Identity
Filter
Visitors
(1) (1) (1) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0)
Highest posts
Latest posts
Links
Highest posts
Latest posts
When speaking on some real action we have to come down to software
development.
We in AD has found another initiative in France:
http://demexp.ouvaton.org/node/274
(Did you know of this echarp?), that we are testing currently.
And what about other soft, I know of the projects described here: http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Network
But maybe there more, not yet aware of TOP and it’s members?
We in AD will now try to unite as many as possible into a larger
project if possible.
In this way we all avoid inventing the wheel over and over again.
So, the first step would be to gather all projcts in this thread.
I don’t want to discuss too much here about different principles but
rather to focus on common parts which we all can use.
Particular functons can be developed furhter in paralell or later when
needed.
The one demand as I see it is that all soft is made opensource, free to
all to use and improve.
What do you all say, would’nt this be a way of getting some action finally?
If you do, your first step would be to invite people from all projects that you know of, to this thread, thus forming a new community consisting of programmers rather than debaters…
Best regards,
Magnus Gustavsson
Aktivdemokrati.se
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+2
New discussion
Answer
I agree with you, and of one the reason I haven’t participated much in the discussions is because it is very little talk about actual implementations. But I think it’s more the lack of discussions about software that make it look like it’s the only objective of the group is debating..
Haven’t done much work on my project lately but preparing a alpha release the next few month, already succesfully bundled my application with jboss using hsql java database instead of mysql to reduce runtime dependencies. Spring 2.0 was just released so will spend the weekend upgrade some infrastructure, just waiting for hibernate 3.2 to be released as well.
Also trying to look on the other projects regulary, thumbs up for http://leparlement.org which seems to make steady progress with regular new releases.. To bad I don’t develop in Ruby..
Kind regards Pether Sorling
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 10:09:47AM -0700, pether.sorling@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I agree with you, and of one the reason I haven’t participated much inthe discussions is because it is very little talk about actualimplementations. But I think it’s more the lack of discussions aboutsoftware that make it look like it’s the only objective of the group isdebating..It can be fun ;)
But true, some agreements on common goal is required. Me it’s freedom, liberty, the definition of an individual’s limits in this society.
TOP seems like a great concept to leverage in that research. But guys, what mean O and P to you (T seems to be quite well defined in comparison)?
O is the right to speak? P is also the right to speak?
Haven’t done much work on my project lately but preparing a alpharelease the next few month, already succesfully bundled my applicationwith jboss using hsql java database instead of mysql to reduce runtimedependencies. Spring 2.0 was just released so will spend the weekendupgrade some infrastructure, just waiting for hibernate 3.2 to bereleased as well.
Good infrastructure choices.
Did you take a look on JBoss’s seam? I know that in my next J2EE project, I’m going to recommend it.
Also trying to look on the other projects regulary, thumbs up forhttp://leparlement.org which seems to make steady progress withregular new releases.. To bad I don’t develop in Ruby..
Thank you very very much!
Originally I’m a J2EE guy, and am going to (again) find a job in that domain, but Ruby and Ruby on Rails are so much nicer and simpler, it’s a joy!!!
echarp – http://leparlement.org
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
I know that project rather well, I’m subscribed to their mailing list and participated quickly to it before starting “parlement”.
My troubles with it:
But, they have a group of intelligent people involved in a cool social idea/ideal.
The one demand as I see it is that all soft is made opensource, free toall to use and improve.
That’s one I also have.
echarp – http://leparlement.org
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
At 11:00 AM 10/2/2006, echarp wrote:
- voting method is “Condorcet”, which is often considered slightly toocomplex for most people“Condorcet” is not a specific method, it is a criterion by which voting methods are judged. If a specific outcome wins every pairwise comparison, then the Condorcet criterion requires that that outcome be selected.
However, the Condorcet winner is not necessarily the best winner, in terms of social utility. Range Voting is designed for that. Condorcet is essentially a binary method, Range allows the expression of strength of difference.
Condorcet-compliant methods are superior to standard plurality
voting, or STV methods, but not necessarily to more sophisticated -
but actually simpler - methods such as Approval Voting combined with
deliberative process.
Deliberation, leading to consensus (or at least in increase in consensus), is the foundation of functional democracy, not Aggregation (i.e., voting methods).
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+2
New discussion
Answer
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 11:55:04PM 0400, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
voting method is “Condorcet”, which is often considered slightly toocomplex for most people“Condorcet” is not a specific method, it is a criterion by which voting methods are judged. If a specific outcome wins every pairwise comparison, then the Condorcet criterion requires that that outcome be selected.
Voting SystemAt 11:00 AM 10/2/2006, echarp wrote:
Basically there is always the same Condorcet winner, but in case of cycles with no such winner, then different variants propose different outcomes.
However, the Condorcet winner is not necessarily the best winner, in terms of social utility. Range Voting is designed for that. Condorcet is essentially a binary method, Range allows the expression of strength of difference.
Some studies have been done, which show that range voting generally amounts to approval voting => people will tend to vote for the extreme values.
(it’s a combination of psychology and mathematics: do you want to have only fraction of a vote?)
Condorcet-compliant methods are superior to standard plurality voting, or STV methods, but not necessarily to more sophisticated — but actually simpler — methods such as Approval Voting combined with deliberative process.
I in fact prefer approval voting, due to its simplicity and the fact it tends towards consensus.
The -1 / +1 votes are in fact a form of it.
BTW, let me vote for your post in http://leparlement.org/top-politics ;)
+1
Deliberation, leading to consensus (or at least in increase in consensus), is the foundation of functional democracy, not Aggregation (i.e., voting methods).
Deliberation is most certainly vital, but so is some kind of decision making process. A vote is the generally accepted kind, thus the science of voting methods :)
echarp – http://leparlement.org/fr
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
At 05:11 AM 10/3/2006, echarp wrote:
Basically there is always the same Condorcet winner, but in case ofcycles with no such winner, then different variants propose differentoutcomes.However, nearly all methods would pick one of the members of the “Smith Set,” i.e., the set of candiates who, individually, beat all other candidates outside the set, pairwise. The Condorcet criterion is quite interesting; what is clear is that methods which unintelligently pick a non-member of the Smith Set are hazardous. There is only one excuse for doing this: to pick a winner with broader approval.
Technically, standard plurality is Condorcet-compliant. But it does not allow sufficient information, that’s the problem. That is, in standard plurality a voter simply picks a favorite. The one picked by the most voters, necessarily, beats all the others in pairwise comparisons. Simple. Too simple. Full Condorcet methods allow all pairs to be voted upon by the voter. However, this can get … onerous … if there are many candidates. There are few practical examples to point to.
I’d appreciate seeing the studies. Yes, Range reduces to approval if people vote the extremes. In my opinion, this would be superior to the status quo in most places; but it is certainly far short of optimum. Note that this is short of optimum in that the voters are not clearly expressing their true opinions, so the result of such “bullet voting,” as it is called, would be lowered voter satisfaction with outcomes. It is just as with Approval. If you refuse to vote for any candidate other than your favorite, and then your least-favorite wins, you will rue your vote. As you should. It was a poor strategy. There is a standard Approval strategy, which requires some understanding of the political situation (as does plurality): Of the two front-runners, vote for the favored among them, then vote for all candidates preferred to that front-runner. Or at least vote for your favorite….However, the Condorcet winner is not necessarily the best winner, interms of social utility. Range Voting is designed for that. Condorcetis essentially a binary method, Range allows the expression ofstrength of difference.Some studies have been done, which show that range voting generallyamounts to approval voting => people will tend to vote for the extremevalues.
There is at least one study which shows that people do not bullet-vote in Range, so I’m suspicious of the claim….. It certainly is not true in the many contexts in which Range Voting is used: Olympic scoring, for example.
(it’s a combination of psychology and mathematics: do you want to haveonly fraction of a vote?)
Range leaves you a full vote. Simply give at least one candidate the full rating. This argument is familiar, and it is thoroughly specious. It is similar to the argument that Approval gives people more than one vote, and is thus unfair. The fact is that in every pairwise election, Range methods, including Approval, allow the voter one full vote. Range simply allows the expression of fractional votes as an option. And this flexibility is essential for election outcomes to reflect a broad consideration of social utility. It reflects the real world, which is not black and white.
Right. It is extremely simple, in that implementing it simply involves, typically, tossing out the single line in the election law that requires ballots which are “overvoted” to be discarded. Voting equipment can already count it, because it must be able to handle multiple-winner elections, where voters are allowed to vote for more than one (usually with the instruction “Vote for no more than N candidates.”)Condorcet-compliant methods are superior to standard pluralityvoting, or STV methods, but not necessarily to more sophisticated-but actually simpler -methods such as Approval Voting combined withdeliberative process.I in fact prefer approval voting, due to its simplicity and the fact ittends towards consensus.
Approval Voting is quite good, in fact, in my experience, if followed by a ratification vote, which is Yes/No on the question, “Shall the result of the election be accepted.” Voting methods suffer greatly from a requirement that they must produce a result in a single poll….
I have seen Approval used at a meeting which began with severe polarization of opinion. When the possible courses of action were listed, and a poll taken on which of these courses were acceptable to the members, it was clear that the status quo was not satisfactory to a significant number of members, while other courses were acceptable to nearly everyone. And when the Approval winner was presented for a ratification, the vote was unanimous. This was in a Free Association, by the way, after the AA model. Group unity is generally valued in Free Associations, as it ought to be in society at large.
Deliberation is most certainly vital, but so is some kind of decisionmaking process. A vote is the generally accepted kind, thus the scienceof voting methods :)
Decision-making in traditional democratic organizations is quite simple, when there is a single question. “Shall we do action A?” Majority vote wins. It is with multiple options that it gets complicated. Indeed, most organizations have a rule that a question must not involve multiple choices, but typically elections are exempted. That’s a mistake, in my opinion. A more sophisticated election process would involve, say, Range voting to provide information to the electorate, then perhaps the Range winner is presented for a ratification vote. It is also possible to present two winners, i.e., the highest two Range winners, but in this case, as the Libertarians would have it, NOTA should also be on the ballot (None of the the above).
What is done instead is to assume that the organizational welfare is best served by having a winner, even if that winner is less than satisfactory. The determination of whether or not the proposed winner of an election should actually be installed in the office should be democratic, based in the present state of the electorate, not predetermined by precedent or statute or constitution.
FA/DP organizations avoid the whole problem. But, of course, the problem still exists and must be solved for society to function. FA/DP organizations leave the solution to the public; the fact is that if good communication and deliberation can be established — and FA/DP organizations could be quite good at this — there is no need for complex voting methods. Simple plurality, in the presence of consensus, works well enough, though I’d think we’d want to make it Approval, perhaps with a NOTA option. The advantage of simple plurality (or, similarly of STV, which is plurality-based with a twist) is that it is already in place, and it is thus not necessary to change voting methods in public elections as a first step.
The first step is to set up communications mechanisms. Software can help, but software is not the essential problem. Human habit is the problem, and, most especially, an entrenched cynicism that deeply believes that the problem of government is insoluble, that “they” will prevent reform, etc.
Yes, “they” will prevent reform if it is attempted through the system. It is practically a law, it is not person.
The big mistake that is so commonly made is to assume that the problem is the people filling the positions of power in the existing system. Get rid of them, “toss the bums out,” and everything will be just fine.
Not. The system creates a vacuum which is filled by those people. Get rid of them, others will take their place. And, look at history, the others, if better, will not be better for long, or, at least, we can see that the problem has not been solved.
Trying to reform society, we create reform organizations which reflect the same kind of structures that are used generally in society.
We need something new, something that overlays society, as the human nervous system overlaid previous messaging through chemical diffusion. It did not replace the previous methods. It supplemented them, made possible the infusion of intelligence.
echarp – http://leparlement.org/fr
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Thanks, Lomax but…:"I don’t want to discuss too much here about
different principles but
rather to focus on common parts which we all can use. "
If you don’t want to concentrate on software develpment you are free to
it.
In this thread we should keep it about soft though.
(Plese answer my post No 9 here instead..:http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/tree/browse_frm/thread/e7c77e6d814a3d6d/d71909c5e9038477?rnum=1&done=%2Fgroup%2Ftop-politics%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Fe7c77e6d814a3d6d%2F%3F#doc7214c0ab204d1cb3) ;-)
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
OK, regarding the condorcet method or not I think we all agree on that
there should be more options at least.
Not all votes are about selecting a delegate or a president.
We have contacted them and they seems responsive.
The question is if they have been here at all.
We will try to broaden their views as much as possible.
But can it really be the case, that there are no more politically interested programmers in the world than the ones already here? Since the demexp team has not been here I assume that there are others. How can we find them and bring them all together for some real action??
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
+1
Though, all programers I do know, I already invited to TOP
ATB,
Gale
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer