Building consensus online
From:
Michael Allan
Date:
2008 Feb 02 13:00 UTC
Short link
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 07:16:35PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Markets are a form of group decision making...
> Unlike votes, there's real
> money involved, and if you bet right you win big, if you bet wrong, you
> lose big - which sort of makes people think before casing their "votes."
Hi Miles,
More perceived value in money than in votes? That would mean that
people have more trust in the economic system (at a nuts and bolts
level) than in the political system. No news there, I guess...
I like the suggestion that the currency (votes) ought to be better
tied to the goods (action) for which they are exchanged. Because the
voters who pay the cost are clearly disconnected from the actors who
deliver the goods. But how to connect them?
Habermas sheds light on this, highlighting the differences between a
consensual currency (votes) and an economic one (money). Economic
transactions can proceed without any dialogue between parties. There
is no need to discuss economic issues with the cashier at the
supermarket when paying for groceries. The wheels of industry turn
silently, under control of pricing signals. But politics is
different. Political transactions involve sharing of information,
learning and knowledge creation. The purpose is to discover
collective goals and means. So it's deeply social.
The only way to strengthen the connection between the vote-currency
and the goods is to strengthen the connection between the voters and
the politicians. And probably the only connector for that purpose is
dialogue. That's one of the advantages of cascade voting:
http://zelea.com/project/votorola/a/design.xht#delegate-cascade
Does anyone know of an alternative?