[ExI] Internet based political party in Australia
brent.allsop at comcast.net
Thu Oct 18 16:56:42 UTC 2007
Yes that isn't the way to do it. You don't want just another party
system with only two choices for everything.
And even having a bunch of representative leaders that are expected to
vote on everything results in terrible leadership bottle necks. You
can't expect any single leader at the top of a hierarchy to be an expert
on all issues a government must vote on.
We're trying something completely different with the Canonizer, and a
prototype is already running at http://canonizer.com.
Anyone can delegate their "vote" to any other person, on any topic or
issue being voted on resulting in a hyperdelegated networks of trees on
all issues. So you get leaders, or delegates, with large earned tree
structures of trust on single issues. The larger a tree a person
"earns" the more influence they get (since all delegated votes in a tree
follow them as they jump "camps"), at least on that one issue. If
anyone ever screws up, their delegated tree can vanish instantly as
voters switch to other growing trees of still trusted people. Each
issue to be voted on can have drastically different delegated tree
structures, effectively resulting in different, possibly very powerful,
leaders on each issue. You no longer have to just be either democrat or
republican. You get to choose your delegates for each issue, at any
level, with hyper networked delegated tree structures.
In this way, you have all the benefits of a leaderless network, yet
there are definitely leaders that can quickly change national or world
policy in an instant, at least as long as they don't screw up and lose
their delegated power structure. And since different people can become
the leaders on different issues, you have natural networked separation
of powers and a very non bottleneck networked leadership which will no
longer restricting the morality of institutions.
Another critical problem is:
- Accurate information and balanced argument on each Bill and important
Who gets to decide, via what process, what is truly "balanced"?
We believe the best way to truly achieve this is with a canonizer type
"camp with position statements" support structure like we are developing
in the Canonizer. You have the same hyperdelegated tree structure
support system indicating who is in what "camp" for each competing
"balanced" position statement. And in addition to that, you get to
chose who you trust to determine what is "balanced" and how to sort and
filter the various position statements by selecting your preferred
"Canonizer". (i.e. YOU could chose to ignore the support of anyone that
is in any "camp" on any issues that is demed delusional. (like the age
of the earth being 6000 years old, the brain is just a conduit for the
spirit see http://karolisr.canonizer.com/topic.asp/23/9 and so on right?)
Anyone can start a topic or new issue, perhaps promoting a particular
action or new policy. And as soon as a few powerful people join a
"camp" that believes a particular action should be taken (all their
delegated votes following them), you can get very fast response times.
You no longer need to wait for another election 3 years down the road,
or endless debate in a devided congress, to get a president out of Iraq
or whatever. All the information on all sides of the issues is
collaboratively developed in "camp position statements" real time for
all to see and contribute to.
What do you think the chances are that the Canonizer, with its hyper
networked delegated leadership structures, can take over the world and
effectively rendering governments, religious and business hierarchies,
and everything hierarchical meaningless? After all, if a senator (or
pope?) doesn't folow what the Canonizer says his constituents want,
shouldn't he be thrown out of office? And if so, what is he there for
in the first place? Lets get rid of all these established primitive
immoral bottleneck leadership structures and throw big brother out on
Anyone else want to help us transhumanists finish developing and get
this thing off the ground so we can hurry and conquer the world? And
get very rich while we do it? All it takes is a bit of spare time.
> I'm not a political scientist, but...
> IMO, that's a bad idea. It's going to lead to major party voting
> blocks, like we have now. I really think, if you care about an issue,
> then vote on it. If you don't really know, can't figure it out, can't
> be bothered, then don't.
> With a proxy scheme like below, I imagine the major parties would go
> round up enough true believers to have large voting power, then duke
> it out amongst themselves, making a mockery of the whole idea, leaving
> people who really care about issues but who haven't gathered proxies
> out in the cold.
> If you want representative democracy, you already have it. The point
> of this idea is to try out something else (participatory online
> On 18/10/2007, David C. Harris <dharris234 at mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Excellent idea. If they get good response to the initial concept, may I
>> suggest this addition which is like the idea of delegation advocated
>> independently about 30 years ago by Professor John McCarthy and myself
>> at Stanford:
>> Trying to make the many decisions of a modern nation will overload and
>> wear out most of the direct voters of SOL. Consider adding the ability
>> to say "make my votes like the recommendations of NNN", where NNN is any
>> member willing to be considered an opinion leader or wise
>> representative. Or accomplish the same thing with explicit electronic
>> "proxies" that can be cast by the person who holds them. Overloaded
>> voters can give their proxies to anyone they trust, reducing the
>> information processing load on them.
>> - David Harris, Palo Alto
>> Emlyn wrote:
>>> I am very seriously considering voting for these people in our
>>> upcoming elections:
>>> >From the site:
>>> Senator On-Line is Australia's only Internet based democratic political party.
>>> Senator On-Line is not aligned to any other political party… it is
>>> neither Liberal nor Labor.
>>> Senator On-Line ('SOL') is a truly democratic party which will allow
>>> everyone on the Australian Electoral roll who has access to the
>>> internet to vote on every Bill put to Parliament and have its Senators
>>> vote in accordance with a clear majority view.
>>> We will be running candidates for the upcoming federal Upper House
>>> (Senate) elections.
>>> When a SOL senator is elected a web site will be developed which will provide:
>>> - Accurate information and balanced argument on each Bill and important issues
>>> - The vast majority of those registered on the Australian Electoral
>>> roll the chance to have their say by voting on bills and issues facing
>>> our country
>>> - A tally of all votes which will then count in Parliament
>>> - Each person on the Australian Electoral roll will be entitled to one
>>> vote and only be allowed to vote once on each bill or issue.
>>> SOL senators will have committed in writing to voting in line with the
>>> clear majority view of the SOL on-line voters.
>>> Senator On-Line will enable broader community involvement in the
>>> political process and the shaping of our country.
>>> Related news:
>>> Online Party Hopes to Click with Voters
>> David Harris, Palo Alto, California.
>> GPS location: 37.41988, -122.13388 (1984 WGS system).
>> Active account: dharris234 at mindspring.com
>> Phone: 1-650-856-9126 (has answering machine or me)
>> Lifetime e-mail forwarding account: David.C.Harris at stanfordalumni.org
>> Postal ("snail mail") address: David Harris
>> 455 Margarita Ave.
>> Palo Alto, CA 94306-2827
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat