You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Hi everyone,
My company recently launched a new type of interactive democracy model in a newspaper format. It took me some three years to develop the concept but has only just launched.
It is available at :
I thought I would post here as people may be interested.
Kind Regards,
Chris
Hello Chris and welcome to the forum. 
I took a look at your site, it's certainly different and an unusual concept. Good luck.
Hi Alex!
Thanks very much for the kind wishes. I realise it still needs a bit of tweaking and better explanation - really the big breakthrough is the ability of the public to write collaboratively and hopefully coherently- the idea came to me after working in activism against software patents. At one point I had to build a database of how MEPs voted on the issue and amendments. I wanted to make a more advanced drafting system that the public could use to come to majority consensus rather than simply yes/no or plurality voting.
Thanks also for the welcome to the forum, great place you have here.
Kind Regards,
Chris
I realise it still needs a bit of tweaking and better explanation - really the big breakthrough is the ability of the public to write collaboratively and hopefully coherently.
Regarding that, wouldn't wiki-style software be an option for the collaborative writing side of things?
You could atomise the edits using the revision functions and then allow users to vote for those changes.
... the idea came to me after working in activism against software patents.
Ah, I'm also against software patents. I'm ex-UKIP and was involved somewhat in the campaign within UKIP to get them to oppose software patents.
I've since left UKIP - too many things I disagree with them on.
At one point I had to build a database of how MEPs voted on the issue and amendments. I wanted to make a more advanced drafting system that the public could use to come to majority consensus rather than simply yes/no or plurality voting.
Not entirely sure that I follow here. Could you explain some more?
Thanks also for the welcome to the forum, great place you have here.
It's long overdue a major overhaul but I haven't the time. Daniel and I are the two administrators and we're both busy with other things, he with school and I with my businesses and various campaigns and other projects. Real Democracy rarely gets much attention. Still, it's not a bad forum and it'd be great if you dropped by from time to time!
Perhaps you have a point there with a wiki type system. In the long run I'll look into these kind of enhancements - thanks for the input- duly noted.
re:software patents - ah a fellow traveler! Your efforts were much appreciated - as I recall only UKIP and the Greens had a consistent line on the issue with some rebel MEPS (but not many) from the main parties joining them to oppose. UKIP voted against the directive in entirety rather than the amended proposals but this was understandable given their position regarding the EU.
In terms of being busy I wholly understand In fact I wanted to bring back an anti-swpat site I created a while ago but it had to be put on pause while I concentrated on bread and butter issues. (not that they don't effect them as well!)
Oh - the voting system - sure. The problem with traditional proposal voting systems as used in parliaments to draft legislation is that simple yes/no polling can present the voter with a dilemma when offered multiple choices. For example If I prefer amendment A to B , and B to C , it is difficult whether to vote for B or not as it could well cause my first preference to lose, however I may be willing to give my vote to B to keep C out. Choice B may be superfluous or contradictory of choice A.
Plurality voting (FPTP) presents a huge problem regarding vote-splintering allowing a popular minority choice but by no means a majority choice to be elected.
For example if I propose an amendment along with 10 other people proposing alternatives, the winner could win with only 11% of the vote and be not representative at all.
The answer to this of course is a preferential system, so then the question became what kind?
I suppose I could have used an alternative vote system but this would mean good compromise candidates are eliminated by sequential exclusion even if they could have gone on to win if the whole electorate had been given a say.
In the end I adopted a condorcet model along with a "write in" direct democracy system to select a candidate who can command a majority of the voters and provide at least a broadly acceptable candidate.
Of course there are criticisms of this system just as with all systems but that could take a lot of time to go into!