• No questions for this search term

New demarchy foundation

Are you fed up with politicians' overpromising and underdelivering? Must we remain powerless voting cattle? Or could we do better in a broadband democracy where specialised citizen committees decide? Here's how it could work (http://99pct.org) but can it succeed?
↓ Show more
  • Start Done: 0%
  • Follow |   9
  • Recruiting

Closed questions

Topic debate New comment Analyze

  • Erwin Kreuzer

    I think the question "which Political Issues can be predicted/evaluated via ND" needs to be answered first and would then help to define thresholds for success. For a small local issue the factors would be different than for global ones. eg. 100 "regional tweets" from highly involved people could mean more than 1000 "global" ones.

    the most relevant threshold for me would be, if at the end of the experiment an actual political decision is taken based on results of ND (or influenced by it) - that would be the ultimate proof, even if it is just a minor regional issue.

    So I would add a different "threshold" before the other ones, which is to identify "Political Issues"...

    - that are "important" enough for people to care, and to discuss and predict them.
    - that are "important/controversial" enough that media and social media would report about the predictions.
    - that can be reasonably quantified in order to predict them and to evaluate the predictions ex post.
    - that can lead to an actual decision, or at least to a suggestion, that can later be compared to the results of the actual decision.

    so based on Markus List i would suggest

    1. find x Problem(s) (eg x=1)
    2. start Field Test for 24 months with y active participants (eg y=25)
    3. prove public relevance by z mentions in media/social media (eg z=100)
    4. (bonus) prove relevance by mentions in actual decision process (eg being mentioned in protocols of decision-meetings etc)

    • Hubertus Hofkirchner, Chief Futurist

      Dissecting these thoughts into possible prediction questions not yet mentioned by others, I get:
      1. How many political issues/decisions are under the demarchic radar by ...(date) ? (success being: ....?)
      2. When will we close the first successful field test? (With a precise, yet flexible definition of such test. What timeframe would be a success here?)
      3. Needs debate - It is on Markus's list but with different success levels (Which is it?)
      4. Needs debate - Is this truly different to #2?

    • Markus Burkert

      For #3 my suggestion (10) might be too little, but 100 seems a little high - but that´s certainly not my special field.

      About the other points: First of all I think we have quite different things in our minds when we talk about a "field test". Since this influences the choice of the parameters 1, 2 and 4, I´ll give you an idea how I think this field test can look like:
      a) Find a small municipality where local council and people agree to make (some) decisions demarchic or at least have a demarchic decision making process parallel to the regular way (leaving it to local council to take the demarchic decision or not)
      b) Before demarchic decision making takes place, there has to be a time frame in which participating people proof their expertise by taking part in predictions. I really can´t say how long that time should be?
      c) Then (like mentioned in a) include demarchic suggestions in specific decisions or even leave the decisions completely to the demarchic process for a defined timeframe (my suggestion: 12 months)
      d) After that time ask people if they want to continue. It still could be discontinued if the local council disagrees (since it might make some of their jobs expandable). But for our purposes I think it´s the peoples vote that should decide if the experiment is successfull.

      So what do you think about that, or what is your idea about how a field test could look like?

    • Hubertus Hofkirchner, Chief Futurist

      @ Erwin: I have an answer on the aspect "which political issues".

      1. In principle, all political decisions can be dealt with in this way.

      2. Specifically, someone must be interested enough in a political question to undertake the effort precisely what we are now doing regarding ND: identify success indicators, find experts, get predictions going, analyse and learn from the process, the forecasts and the answers received.

      So it may come down to how many from the group will adopt a political issue and run such a process.

  • Markus Burkert

    Some purposes on how to define success of New Demarchy:
    1. 50 active members within the first 12 months (active = three or more actions = participations on predictions or comments/messages)
    2. 1.000 social signals (facebook likes, tweets and suchlikes) within the first 12 months
    3. 10 mentions in News Media within 24 months
    4. Starting a field test within 24 months, for example in a small town in coorporation with local council and people.
    5. Create a network of volunteers who are able and willing to work on the project for at least 50 hours a week within 24 months.

    I´m very unsure about the points scientific papers, financial means and predictive errors, so I better wait for your or other suggestions on those ;-)

    • Markus Burkert

      Actually that should be some "suggestions", not "purposes" ;-)

    • Hubertus Hofkirchner, Chief Futurist

      Predictive errors is one where I have a gut sense myself. Success could be a "20% or more reduction" of forecast error versus professional politician's predictions.

    • Nikolaus L.

      I agree with the Markus' points about active members, social signals, and mentions in news media. I would have suggested it the exact same way. When it comes to field test I think the maybe the timeframe is too short. It should be at least 2 years longer than the media mentions.
      And to point 5. Do I understand that correct: 50 hours per week for 2 years? Nobody will do that.
      Scientific mentions and quotations in scientific reviews should be a point as well, but I'm no expert on those topics. I know that there is a ranking for scientific papers so a quotation in a "better" one should bring more "points" than one in a not so good scientific review.

    • Hubertus Hofkirchner, Chief Futurist

      If the two of you are confident of the first three (50/1000/10) we could enter those plus the error question. We can always add more prediction questions on other indicators later. Alternatively we could give the others one or two more days?

    • Markus Burkert

      The 50 hours per week were meant as summary of all volunteers - not for every single one ;-). So you could have 10 people investing an average of 5 hours a week, or 20 people with 2 1/2 hours per week. First I wanted to suggest a number of volunteers, but I think the abount of time invested makes more sense.

      The reason why I´m so unsure about financial means also depends on the voluntary contribution. If all the skills that are needed (development, PR, ..) are well represented in the volunteer network, you won´t need a big budget. So it really depends on which skill you have to buy additionally.

    • Markus Burkert

      I´d say let´s wait another day.

    • Hubertus Hofkirchner, Chief Futurist

      Practical difficulty with volunteer hours: there may be little willingness to keep timesheets. Maybe enough to separate active vs. passive members. Or save work with this question if we assume there will be some natural ratio.

    • Markus Burkert

      Yes, of course that makes it a little tricky. I think natural ratio can only be applied, if the number of volunteers is big enough. Of course there are variations, also seasonal (especially with students). I´d say the 50 hours (or whatever the number will be) should be the minimum time ressources that can be expended at any time if neccessary - but are not neccessarily spent every single week. But still not sure how to measure that...

    • Erwin Kreuzer

      i agree, nobody will keep timesheets.
      alternatively the system should be able to keep track of user activities, so we could measure based on factors like frequency and duration of participation?

  • Hubertus Hofkirchner, Chief Futurist
    Topic Management

    At the last meetup, some of us were not overly happy with the current name of the initiative ("sounds dangerous"). We could make the name change a topic for the next meetup. What do you think?

    We could even collect a few ideas here online before then. My latest brainwave was something along the lines of "Participative Democracy" for a nice contrast to "Representative Democracy". Once the latter is overcome, we can shorten it to just (true) "Democracy".

  • Hubertus Hofkirchner, Chief Futurist
    Topic Management

    I found a proposal for a "survey-based" party dated 2011. However, the proposed party would elect leaders (i.e. representative democracy inside), it lacks an evidence-based decision and sortition process, is too slow with only an annual survey instead of real-time predictions, and asks members to vote on topics where most are not experts. It never came to anything. On the other hand, a better system could do better?
    http://thenewthirdparty.blogspot.co.at/

    • Markus Burkert

      I just went through it briefly. As far as I understand the intention it´s basically about more direct democracy, right? The elected leader would only make decisions, in cases where you don´t have a majority amongst people. Probably better than what we have now, but this would certainly not protect from a possible "tyranny of the majority". I´d say proofed experts (not the self-proclaimed experts) make better decisions than the majority.

  • Hubertus Hofkirchner, Chief Futurist
    Topic Management

    The first three questions are up and have a little content. Thanks to all for helping with this.

    Markus sent an email to the Austrian group today to ask for their predictions but I'd assume that our busy bunch will not show any activity until the day just before the January meeting.

    If we want predictions earlier than that, we'd need to find 15 or more citizens knowledgeable about political party matters and activism. Myself, I guess I'd know two or three persons who'd qualify.

    Would some of you also be willing to help find the remaining 12 citizens with some expertise in this topic? If yes, we could start now, else we should probably simply wait for the January meeting.

  • Hubertus Hofkirchner, Chief Futurist
    Topic Management

    Here is a excellent paper which discusses the "expert dilemma" with democratic decisions:

    "Any democratic system – indeed any decision-making entity of even the slightest complexity – must rely on experts at all levels within the system. [...] However, controversy arises over where and when experts are appropriate and how expert deliberations can be connected to final policy decisions or the polity’s more general direction."

    http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/42988/2/WRAP_Parkinso...

  • Hubertus Hofkirchner, Chief Futurist
    Topic Management

    Ok, the first prediction question is up. Thanks to all of you who helped with input.

  • Hubertus Hofkirchner, Chief Futurist
    Topic Management

    @ Nikolaus & Benjamin: Any sense about what may be reasonable thresholds? I will wait for clarity on at least three 3 indicators before setting up the prediction questions.