
> referendum, so the whole citizenry decides whether to revoke the law or
> not.
> The point here is not that the citizens are doing laws themselves
> (revoking referenda are seldom called in Switzerland). The point is
> giving the politicians the right motivation for their job, and thus
> improving the overall quality of the laws they pass.
> It works this way: Since the parliament wants to avoid that a referendum
> is called to question any of their laws, they will make sure they are
> considering the views of all relevant stake-holders, while writing their
> proposal. This means they will explicitly ask stake-holders for their
> views and worries, and will made sure they are somehow considered and
> accomodated. The policy making processes are opened, in order to really
> ponder the goods and bads of every aspect of the law, before approving
> it. Only if they do a good job before the law comes out of the
> Parliament, no citizen group will have the motivation to question it.
> This is a hard work, much harder than just meeting behing closed doors
> with some "pink panther politicians" and this or that lobbyst, to agree
> the details of the law (and occasionally, of the compesation to be
> received for their loyal well-doing); it takes much more time and sweat.
> But this is what politicians are paid for.
>
> For sure, I'm not sure if your Burl-Pain-Schpeter-Hobbys would like this
> kind of arrangements (probably yes, if they'd take the time to consider
> them seriously), but... who cares?
> Many others before them argued that "if human being were intended to
> fly, God would have given wings upon them".
>
> That's all, Paul.
> I'm afraid I have very serious business to take care of in the next
> days, so please don't consider me rude if occasionally I'm not able
> answer your contributions again.
> Best regards,
> Pedro
> Asociaciiudades Kyosei
>
>
> El 22/01/2010 8:56, Paul Evans escribi > Alexander,
> >
> > What??
> >
> > "Suppose that the goal is for political decisions to be those that a
> > majority of the people believe are correct."
> >
> > Your whole premise here is so spectacularly wrong that the rest of your
> > points are irrelevant. No effective democracy would survive on that
> basis.
> > Brian Sullivan's points about California elsewhere in this thread
> underline
> > this, but really .... have you never heard of Edmund Burke? Or Tom Paine?
> Or
> > Schumpeter? Or Weber? Or almost anyone who has ever understood democracy
> to
> > be about anything other than giving people with vested interests and
> > convening power the right to force their strong preferences on the rest
> of
> > us? What about trade-offs? What about evidence? What about weighted
> > preferences? What about deliberative processes or weeding out positions
> that
> > emanate from a vested interest that doesn't coincide with the interests
> of
> > the whole? What about ideology or consistency? What about ensuring that
> > people who make decisions have to face some consequences when they go
> wrong.
> >
> > That paragraph above could be ten times longer but I hope (wonder) if you
> > see the point already?
> >
> >
> > 2010/1/20 Alexander R. <email obscured>>
> >
> >
> >>> Referendums are always, in every way, a bit of sticking plaster on
> >>>
> >> democracy
> >>
> >>> and the way it's communicated. It is less inclusive and more open to
> >>> manipulation by powerful interests than representative government is
> and
> >>> their conclusions are less legitimate in a democratic sense.
> >>>
> >> This strikes me as a very curious position, to say the least.
> >>
> >> Suppose that the goal is for political decisions to be those that a
> >> majority of the people believe are correct. In a referendum, the
> decision is
> >> the one that a majority of the voters (theoretically, all the people who
> >> care enough about the issue to turn up and vote) think is correct. It is
> >> difficult to see how representative government could better reflect the
> >> views of the public than that.
> >>
> >> It is easy, on the other hand, to see how representative government
> could
> >> do worse. Suppose that I care about two issues, on one of which I agree
> with
> >> the Democrats, and on the other of which I agree with the Republicans.
> Then
> >> (if I am to have any chance of getting my candidate elected) I must
> abandon
> >> one issue or the other.
> >>
> >> Worse, it may be the case that all major parties agree on an issue, in
> >> which case a dissenting portion of the population may not have a chance
> to
> >> have its voice heard. (For example, my understanding is that in Britain,
> >> both the Labor and Conservative parties favored the European
> >> Constitution/Lisbon Treaty, but a substantial portion of the population
> --
> >> perhaps a majority, perhaps not -- opposed it.) The public can punish
> party
> >> A by voting for party B, but it's difficult to punish A and B for
> conspiring
> >> together against the people. And depending on how the parties are
> >> structured, whether they have primary elections, and so forth, it may be
> >> difficult or impossible to change the view of either party.
> >>
> >> One might suppose that, as in the market, either a third party will
> emerge
> >> to represent those whose views are not being represented, or a major
> party
> >> will move toward that view. And to an extent this works. But to vote for
> a
> >> third party, especially in a presidential system (as exists in the US
> and I
> >> believe each of its states), you have to be willing to give up the
> >> possibility of helping elect your second-choice candidate (rather than
> your
> >> third choice) in order to express support for your first choice (who
> won't
> >> win). You have to give up all the issues on which you agree with one of
> the
> >> viable candidates and not the other.
> >>
> >> Notice that this poses a particular problem when an issue divides people
> >> along a line perpendicular to the usual political spectrum. If elected
> >> officials left and right agree on a plan that is opposed by a majority
> of
> >> voters left and right, the elected officials can pass the plan easily
> (even
> >> when a multi-branch government is split among parties) and, if they get
> the
> >> chance, the voters can reject it easily in a referendum. But it is very
> >> difficult for the voters who oppose the plan to unite around candidates,
> >> because they disagree on most other issues.
> >>
> >> In any event, this sort of political change happens very slowly, and
> >> meanwhile elected officials are imposing their agendas, which may be
> >> difficult or impossible to reverse. Referenda can be much faster.
> >>
> >> Now, perhaps the public is more susceptible to bad influences than its
> >> elected officials are, although I doubt it. But the question of
> legitimacy
> >> has nothing to do with whether the best policies are enacted: It has to
> do
> >> with the relations among the people's views, the political structure,
> and
> >> the policies that are adopted.
> >>
> >>
> >> ALEXANDER R. COHEN
> >> Doctoral student in philosophy
> >> University of Virginia
> >>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
>
> Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts on this
> topic here:
> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/3Ffy8jyjHAo5gcL5pnHiv
>
> For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange,
> email <email obscured>
> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
>
> Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
> http://dowire.org.
>

-----Original Message-----
From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On Behalf
Of Patrick Lismore
Sent: 22 January 2010 17:04
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [DW-X] UK ePetitioning

I sense the recent few posts are an example how people view things based on
the system of government they grow up experience the most.  Its interesting
and valid to include all points of view when developing the best E-Petition
system.

I will try and swing the debate back around to E-Petitions,

Could there perhaps be a way E-Petitions could play a role no matter how
little in all governments.

I think regardless of what you both are debating, E-Petitions are being
used, there are efforts and have been efforts to move them along and gain
more acceptance.

As more and more citizens in democratic countries come online and with the
British governments ambitious plans to have most homes in the UK connected
up to broadband, it makes sense to have a mechanism where by citizens
can make use of Internet technology to engage more people and capture their
input for an electronic petition and have some recognised and accepted way,
maybe something like a standards based approach for data capture and
petition delivery to the intended recipient.

Just as we have web standards like HTML , XML etc, a high level
international working group could maybe help define a set of standards which
developers of E-Petition systems like me ( Developing the E-Petition App on
Faceboo <http://apps.facebook.com/epetition>k ) can make use of.  Ensuring
that any e-petitions created by any users on Facebook will be acceptable
when packaged up and delivered to the recipient.

regards

Patrick

2010/1/22 Pedro <email obscured>>

> Paul,
> something similar could be performed with your own argument. Let me show:
>
> "What?? 'Suppose that the goal is for political decisions to be those
> that a majority of the people believe are correct' Your whole premise
> here is so spectacularly wrong that the rest of your points are irrelevant"
>
> Now we reached the point where I say:
>
> What!?! Your whole premise here is so spectacularly wrong that the rest
> of your points are irrelevant.
> Additionally: please notice that your lines sound so /arrogant/ that I
> was not the only reader tempted to fuly ignore you, and dismiss your
> "spectacular arguments" and your "vast knowledge" about Burke, Paine,
> Schumpeter and all those democracy prophets that infalibly hold the one
> and only TRUTH about democracy. Which is what you actualy did, with the
> very valid points that Alexander expressed: you just (wrongly) dismissed
> them as irrelevant.
>
> In your contribution, you make a lot of questions (12, actually) whose
> answers seem to be self-evident for you. Well. Let this unbeliever
> disillusion you: they are not.
> In the same way that economists will never be able to explain economy
> based on a stupid understanding of human beings as just "homo
> economicus", your Burl-Pain-Schpeter-Hobbys will never accurately
> understand human societies and government, if they are just able to see
> "wolves with vested interests".
>
> You seem to think that "liberal representative democracy" is the best
> and perfect way to solve the issues you mentioned (trade-offs,
> interests, evicende, weighted preferences, consistency, etc.), and the
> many other issues you don't even imagine (some of which, by the way,
> were presented here by several people (but it seems you did't even "see
> their point")).
>
> But liberal representative democracy is not perfect. What most of the
> world call "democracies" are a very primitive and perfectible form of
> human government. At best, "liberal representative democracies" are a
> prototype, and they are actually not working working very well.
> Have a look around you, see the world as a whole and stare at its worst
> parts (Africa, Central-America, USA, Haiti, etc. :-) ) and ask yourself
> "what the hell is wrong with this world!?". Remember what recently
> happened in Copenaghe (in short: nothing), and wonder whether our
> leaders and representives are doing the best for their represented (the
> whole humanity, in this case), or actually protecting the "vested
> interests" of some of their powerful lobby-friends.
>
> It has been argued previously that "petitions", "referenda", and many
> other semi-direct democracy mechanisms can be used to improve the
> overall working of representative democracy. That they could help to
> correctly set the incentives for politicians, so they are motivated to
> do a better job.
> As Alexander and others explained, the "I won't vote for you anymore if
> you do wrong!!" mechanism, doesn't seem to be (neither in practice nor
> in theory) a very good way of setting goals and incentives for
> politicians. Specially when you have bi-partisan political systems that
> force you to vote between the "lobby-friend PINK" (the Pink Panther,
> let's say), and the "lobby-friend DARK BLUE" (the Batman, for us :-) ).
>
> If we want to speak seriously about democracy, and about the capability
> of the "represented" to set incentives and orientation for their
> "representatives", the most promising way is clearly the one tried in
> Switzerland: well legislated "revoking referenda", that give citizens
> the last voice in the few cases where politicians do a bad job.
>
> Thus, if the parliament creates a law that is contrary to the interest
> of the people (or a big minority of the people), let them call for a
> referendum, so the whole citizenry decides whether to revoke the law or
> not.
> The point here is not that the citizens are doing laws themselves
> (revoking referenda are seldom called in Switzerland). The point is
> giving the politicians the right motivation for their job, and thus
> improving the overall quality of the laws they pass.
> It works this way: Since the parliament wants to avoid that a referendum
> is called to question any of their laws, they will make sure they are
> considering the views of all relevant stake-holders, while writing their
> proposal. This means they will explicitly ask stake-holders for their
> views and worries, and will made sure they are somehow considered and
> accomodated. The policy making processes are opened, in order to really
> ponder the goods and bads of every aspect of the law, before approving
> it. Only if they do a good job before the law comes out of the
> Parliament, no citizen group will have the motivation to question it.
> This is a hard work, much harder than just meeting behing closed doors
> with some "pink panther politicians" and this or that lobbyst, to agree
> the details of the law (and occasionally, of the compesation to be
> received for their loyal well-doing); it takes much more time and sweat.
> But this is what politicians are paid for.
>
> For sure, I'm not sure if your Burl-Pain-Schpeter-Hobbys would like this
> kind of arrangements (probably yes, if they'd take the time to consider
> them seriously), but... who cares?
> Many others before them argued that "if human being were intended to
> fly, God would have given wings upon them".
>
> That's all, Paul.
> I'm afraid I have very serious business to take care of in the next
> days, so please don't consider me rude if occasionally I'm not able
> answer your contributions again.
> Best regards,
> Pedro
> Asociaciiudades Kyosei
>
>
> El 22/01/2010 8:56, Paul Evans escribi > Alexander,
> >
> > What??
> >
> > "Suppose that the goal is for political decisions to be those that a
> > majority of the people believe are correct."
> >
> > Your whole premise here is so spectacularly wrong that the rest of your
> > points are irrelevant. No effective democracy would survive on that
> basis.
> > Brian Sullivan's points about California elsewhere in this thread
> underline
> > this, but really .... have you never heard of Edmund Burke? Or Tom Paine?
> Or
> > Schumpeter? Or Weber? Or almost anyone who has ever understood democracy
> to
> > be about anything other than giving people with vested interests and
> > convening power the right to force their strong preferences on the rest
> of
> > us? What about trade-offs? What about evidence? What about weighted
> > preferences? What about deliberative processes or weeding out positions
> that
> > emanate from a vested interest that doesn't coincide with the interests
> of
> > the whole? What about ideology or consistency? What about ensuring that
> > people who make decisions have to face some consequences when they go
> wrong.
> >
> > That paragraph above could be ten times longer but I hope (wonder) if you
> > see the point already?
> >
> >
> > 2010/1/20 Alexander R. <email obscured>>
> >
> >
> >>> Referendums are always, in every way, a bit of sticking plaster on
> >>>
> >> democracy
> >>
> >>> and the way it's communicated. It is less inclusive and more open to
> >>> manipulation by powerful interests than representative government is
> and
> >>> their conclusions are less legitimate in a democratic sense.
> >>>
> >> This strikes me as a very curious position, to say the least.
> >>
> >> Suppose that the goal is for political decisions to be those that a
> >> majority of the people believe are correct. In a referendum, the
> decision is
> >> the one that a majority of the voters (theoretically, all the people who
> >> care enough about the issue to turn up and vote) think is correct. It is
> >> difficult to see how representative government could better reflect the
> >> views of the public than that.
> >>
> >> It is easy, on the other hand, to see how representative government
> could
> >> do worse. Suppose that I care about two issues, on one of which I agree
> with
> >> the Democrats, and on the other of which I agree with the Republicans.
> Then
> >> (if I am to have any chance of getting my candidate elected) I must
> abandon
> >> one issue or the other.
> >>
> >> Worse, it may be the case that all major parties agree on an issue, in
> >> which case a dissenting portion of the population may not have a chance
> to
> >> have its voice heard. (For example, my understanding is that in Britain,
> >> both the Labor and Conservative parties favored the European
> >> Constitution/Lisbon Treaty, but a substantial portion of the population
> --
> >> perhaps a majority, perhaps not -- opposed it.) The public can punish
> party
> >> A by voting for party B, but it's difficult to punish A and B for
> conspiring
> >> together against the people. And depending on how the parties are
> >> structured, whether they have primary elections, and so forth, it may be
> >> difficult or impossible to change the view of either party.
> >>
> >> One might suppose that, as in the market, either a third party will
> emerge
> >> to represent those whose views are not being represented, or a major
> party
> >> will move toward that view. And to an extent this works. But to vote for
> a
> >> third party, especially in a presidential system (as exists in the US
> and I
> >> believe each of its states), you have to be willing to give up the
> >> possibility of helping elect your second-choice candidate (rather than
> your
> >> third choice) in order to express support for your first choice (who
> won't
> >> win). You have to give up all the issues on which you agree with one of
> the
> >> viable candidates and not the other.
> >>
> >> Notice that this poses a particular problem when an issue divides people
> >> along a line perpendicular to the usual political spectrum. If elected
> >> officials left and right agree on a plan that is opposed by a majority
> of
> >> voters left and right, the elected officials can pass the plan easily
> (even
> >> when a multi-branch government is split among parties) and, if they get
> the
> >> chance, the voters can reject it easily in a referendum. But it is very
> >> difficult for the voters who oppose the plan to unite around candidates,
> >> because they disagree on most other issues.
> >>
> >> In any event, this sort of political change happens very slowly, and
> >> meanwhile elected officials are imposing their agendas, which may be
> >> difficult or impossible to reverse. Referenda can be much faster.
> >>
> >> Now, perhaps the public is more susceptible to bad influences than its
> >> elected officials are, although I doubt it. But the question of
> legitimacy
> >> has nothing to do with whether the best policies are enacted: It has to
> do
> >> with the relations among the people's views, the political structure,
> and
> >> the policies that are adopted.
> >>
> >>
> >> ALEXANDER R. COHEN
> >> Doctoral student in philosophy
> >> University of Virginia
> >>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
>
> Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts on this
> topic here:
> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/3Ffy8jyjHAo5gcL5pnHiv
>
> For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange,
> email <email obscured>
> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
>
> Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
> http://dowire.org.
>

-----------------------------------------
Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange

Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts on this
topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/33EeKTuN0bBeP596DpVDC0

For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange,
email <email obscured>
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.

Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
http://dowire.org.


On 25 February 2009, the University launched its new name, Edinburgh Napier
University.

For more information please visit our website.

Edinburgh Napier University is one of the top 10 universities in the UK for
graduate employability (HESA 2009)

This message is intended for the addressee(s) only and should not be read,
copied or disclosed to anyone else out-with the University without the
permission of the sender.
It is your responsibility to ensure that this message and any attachments are
scanned for viruses or other defects. Edinburgh Napier University does not
accept liability for any loss or damage which may result from this email or any
attachment, or for errors or omissions arising after it was sent. Email is not
a secure medium. Email entering the University's system is subject to routine
monitoring and filtering by the University.

Edinburgh Napier University is a registered Scottish charity. Registration
number SC018373

________________________________________
From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On Behalf Of
Patrick Lismore <email obscured>]
Sent: 22 January 2010 18:41
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [DW-X] UK ePetitioning

Thanks Peter,

I was aware of the Future Gov work I posted the PDF of their draft standards
document earlier in the thread, and I spoke to one of the guys involved via
Twitter, I was a bit let down that this consultation was not inclusive, UK
wide in all regions.

I live over here in Belfast, I am a past student of Napier University and
the Future Gov work only deals with England & Wales.  From my chat with him
he said it was the legislation that confined it to England and Wales however
all comments were welcomed.

Interesting document, I wished they would be a bit more inclusive and
include people from all regions of the UK in helping bring about a set of
standards.  After all if UK citizens in Scotland or N.Ireland wish to
epetition westminster I am assuming they would have to follow the standards
that come out of this FutureGov work.

best regards

Patrick




On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Cruickshank, Peter <
<email obscured>> wrote:

> I'll don't want to get back into this debate, other than to suggest that
> this would make a great panel session at an e-participation/e-democracy
> event sometime this year...
>
>
> But - to touch on Patrick's point: there has in fact been work on defining
> data standards for e-petitions, led by the FutureGov[1] for the CLG (Dept
> for Communities and Local Government - England & Wales), and which I was
> involved with, alongside others in the field including MySociety. An outline
> standard has been proposed and hopefully something will emerge in the
> future.
>
> The most recent public draft [2] should give an idea of the scope and
> direction the standard is heading in.
>
> There is also a consultation out on the guidance for the management of
> e-petitioning systems for English councils [3]
> The draft Model Petition Scheme contained in Appendix A could well be a
> basis for establishing best practice across Europe and beyond where
> e-petitioning systems are implemented.
>
>
> Have a nice weekend everyone!
>
> Peter
>
> [1] http://www.futuregovconsultancy.com/
> [2]
>
http://www.futuregovconsultancy.com/index.php/2009/11/11/epetitions-update-and-call-for-comments/
> [3]
>
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/communities/petitionsresponseconsultation
>
>
>
>
> w: itc.napier.ac.uk | b: spartakan.wordpress.com | t: +44 (0)131 455 2309
> or 455 4175
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On
> Behalf Of Patrick Lismore
> Sent: 22 January 2010 17:04
> To: <email obscured>
> Subject: Re: [DW-X] UK ePetitioning
>
> I sense the recent few posts are an example how people view things based on
> the system of government they grow up experience the most.  Its interesting
> and valid to include all points of view when developing the best E-Petition
> system.
>
> I will try and swing the debate back around to E-Petitions,
>
> Could there perhaps be a way E-Petitions could play a role no matter how
> little in all governments.
>
> I think regardless of what you both are debating, E-Petitions are being
> used, there are efforts and have been efforts to move them along and gain
> more acceptance.
>
> As more and more citizens in democratic countries come online and with the
> British governments ambitious plans to have most homes in the UK connected
> up to broadband, it makes sense to have a mechanism where by citizens
> can make use of Internet technology to engage more people and capture their
> input for an electronic petition and have some recognised and accepted way,
> maybe something like a standards based approach for data capture and
> petition delivery to the intended recipient.
>
> Just as we have web standards like HTML , XML etc, a high level
> international working group could maybe help define a set of standards
> which
> developers of E-Petition systems like me ( Developing the E-Petition App on
> Faceboo <http://apps.facebook.com/epetition>k ) can make use of.  Ensuring
> that any e-petitions created by any users on Facebook will be acceptable
> when packaged up and delivered to the recipient.
>
> regards
>
> Patrick
>
> 2010/1/22 Pedro <email obscured>>
>
> > Paul,
> > something similar could be performed with your own argument. Let me show:
> >
> > "What?? 'Suppose that the goal is for political decisions to be those
> > that a majority of the people believe are correct' Your whole premise
> > here is so spectacularly wrong that the rest of your points are
> irrelevant"
> >
> > Now we reached the point where I say:
> >
> > What!?! Your whole premise here is so spectacularly wrong that the rest
> > of your points are irrelevant.
> > Additionally: please notice that your lines sound so /arrogant/ that I
> > was not the only reader tempted to fuly ignore you, and dismiss your
> > "spectacular arguments" and your "vast knowledge" about Burke, Paine,
> > Schumpeter and all those democracy prophets that infalibly hold the one
> > and only TRUTH about democracy. Which is what you actualy did, with the
> > very valid points that Alexander expressed: you just (wrongly) dismissed
> > them as irrelevant.
> >
> > In your contribution, you make a lot of questions (12, actually) whose
> > answers seem to be self-evident for you. Well. Let this unbeliever
> > disillusion you: they are not.
> > In the same way that economists will never be able to explain economy
> > based on a stupid understanding of human beings as just "homo
> > economicus", your Burl-Pain-Schpeter-Hobbys will never accurately
> > understand human societies and government, if they are just able to see
> > "wolves with vested interests".
> >
> > You seem to think that "liberal representative democracy" is the best
> > and perfect way to solve the issues you mentioned (trade-offs,
> > interests, evicende, weighted preferences, consistency, etc.), and the
> > many other issues you don't even imagine (some of which, by the way,
> > were presented here by several people (but it seems you did't even "see
> > their point")).
> >
> > But liberal representative democracy is not perfect. What most of the
> > world call "democracies" are a very primitive and perfectible form of
> > human government. At best, "liberal representative democracies" are a
> > prototype, and they are actually not working working very well.
> > Have a look around you, see the world as a whole and stare at its worst
> > parts (Africa, Central-America, USA, Haiti, etc. :-) ) and ask yourself
> > "what the hell is wrong with this world!?". Remember what recently
> > happened in Copenaghe (in short: nothing), and wonder whether our
> > leaders and representives are doing the best for their represented (the
> > whole humanity, in this case), or actually protecting the "vested
> > interests" of some of their powerful lobby-friends.
> >
> > It has been argued previously that "petitions", "referenda", and many
> > other semi-direct democracy mechanisms can be used to improve the
> > overall working of representative democracy. That they could help to
> > correctly set the incentives for politicians, so they are motivated to
> > do a better job.
> > As Alexander and others explained, the "I won't vote for you anymore if
> > you do wrong!!" mechanism, doesn't seem to be (neither in practice nor
> > in theory) a very good way of setting goals and incentives for
> > politicians. Specially when you have bi-partisan political systems that
> > force you to vote between the "lobby-friend PINK" (the Pink Panther,
> > let's say), and the "lobby-friend DARK BLUE" (the Batman, for us :-) ).
> >
> > If we want to speak seriously about democracy, and about the capability
> > of the "represented" to set incentives and orientation for their
> > "representatives", the most promising way is clearly the one tried in
> > Switzerland: well legislated "revoking referenda", that give citizens
> > the last voice in the few cases where politicians do a bad job.
> >
> > Thus, if the parliament creates a law that is contrary to the interest
> > of the people (or a big minority of the people), let them call for a
> > referendum, so the whole citizenry decides whether to revoke the law or
> > not.
> > The point here is not that the citizens are doing laws themselves
> > (revoking referenda are seldom called in Switzerland). The point is
> > giving the politicians the right motivation for their job, and thus
> > improving the overall quality of the laws they pass.
> > It works this way: Since the parliament wants to avoid that a referendum
> > is called to question any of their laws, they will make sure they are
> > considering the views of all relevant stake-holders, while writing their
> > proposal. This means they will explicitly ask stake-holders for their
> > views and worries, and will made sure they are somehow considered and
> > accomodated. The policy making processes are opened, in order to really
> > ponder the goods and bads of every aspect of the law, before approving
> > it. Only if they do a good job before the law comes out of the
> > Parliament, no citizen group will have the motivation to question it.
> > This is a hard work, much harder than just meeting behing closed doors
> > with some "pink panther politicians" and this or that lobbyst, to agree
> > the details of the law (and occasionally, of the compesation to be
> > received for their loyal well-doing); it takes much more time and sweat.
> > But this is what politicians are paid for.
> >
> > For sure, I'm not sure if your Burl-Pain-Schpeter-Hobbys would like this
> > kind of arrangements (probably yes, if they'd take the time to consider
> > them seriously), but... who cares?
> > Many others before them argued that "if human being were intended to
> > fly, God would have given wings upon them".
> >
> > That's all, Paul.
> > I'm afraid I have very serious business to take care of in the next
> > days, so please don't consider me rude if occasionally I'm not able
> > answer your contributions again.
> > Best regards,
> > Pedro
> > Asociaciiudades Kyosei
> >
> >
> > El 22/01/2010 8:56, Paul Evans escribi > Alexander,
> > >
> > > What??
> > >
> > > "Suppose that the goal is for political decisions to be those that a
> > > majority of the people believe are correct."
> > >
> > > Your whole premise here is so spectacularly wrong that the rest of your
> > > points are irrelevant. No effective democracy would survive on that
> > basis.
> > > Brian Sullivan's points about California elsewhere in this thread
> > underline
> > > this, but really .... have you never heard of Edmund Burke? Or Tom
> Paine?
> > Or
> > > Schumpeter? Or Weber? Or almost anyone who has ever understood
> democracy
> > to
> > > be about anything other than giving people with vested interests and
> > > convening power the right to force their strong preferences on the rest
> > of
> > > us? What about trade-offs? What about evidence? What about weighted
> > > preferences? What about deliberative processes or weeding out positions
> > that
> > > emanate from a vested interest that doesn't coincide with the interests
> > of
> > > the whole? What about ideology or consistency? What about ensuring that
> > > people who make decisions have to face some consequences when they go
> > wrong.
> > >
> > > That paragraph above could be ten times longer but I hope (wonder) if
> you
> > > see the point already?
> > >
> > >
> > > 2010/1/20 Alexander R. <email obscured>>
> > >
> > >
> > >>> Referendums are always, in every way, a bit of sticking plaster on
> > >>>
> > >> democracy
> > >>
> > >>> and the way it's communicated. It is less inclusive and more open to
> > >>> manipulation by powerful interests than representative government is
> > and
> > >>> their conclusions are less legitimate in a democratic sense.
> > >>>
> > >> This strikes me as a very curious position, to say the least.
> > >>
> > >> Suppose that the goal is for political decisions to be those that a
> > >> majority of the people believe are correct. In a referendum, the
> > decision is
> > >> the one that a majority of the voters (theoretically, all the people
> who
> > >> care enough about the issue to turn up and vote) think is correct. It
> is
> > >> difficult to see how representative government could better reflect
> the
> > >> views of the public than that.
> > >>
> > >> It is easy, on the other hand, to see how representative government
> > could
> > >> do worse. Suppose that I care about two issues, on one of which I
> agree
> > with
> > >> the Democrats, and on the other of which I agree with the Republicans.
> > Then
> > >> (if I am to have any chance of getting my candidate elected) I must
> > abandon
> > >> one issue or the other.
> > >>
> > >> Worse, it may be the case that all major parties agree on an issue, in
> > >> which case a dissenting portion of the population may not have a
> chance
> > to
> > >> have its voice heard. (For example, my understanding is that in
> Britain,
> > >> both the Labor and Conservative parties favored the European
> > >> Constitution/Lisbon Treaty, but a substantial portion of the
> population
> > --
> > >> perhaps a majority, perhaps not -- opposed it.) The public can punish
> > party
> > >> A by voting for party B, but it's difficult to punish A and B for
> > conspiring
> > >> together against the people. And depending on how the parties are
> > >> structured, whether they have primary elections, and so forth, it may
> be
> > >> difficult or impossible to change the view of either party.
> > >>
> > >> One might suppose that, as in the market, either a third party will
> > emerge
> > >> to represent those whose views are not being represented, or a major
> > party
> > >> will move toward that view. And to an extent this works. But to vote
> for
> > a
> > >> third party, especially in a presidential system (as exists in the US
> > and I
> > >> believe each of its states), you have to be willing to give up the
> > >> possibility of helping elect your second-choice candidate (rather than
> > your
> > >> third choice) in order to express support for your first choice (who
> > won't
> > >> win). You have to give up all the issues on which you agree with one
> of
> > the
> > >> viable candidates and not the other.
> > >>
> > >> Notice that this poses a particular problem when an issue divides
> people
> > >> along a line perpendicular to the usual political spectrum. If elected
> > >> officials left and right agree on a plan that is opposed by a majority
> > of
> > >> voters left and right, the elected officials can pass the plan easily
> > (even
> > >> when a multi-branch government is split among parties) and, if they
> get
> > the
> > >> chance, the voters can reject it easily in a referendum. But it is
> very
> > >> difficult for the voters who oppose the plan to unite around
> candidates,
> > >> because they disagree on most other issues.
> > >>
> > >> In any event, this sort of political change happens very slowly, and
> > >> meanwhile elected officials are imposing their agendas, which may be
> > >> difficult or impossible to reverse. Referenda can be much faster.
> > >>
> > >> Now, perhaps the public is more susceptible to bad influences than its
> > >> elected officials are, although I doubt it. But the question of
> > legitimacy
> > >> has nothing to do with whether the best policies are enacted: It has
> to
> > do
> > >> with the relations among the people's views, the political structure,
> > and
> > >> the policies that are adopted.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ALEXANDER R. COHEN
> > >> Doctoral student in philosophy
> > >> University of Virginia
> > >>
> >
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
> > http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
> >
> > Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts on
> this
> > topic here:
> > http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/3Ffy8jyjHAo5gcL5pnHiv
> >
> > For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange,
> > email <email obscured>
> > with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
> >
> > Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
> > http://dowire.org.
> >
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
>
> Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts on this
> topic here:
> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/33EeKTuN0bBeP596DpVDC0
>
> For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange,
> email <email obscured>
> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
>
> Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
> http://dowire.org.
>
>
> On 25 February 2009, the University launched its new name, Edinburgh Napier
> University.
>
> For more information please visit our website.
>
> Edinburgh Napier University is one of the top 10 universities in the UK for
> graduate employability (HESA 2009)
>
> This message is intended for the addressee(s) only and should not be read,
> copied or disclosed to anyone else out-with the University without the
> permission of the sender.
> It is your responsibility to ensure that this message and any attachments
> are scanned for viruses or other defects. Edinburgh Napier University does
> not accept liability for any loss or damage which may result from this email
> or any attachment, or for errors or omissions arising after it was sent.
> Email is not a secure medium. Email entering the University's system is
> subject to routine monitoring and filtering by the University.
>
> Edinburgh Napier University is a registered Scottish charity. Registration
> number SC018373
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
>
> Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts on this
> topic here:
> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/5OgqEsPj2n6Qk2kvPmmyLR
>
> For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange,
> email <email obscured>
> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
>
> Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
> http://dowire.org.
>

-----------------------------------------
Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange

Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts on this
topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/2Gy7qWGctDj8S4KfVc2C2U

For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange,
email <email obscured>
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.

Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
http://dowire.org.


On 25 February 2009, the University launched its new name, Edinburgh Napier
University.

For more information please visit our website.

Edinburgh Napier University is one of the top 10 universities in the UK for
graduate employability (HESA 2009)

This message is intended for the addressee(s) only and should not be read,
copied or disclosed to anyone else out-with the University without the
permission of the sender.
It is your responsibility to ensure that this message and any attachments are
scanned for viruses or other defects. Edinburgh Napier University does not
accept liability for any loss or damage which may result from this email or any
attachment, or for errors or omissions arising after it was sent. Email is not
a secure medium. Email entering the University's system is subject to routine
monitoring and filtering by the University.

Edinburgh Napier University is a registered Scottish charity. Registration
number SC018373

________________________________________
From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On Behalf Of
Anderson, Tim <email obscured>]
Sent: 25 January 2010 09:55
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [DW-X] UK ePetitioning

I've been dipping in and out of this conversation. I agree guidance (not
sure about "standards") would be very valuable. For me the key things
this should recommend would be:
* Context: any petitions should have at least links to information about
the topic under scrutiny.
* people should be able to register disagreement as well as signing up
* ideally there should be ways to build consensus around the proposition
rather than a take it or leave it statement
* if possible there should be active involvement of the local
politicians and officers - this can help the point above but also
ensures there is a mechanism for the petitions being considered when
they are submitted. It also means if you have as complex a system of
government as the Uk they can be redirected if they are addressed to the
wrong place
* by their nature petitions cannot be anonymous
* there should be a feedback mechanism so you can email those who have
signed detailing the outcome


Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On
Behalf Of Patrick Lismore
Sent: 22 January 2010 17:04
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [DW-X] UK ePetitioning

I sense the recent few posts are an example how people view things based
on
the system of government they grow up experience the most.  Its
interesting
and valid to include all points of view when developing the best
E-Petition
system.

I will try and swing the debate back around to E-Petitions,

Could there perhaps be a way E-Petitions could play a role no matter how
little in all governments.

I think regardless of what you both are debating, E-Petitions are being
used, there are efforts and have been efforts to move them along and
gain
more acceptance.

As more and more citizens in democratic countries come online and with
the
British governments ambitious plans to have most homes in the UK
connected
up to broadband, it makes sense to have a mechanism where by citizens
can make use of Internet technology to engage more people and capture
their
input for an electronic petition and have some recognised and accepted
way,
maybe something like a standards based approach for data capture and
petition delivery to the intended recipient.

Just as we have web standards like HTML , XML etc, a high level
international working group could maybe help define a set of standards
which
developers of E-Petition systems like me ( Developing the E-Petition App
on
Faceboo <http://apps.facebook.com/epetition>k ) can make use of.
Ensuring
that any e-petitions created by any users on Facebook will be acceptable
when packaged up and delivered to the recipient.

regards

Patrick

2010/1/22 Pedro <email obscured>>

> Paul,
> something similar could be performed with your own argument. Let me
show:
>
> "What?? 'Suppose that the goal is for political decisions to be those
> that a majority of the people believe are correct' Your whole premise
> here is so spectacularly wrong that the rest of your points are
irrelevant"
>
> Now we reached the point where I say:
>
> What!?! Your whole premise here is so spectacularly wrong that the
rest
> of your points are irrelevant.
> Additionally: please notice that your lines sound so /arrogant/ that I
> was not the only reader tempted to fuly ignore you, and dismiss your
> "spectacular arguments" and your "vast knowledge" about Burke, Paine,
> Schumpeter and all those democracy prophets that infalibly hold the
one
> and only TRUTH about democracy. Which is what you actualy did, with
the
> very valid points that Alexander expressed: you just (wrongly)
dismissed
> them as irrelevant.
>
> In your contribution, you make a lot of questions (12, actually) whose
> answers seem to be self-evident for you. Well. Let this unbeliever
> disillusion you: they are not.
> In the same way that economists will never be able to explain economy
> based on a stupid understanding of human beings as just "homo
> economicus", your Burl-Pain-Schpeter-Hobbys will never accurately
> understand human societies and government, if they are just able to
see
> "wolves with vested interests".
>
> You seem to think that "liberal representative democracy" is the best
> and perfect way to solve the issues you mentioned (trade-offs,
> interests, evicende, weighted preferences, consistency, etc.), and the
> many other issues you don't even imagine (some of which, by the way,
> were presented here by several people (but it seems you did't even
"see
> their point")).
>
> But liberal representative democracy is not perfect. What most of the
> world call "democracies" are a very primitive and perfectible form of
> human government. At best, "liberal representative democracies" are a
> prototype, and they are actually not working working very well.
> Have a look around you, see the world as a whole and stare at its
worst
> parts (Africa, Central-America, USA, Haiti, etc. :-) ) and ask
yourself
> "what the hell is wrong with this world!?". Remember what recently
> happened in Copenaghe (in short: nothing), and wonder whether our
> leaders and representives are doing the best for their represented
(the
> whole humanity, in this case), or actually protecting the "vested
> interests" of some of their powerful lobby-friends.
>
> It has been argued previously that "petitions", "referenda", and many
> other semi-direct democracy mechanisms can be used to improve the
> overall working of representative democracy. That they could help to
> correctly set the incentives for politicians, so they are motivated to
> do a better job.
> As Alexander and others explained, the "I won't vote for you anymore
if
> you do wrong!!" mechanism, doesn't seem to be (neither in practice nor
> in theory) a very good way of setting goals and incentives for
> politicians. Specially when you have bi-partisan political systems
that
> force you to vote between the "lobby-friend PINK" (the Pink Panther,
> let's say), and the "lobby-friend DARK BLUE" (the Batman, for us :-)
).
>
> If we want to speak seriously about democracy, and about the
capability
> of the "represented" to set incentives and orientation for their
> "representatives", the most promising way is clearly the one tried in
> Switzerland: well legislated "revoking referenda", that give citizens
> the last voice in the few cases where politicians do a bad job.
>
> Thus, if the parliament creates a law that is contrary to the interest
> of the people (or a big minority of the people), let them call for a
> referendum, so the whole citizenry decides whether to revoke the law
or
> not.
> The point here is not that the citizens are doing laws themselves
> (revoking referenda are seldom called in Switzerland). The point is
> giving the politicians the right motivation for their job, and thus
> improving the overall quality of the laws they pass.
> It works this way: Since the parliament wants to avoid that a
referendum
> is called to question any of their laws, they will make sure they are
> considering the views of all relevant stake-holders, while writing
their
> proposal. This means they will explicitly ask stake-holders for their
> views and worries, and will made sure they are somehow considered and
> accomodated. The policy making processes are opened, in order to
really
> ponder the goods and bads of every aspect of the law, before approving
> it. Only if they do a good job before the law comes out of the
> Parliament, no citizen group will have the motivation to question it.
> This is a hard work, much harder than just meeting behing closed doors
> with some "pink panther politicians" and this or that lobbyst, to
agree
> the details of the law (and occasionally, of the compesation to be
> received for their loyal well-doing); it takes much more time and
sweat.
> But this is what politicians are paid for.
>
> For sure, I'm not sure if your Burl-Pain-Schpeter-Hobbys would like
this
> kind of arrangements (probably yes, if they'd take the time to
consider
> them seriously), but... who cares?
> Many others before them argued that "if human being were intended to
> fly, God would have given wings upon them".
>
> That's all, Paul.
> I'm afraid I have very serious business to take care of in the next
> days, so please don't consider me rude if occasionally I'm not able
> answer your contributions again.
> Best regards,
> Pedro
> Asociaciiudades Kyosei
>
>
> El 22/01/2010 8:56, Paul Evans escribi > Alexander,
> >
> > What??
> >
> > "Suppose that the goal is for political decisions to be those that a
> > majority of the people believe are correct."
> >
> > Your whole premise here is so spectacularly wrong that the rest of
your
> > points are irrelevant. No effective democracy would survive on that
> basis.
> > Brian Sullivan's points about California elsewhere in this thread
> underline
> > this, but really .... have you never heard of Edmund Burke? Or Tom
Paine?
> Or
> > Schumpeter? Or Weber? Or almost anyone who has ever understood
democracy
> to
> > be about anything other than giving people with vested interests and
> > convening power the right to force their strong preferences on the
rest
> of
> > us? What about trade-offs? What about evidence? What about weighted
> > preferences? What about deliberative processes or weeding out
positions
> that
> > emanate from a vested interest that doesn't coincide with the
interests
> of
> > the whole? What about ideology or consistency? What about ensuring
that
> > people who make decisions have to face some consequences when they
go
> wrong.
> >
> > That paragraph above could be ten times longer but I hope (wonder)
if you
> > see the point already?
> >
> >
> > 2010/1/20 Alexander R. <email obscured>>
> >
> >
> >>> Referendums are always, in every way, a bit of sticking plaster on
> >>>
> >> democracy
> >>
> >>> and the way it's communicated. It is less inclusive and more open
to
> >>> manipulation by powerful interests than representative government
is
> and
> >>> their conclusions are less legitimate in a democratic sense.
> >>>
> >> This strikes me as a very curious position, to say the least.
> >>
> >> Suppose that the goal is for political decisions to be those that a
> >> majority of the people believe are correct. In a referendum, the
> decision is
> >> the one that a majority of the voters (theoretically, all the
people who
> >> care enough about the issue to turn up and vote) think is correct.
It is
> >> difficult to see how representative government could better reflect
the
> >> views of the public than that.
> >>
> >> It is easy, on the other hand, to see how representative government
> could
> >> do worse. Suppose that I care about two issues, on one of which I
agree
> with
> >> the Democrats, and on the other of which I agree with the
Republicans.
> Then
> >> (if I am to have any chance of getting my candidate elected) I must
> abandon
> >> one issue or the other.
> >>
> >> Worse, it may be the case that all major parties agree on an issue,
in
> >> which case a dissenting portion of the population may not have a
chance
> to
> >> have its voice heard. (For example, my understanding is that in
Britain,
> >> both the Labor and Conservative parties favored the European
> >> Constitution/Lisbon Treaty, but a substantial portion of the
population
> --
> >> perhaps a majority, perhaps not -- opposed it.) The public can
punish
> party
> >> A by voting for party B, but it's difficult to punish A and B for
> conspiring
> >> together against the people. And depending on how the parties are
> >> structured, whether they have primary elections, and so forth, it
may be
> >> difficult or impossible to change the view of either party.
> >>
> >> One might suppose that, as in the market, either a third party will
> emerge
> >> to represent those whose views are not being represented, or a
major
> party
> >> will move toward that view. And to an extent this works. But to
vote for
> a
> >> third party, especially in a presidential system (as exists in the
US
> and I
> >> believe each of its states), you have to be willing to give up the
> >> possibility of helping elect your second-choice candidate (rather
than
> your
> >> third choice) in order to express support for your first choice
(who
> won't
> >> win). You have to give up all the issues on which you agree with
one of
> the
> >> viable candidates and not the other.
> >>
> >> Notice that this poses a particular problem when an issue divides
people
> >> along a line perpendicular to the usual political spectrum. If
elected
> >> officials left and right agree on a plan that is opposed by a
majority
> of
> >> voters left and right, the elected officials can pass the plan
easily
> (even
> >> when a multi-branch government is split among parties) and, if they
get
> the
> >> chance, the voters can reject it easily in a referendum. But it is
very
> >> difficult for the voters who oppose the plan to unite around
candidates,
> >> because they disagree on most other issues.
> >>
> >> In any event, this sort of political change happens very slowly,
and
> >> meanwhile elected officials are imposing their agendas, which may
be
> >> difficult or impossible to reverse. Referenda can be much faster.
> >>
> >> Now, perhaps the public is more susceptible to bad influences than
its
> >> elected officials are, although I doubt it. But the question of
> legitimacy
> >> has nothing to do with whether the best policies are enacted: It
has to
> do
> >> with the relations among the people's views, the political
structure,
> and
> >> the policies that are adopted.
> >>
> >>
> >> ALEXANDER R. COHEN
> >> Doctoral student in philosophy
> >> University of Virginia
> >>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange
>
> Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts on
this
> topic here:
> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/3Ffy8jyjHAo5gcL5pnHiv
>
> For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange,
> email <email obscured>
> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
>
> Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
> http://dowire.org.
>

-----------------------------------------
Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange

Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts on
this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/33EeKTuN0bBeP596DpVDC0

For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange,
email <email obscured>
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.

Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
http://dowire.org.

The information contained in this email is intended only for the person or
organization to which it is addressed.  If you have received it by mistake,
please disregard and notify the sender immediately.  Unauthorized disclosure or
use of such information may be a breach of legislation or confidentiality and
may be legally privileged.

Emails sent from and received by Members and employees of Norfolk County
Council may be monitored.  They may also be disclosed to other people under
legislation, particularly the Freedom Of Information Act 2000.

Unless this email relates to Norfolk County Council business it will be
regarded by the Council as personal and will not be authorized by or sent on
behalf of the Council.  The sender will have sole responsibility for any legal
actions or disputes that may arise.


-----------------------------------------
Group home for Democracies Online Exchange:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/exchange

Replies go to members of Democracies Online Exchange with all posts on this
topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/4QVSvEIlQ17o8GYfV4mz6i

For digest version or to leave Democracies Online Exchange,
email <email obscured>
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.

Democracies Online Exchange is hosted by Democracies Online -
http://dowire.org.