Building consensus online
From:
Michael Allan
Date:
Feb 07 18:29 UTC
Short link
On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 04:12:02AM +1300, Pete Thomson wrote:
> Where I'm coming from, basically, is the relatively low level of
> participation in almost all online spaces (low compared to, say,
> voting in elections). It is about point (a) in Michael's labelling
> of my points: individuals and interest groups are not under any
> pressure to participate. That means that (1) there's not seen to be
> an active marketplace that's worth selling into, and (2) legitimacy
> is weak so action is unlikely (unless the forum is sponsored by an
> institution that's committed to acting on its conclusions).
Hi Pete,
I see your point, now. You're concerned about low participation in
the grassroots model (Miles's B-3). If participation levels were too
low in this model, then any consensus that formed among participants
could *not* be extrapolated to a consensus of the wider electorate (I
agree). I'll pose some concrete scenarios (3 altogether), if I may.
I believe they'll have a mutual, knock-on effect with respect to
participation levels.
1. Open election for Mayor (Toronto, May 2008)
The residents of Toronto initiate a continuous, open election for
Mayor. They use Votorola for this purpose:
http://zelea.com/project/votorola/home.xht
Assume this is the first open election (of this kind) in any city.
Assume also that Votorola works as advertised. In the course of the
first 6 months, on its own, this election might attract 10,000 voters.
(Definitely not a quorum for a city of 2.5 million.)
Reasons for a voter to participate:
* Curiosity, she hasn't participated in an 'open election' before
* She's perhaps a little radical, and likes the idea of an
unauthorized election
* She's perhaps a little conservative, and dislikes the idea that
left-wingers are over-represented among the voters
* She receives notice that somebody voted for her (for me?!) and
the idea of role-playing as a delegate appeals to her
* She expects a quorum will form before the next Council elections
(2010), and wants to have early influence on the issues
2. Open Bylaw for Tax Reform (Toronto, August 2008)
A legal secretary, digruntled by a recent property tax hike, obtains a
copy of the City's tax code; rewrites it; and places it in the format
of a proposed bylaw (Bylaw for Tax Reform). She posts it on her Web
site; initiates an open bylaw election; and obtains a dozen initial
votes from her friends. Open drafting and voting ensue, much as in
this scenario:
http://zelea.com/project/votorola/a/design.xht#Minnesota-scenario
(substitute 'bylaw draft' for 'policy draft')
I think this (on its own) would attract the participation of numerous
amateur bylaw drafters, and 100,000+ voters. Reasons for
participation:
* As above, plus:
* Almost everybody has something to lose or gain from tax reform,
and the *very idea* of losing makes them angry enough to cast a
vote
Soon (to continue the scenario) participation reaches 5,000, exceeding
that of the mayoral election (still proceeding slowly, in parallel).
Around the same time, about half of the leading mayoral candidates
declare their support for the proposed Bylaw for Tax Reform, and
promise to bring it to a Council vote, once elected. Each, however,
plunks for a *different* proposed draft, one that allocates a
different distribution of taxes. Participation in the mayoral
election then jumps to match the higher level of the Bylaw election.
Both of them, thus linked by the common issue of tax reform, proceed
to climb at a faster rate than either of them alone. Everyone now
expects participation to reach the level of an official election.
Reason:
* Everybody realizes that the Mayor's office and a reallocation of
taxes are definitely at stake
3. Open Constitution (Europe, 2010)
Europeans begin openly drafting a constitution. They start from the
document that was previously rejected, making substantial corrections
and amendments. (Scenario of open drafting and voting is similar to 2
above, but on a larger scale.) Participation grows rapidly, and is
expected to be high, perhaps 75% of the electorate. Reason:
* Europeans are defining for themselves what Europe is, and what it
means to be European. Those of them alive at that moment would
not wish to be excluded.