On Feb 17, 2008 12:28 AM, Michael Allan <mike@zelea.com> wrote:
> Ron Lubensky wrote:
> > But I don't agree that CE should generate a constellation of
> > documents that require aggregation through explicit voting. As a
> > medium for online deliberation, I don't believe that CE should be
> > fundamentally based on the primary tool of majoritarianism, that being
> voting.
>
> Is it voting, Ron, that ought not to be fundamental? Or is it
> majoritarianism? Voting is fundamental, certainly. Without voting,
> it would be impossible to quantify the consensus. (One consensus, one
> position, would be just as good as another.) And consensus is the
> primary aim of the process, I assume.
>
> Majoritarianism is unwanted, I agree. Wherever it occurs, it can only
> hurt consensus formation. If a majority, for example, were to
> suppress the voices of a dissenting minority, the discussion could no
> longer proceed on a rational footing. In the process I proposed,
> majoritarianism cannot occur. No majority ever overrules a minority,
> and all minority decisions (even individual decisions) are immediately
> actionable. Further, no minority action can ever be erased, or
> undone, except by the actor herself. (No other collaborative medium
> offers such strong protections of minorities, as does recombinant
> text. It was originally designed for creative artists.)
>
> However, in your design sketch for CivicEvolution, there are places
> where majoritarianism threatens. There any places, for example, where
> a majority overrules a minority, and the process then moves on to the
> next stage. In moving on, if the minority position is then untenable
> (unactionable) it is effectively suppressed. And if a majority (or
> agent of the majority) can erase the work of a minority, then this is
> suppression, too. CivicEvolution definitely favours *action* by the
> majority. Actions of the majority are favoured in the elevation of
> content and actors to the meta-levels. This is not allowed to the
> minority. This is one place (fundamental to your process) where
> majoritarianism holds sway.
>
> > Also, participants need to feel comfortable with the process and
> > their place in it. If it feels instead like a competitive
> > "marketplace of ideas", we will see aggressive behaviour that will
> > threaten the inclusive ideal of the system.
>
> I agree, and for additional reasons. I agree, because an unforced
> consensus depends on rational discourse (as we are enjoying here).
> And rational discourse could not be maintained if the discussion were
> to become tainted by economic interests (as one finds in a competitive
> marketplace, or in the headquarters of a political party). Nor could
> rational discourse be maintained if the discussion were to be
> manipulated by political powers (as one finds in the administration of
> a government, or a business firm).
>
> The process I suggested is free of economic interests, of course.
> True, there is a competition among ideas. But the basis of that
> competition is *reason*. As long as no external forces interfere with
> the discussion, then it will be more-or-less rational (depending on
> the capabilities of the participants). In the normal course of that
> discussion, ideas that are reasonable will out-compete those that are
> unreasonable. (I have the impression that you hope CivicEvolution
> will foster a similar competition.)
>
> As well, the process I suggested is free from political power. There
> is no scope for coercion through the exercise of authority,
> priveledge, group pressure, and so forth.
>
> However, this last point is not true of CivicEvolution. Your design
> sketch appears to be that of a virtual bureacracy, organized for the
> manufacture of an artificial consensus. I say 'artificial', because
> it will be influenced by the management hierarchy; it will be
> influenced by the administrative rules, and the privledges of the
> specialized members; and it will be influenced, especially, by
> pressures to conform with the team. Individual members will be
> reluctant to hold up the work of the team, even when they disagree
> with it. (If a participant feels like a member of a bureacracy, or
> like a worker on an assembly line, then she'll rush to finish the job.
> Other considerations will take a backseat.)
>
> The process I suggested is, I think, a viable alternative to your own
> design sketch. It is also radically different, which makes the
> comparison interesting.
>
> --
> Michael Allan
>
> http://zelea.com/
>
>
> Member profile for Michael Allan:
> http://groups.dowire.org/contacts/michaelallan
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Group home for Online Consultations, Dialogues, and E-Participation:
> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/consult
>
> Replies go to members of Online Consultations, Dialogues, and
> E-Participation with all posts on this topic here:
> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/6Wkn25a6zW2uouTtVxGRrH
>
> For digest version or to leave Online Consultations, Dialogues, and
> E-Participation,
> email <email obscured>
> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
>
> Online Consultations, Dialogues, and E-Participation is hosted by
> Democracies Online - http://dowire.org.
>
--
The wind and the waves favor the skilled sailor