Aktiv Demokrati forum

A key aspect of the web is the ability to give tools for better informed decisions. Easier evaluation of facts and reasoning. This can happen collectively without any fixed authority, but in a way that will make it clear and easy to find the facts and logic.

A key aspect of "liquid democracy" is the delegation to trusted decision makers. The model used in "Aktiv Demokrati" is that you can delegate to as many delegates as you like. It can be different delegates for different topics. A single person may have delegated to hundreds of different delegates that in many cases will vote on the same things.

One source of information is the overview of the stances of YOUR delegates in each specific question, along with their arguments and their sources and links to discussions.

Another source is "LIQUID ADVISERS". They may be a decision maker, but you only select them for giving you information in a question, without delegating your vote to them. You will see their stance in each question, with arguments and links to sources and discussions.

"LIQUID ADVISERS" also includes FACT SOURCES. They may not have a stance for the question, but they give you the material for basing the conclusions. The advicers may include organisations that does statistical compilations and other research organisations.

A "delegate" or "adviser" may be another person, a political party or an organisation. But it may also be an algoritm or any type of program. That means that you are free to construct your own way to gather information from delegates or from any source you can think of, and arrive at your own conclusion.

"Liquid" refers to the system of cascade delegation. A delegate or adviser may use one or many other delegates or advisers, that may in turn use other sources.

The web makes it possible to present all this information in a clear way and to sort it based on who you trust and respect.

The proposal will have time to gain support. As the proposal gets more recognition, it will have to convince larger and larger groups of people.

Proposals are sorted out for people based on
1. Proposal topic is a close match to your special interest
2. How near the end of the voting period it is
3. Your advisors has voted in different directions
4. The proposal is related to a proposal you are watching
5. Positive change in the yes/no ratio
6. The speed of incoming yes votes
7. Interest in the proposal in your community

This sorting will bring proposals to the attention to more and more people as long as it keeps having support. All people will have a fair chance to make a decision about if they care enough to participate.

Each person can have an unlimited amount of delegates and advisors. A delegate has your permission to vote in your place. An advisor has no right to vote for you, but will provide you with information. Both may in turn use other delegates and advisors.

Each person will choose how to prioritize among the delegates and advisors. But the default will be to use one or more advisors that categorize the proposals and then use different delegates for different categories. The delegates may be prioritized but the default position is to cast a blank vote if two or more of your delegates has voted in different directions. You will be prompted to make the choice.

It will be very easy to support causes. The usual way to support a cause is by a widget or link embedded in a social network or blog. This link will take you to the cause page on a trusted site there you can delegate your vote to the cause. This will make it easy for people ro support thousands of different causes. And you will be prompted if any two or more of your delegates has voted in different directions on a proposal.

There will always be a minimum amount of days before the end of a vote in which delegates can't change their vote. This will give you time to react if any of your delegates does something you didn't expect.

All proposals should be limited in scope. If it's about your local town, the calculation of the voting period should be based on the population of the town.

Most proposals should be reversible. The voting can continue after the point of decision and if the support changes, the change will be reversed. The calculation for this can use the same algorithm.

LIQUID DEMOCRACY
Liquid democracy sounds as a treason against direct democrats and against the central idea of direct democracy! AD should be obvious and 100% against any form of political representation. Jonas Liljegren is now the AD-representative (valförättare, election supervisor), but clergy should elect him! All we paying member who are interested, should have the same possibility to be party leader! The common sense says that this question needs a rational explanation about this. For instance what makes Jonas Liljegren better than me since the AD-opinion and all the AD-decisions are taken to 100% digitally by all the members and exist in the system and in the http://www.aktivdemokrati.se?

fredblomson skrev:LIQUID DEMOCRACY
Liquid democracy sounds as a treason against direct democrats and against the central idea of direct democracy! AD should be obvious and 100% against any form of political representation. Jonas Liljegren is now the AD-representative (valförättare, election supervisor), but clergy should elect him! All we paying member who are interested, should have the same possibility to be party leader! The common sense says that this question needs a rational explanation about this. For instance what makes Jonas Liljegren better than me since the AD-opinion and all the AD-decisions are taken to 100% digitally by all the members and exist in the system and in the http://www.aktivdemokrati.se?

I believe liquid democracy is the only way for any direct democracy to work. It's better then the alternative in almost every other way and it is a central part of the party structure. The (very) vast majority of the party members believe in liquid democracy, would you like to be the dictator and overrule us?

Jonas currently has very many positions, but if you look at any of the threads concerning different positions within AD you would see that Jonas is crying for people to take over responsibility, and has been for some time.
If you wish to be head of this party then nominate yourself in the discussion http://aktivdemokrati.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1496 and add your name to the list http://val.aktivdemokrati.se/proposition/display.tt?id=120671
You could also nominate me for the position if you wish, but I just put my name there for fun so please don't.

What makes Jonas more suited to lead the party is for each of us to decide, I have made my vote and it's not for Jonas (as he has asked NOT to be chairman).

The last part I don't understand at all, yes we vote on the internet, that's a core idea also...

@Jonas

I found your posts very interesting, we have a lot of work to do!

Have you heard of the semantic web btw?

The principal of direct democracy rules this party. This can be awesome. The party has the possibility of delegation of votes as a basic idea because this is in the best intrest of all voters to have.

I would like to come back to the original topic of liquid advicers, since I don't fully understand the concept.
What is the incitement to serve as a liquid adviser?
What is the division of responsibility between liquid advicers and the election system itself, when it comes to organising and promoting facts and arguments on an issue?
How do we prevent liquid advicers from becomming a source of propaganda and disinformation, rather than guidance?

joasi skrev:How do we prevent liquid advicers from becomming a source of propaganda and disinformation, rather than guidance?

In my mind, we can't. In a democracy the voters can vote for whom they want. The only thing preventing propaganda to take root is the other delegates argue the point and with a balanced tone. Then we have to trust the voters to be able to differentiate propaganda from truthful arguments.

This does however not mean creating opinion is not allowed. Which it of course is. One man's truth another man's propaganda, so to speak. It is up to the voters to disprove a delegate as a propagandist.

I fully agree Peter!