New approaches to politics.

[Quiet]

New approaches to politics

Politics is a joke in many countires. In some two party systems- both parties end up being more or less the same.
What are some better approaches to governance? Any ideas?

 

[Quiet]

Randomness could 'improve democracy'

Some articles-

Randomness could 'improve democracy'
Anna Salleh
ABC
Friday, 18 March 2011

from http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/03/18/3165708.htm

Democracy can be better served by randomly selecting representatives, argue Italian researchers.

Dr Alessandro Pluchino of the Università di Cantania and colleagues report their findings on the pre-press website arXiv.org.

"We think that the introduction of random selection systems, rediscovering the wisdom of ancient democracies, would be broadly beneficial for modern institutions," write the researchers.

Pluchino and colleagues developed a computer simulation, in which they studied the behaviour of politicians when randomly selected independents were introduced to a model parliament.

Their model relied on four categories of people in the parliament. These were: 'intelligent' people (actions serve both personal and social interests), 'helpless or naive' (loss for self, but gain for others), 'bandits' (benefit themselves, but not others), and 'stupid' (actions produce a loss for everyone).

The model, involving a parliament made up of two parties, had 500 individuals who could each propose and vote for or against acts.

Pluchino and colleagues found that in all cases studied, adding random legislators improved the performance of the parliament. Specifically, there were more acts passed with social benefit.

"Most people think that democracy means elections," they write. "However ... in the first significant democratic experience, namely the Athenian democracy, elections worked side by side with random selection (sortition) and direct participation."

Pluchino and colleagues say the drawbacks of a system dominated by political parties have been well documented. These include the tendency for politicians to follow a 'party line' and the tendency of groups to defend their interests.

In recent decades, they write, there has been a rise in interest in choosing representatives by random selection.

Arguments in favour of this are that it can reduce corruption, prevent the dominance of a small group of politically active people, and ensure people of different incomes, races, religions and sex, are more fairly represented in parliament.

In 2010, Pluchino and colleagues won an IgNobel prize for showing mathematically that organisations could avoid the spread of incompetence - or the Peter Principle - and become more efficient if they promoted people at random.
Limits to random selection?

Australian politician, Andrew Leigh describes the new research on random selection as an "interesting contribution".

But he sees random selection as being useful in limited situations - such as in deliberative polling, prior to a referendum.

"In a country that struggles to get people to perform a couple of days jury service, the notion that randomly-sampled people would be happy to give up their day jobs and become legislators seems far-fetched," says Leigh.

Leigh, a member of the Australian Labor Party and, until recently a professor of economics with an interest in public policy at the Australian National University, says Pluchino and colleagues are using an approach related to game theory and political science. Game theory is a branch of maths that tries to model behaviour of individuals making choices.

But Leigh challenges some of the assumptions in the parliamentary model.

"I think it's a mistake to regard many politicians as having taken up the profession because they're self-interested," he says.

"[Pluchino and colleagues] speak about bandits in their model - bandits are there to enrich themselves. I don't see any bandits in Australian politics," says Leigh.

He says it is more appropriate to think of politicians as having different views about the world rather than some being good and some being venal.
Wisdom of the crowd

Professor Lyn Carson of the Centre for Citizenship and Public Policy at the University of Western Sydney says random selection can improve deliberation, as well as representativeness, in democracy.

But she says most political science models of sortition tend to assume the whole parliament is randomly selected.

Carson says Pluchino and colleagues' model is different because it is proposing the introduction of just a few randomly -selected independents.

"I like that idea," says Carson, who was involved with the 2009 Australian Citizens' Parliament.

But like Leigh, she is not persuaded by Pluchino and colleagues' categories of individuals in parliament.

She says these categories may exist in adversarial parliamentary systems, but not when there is a proper deliberation.

"There is a very dramatic shift at a point in the deliberative environment when people shift from self interest to public interest," says Carson.

She says random selection is used to ensure fairness in a diverse range of areas from the allocation of the US Green Card to social housing in Ireland.

"We do it because it's fair. Everyone has got an equal chance," says Carson. "It doesn't make sense to exclude parliaments from that."

She says good democratic deliberation is restricted by the homogeneity of politicians, and random selection would help tap into the "wisdom of the crowd".

Carson says even representatives who don't know much have an important role to play.

"They'll be asking really naive questions or playing the devil's advocate," she says. "It's all fodder for deliberation."

 

[Quiet]

Online democracy

Online democracy
Anna Salleh - The Lab
Wednesday, 9 February 2000

from http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2000/02/09/98587.htm

Some experts are predicting that online forums will become a major way of involving the public in science and technology policy in the future.

Online forums on the topic of science and technology policy are becoming an increasing phenomenon of the Internet age. Take today's announcement of two forums inviting public input this month on science and technology policy. One is NASA's What now - after the loss of three Mars missions?, and the other, CHOICE Online's GM Foods Conference.

According to Professor Sue Stocklmayer of ANU's Centre for Public Awareness of Science, such online forums are an important opportunity for the government to get input from the public on science and technology.

"There's a climate change between science and its public," she told The Lab. "And a consciousness among governments they need to involve the public in science and technology policy before they spend money on it."

"Just assuming the public will accept developments in science and technology doesn't work any more. And unless governments get it right first, they could end up with a problem."

Murdoch University science education expert Associate Professor Renato Schibeci also believes online forums are on the rise.

"My suspicion is that they will become a lot more important in the future if you're serious about involving large numbers of people in science and technology policy," he told The Lab.

Dr Schibeci argues that other options for public input such as Senate committees that travel from state to state are expensive and frightening for those not used to public speaking about complex ideas. And while consensus conferences and citizen's juries are highly beneficial in raising the profile of an issue, they only involve a small number of people and there is a question about how representative these can be.

"It's an incredibly important method for the public to have a say because there are really such few opportunities," agrees Dr Susannah Elliott formerly of the Centre for Science Communication. "I think it's one of the best ways of using the Web."

"One good thing about online discussions as a method of getting people's views is that they're less likely to be edited and tailored to specific agendas, compared to surveys for example."

Dr Schibeci believes it is important that forums are not restricted to technical issues. "Lay people tend to have a much broader approach to issues than scientists," he says. "It's crucial for policy makers to understand this because if people don't have their concerns addressed, whatever they are, then the consequences could be dire for scientists.

"Even if someone's not well versed in an area, it doesn't mean their view is not important," says Dr Elliot. "People might say 'I don't know about the science, but I want my food labelled'. That's just as valid a view as any other."

"In the end though, it's all very well to have an online discussion - but is it any better than talking in The Domain?" she wonders. "Is anyone actually listening? Policymakers should be."

Could all policy and subsequent legislation be discussed online in a forum format? It might be messy, but it would be transparent.

 

[SealHammer]

Give me a libertarian social darwinist world where I can wander the countryside murdering people I don't like and it's totally acceptable.


























please?

 

[Quiet]

Give me a libertarian social darwinist world where I can wander the countryside murdering people I don't like and it's totally acceptable.


























please?

Hmmn....can we try anarcho socialism first...Anarchy! Please?

 

[Tilheyra]

Here's some food for thought. One of the questions on the midterm of my Western Civilization class in undergrad instructed me to "consult" three of the many historical figures that we analyzed in class to construct a government for a human colony on Mars. As the essay was a written response, I had to be fairly concise to stay within the time limit. This was my response:

To assist in the establishment of the government on the colony of Mars, the writers James Madison, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill have been consulted. The works of these three figures can be combined to create the ideal government for the running of the colony.

As John Locked argues in his Second Treatise of Government, the natural rights posed by man (an extending this to women) are "life, liberty, and property." To meet these ends, a government must protect these rights for each individual. If the government fails to protect these rights, then each citizen has the right to defend their rights themselves. Limiting a government to the protection of these rights will prevent an overstep of government authority.

These rights themselves do come with one exception. As described by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, the limitation of this civil liberty that is natural, is that the government has the authority to limit your rights, but only to the extent of stopping you from adversely affecting another. This makes sense as your rights must be protected, yet at the same time the government must protect everyone else's rights.

Now these rights cannot be protected without a government, and as James Madison was considered the father of the United States constitution, the constitution can be used to form the basis of the government. The separation of powers of each branch does not give a single branch too much authority. Although, the idea for a legislature should only be unicameral due to the needs of the majority to be represented. The effective use of parliamentary procedure in this government should prevent mob rule.

The colony will have a limited government that serves to protect the people and their rights. The only time the government can violate these rights would be when your actions could adversely affect others.