algorithmic democracy
by slac-in-the-box from LinuxQuestions.org on (#5SV4A)
Please ponder this:
A "checks-and-balances" between two types of votes:
THE PANIC VOTE: Everybody's sense of BS (yes, I mean the slang word "bull shit", because I can't find a more sophisticated term, and I want the common denominator of all humanity to understand it--and the common denominator is rather vulgar, and has even in some cases been called the vulgate). In any algorithmic voting system, I propose that, should a voter feel that the system is failing, and the algorithms are favoring a political faction, then rather than casting a vote about the issue at hand, the voter can always cast their "panic vote".
According to the principles of algorithmic democracy which I am making up and haven't read anywhere, this vote has to always be equal. Everybody's BS dectector (nose) is considered equal.
QUALIFIED VOTING: Except for the panic vote, all other votes are qualified according to the current algorithm, which takes into account factors such as proximity to the issue under consideration, education about the issue under consideration, service hours working on the issue under consideration, reputation for solving similar issues to the issue under consideration, and so on.
INITIAL POOL OF ALGORITHMS: so all those factors can be tweaked this way or that, with more emphaisis given to education, or to proximity, or to reputation, etc. If a groupware based on this concept began with an initial pool of say, 100 algorithms, these would be created before adopting the system and thus be exempt from manipulation by future politics.
IF 50% or more of the voters panic over an issue, then stats about how well the current algorithm worked and for how long get recorded, and another algorithm gets randomly selected from the initial pool.
So come on all you LQ programmers: add this kind of concept to your groupware. We don't need representation anymore. We don't need presidents, vice presidents, or treasurers. With this type of checks-and-balances in place within your groupware, we can fairly crowdsource a group's policies, without the need for secret board meeting, or a small minority deciding fate of many...
Let's replace the corporate structure from within with algorithmic democracy.
Ponder that.
All feedback welcome.
A "checks-and-balances" between two types of votes:
THE PANIC VOTE: Everybody's sense of BS (yes, I mean the slang word "bull shit", because I can't find a more sophisticated term, and I want the common denominator of all humanity to understand it--and the common denominator is rather vulgar, and has even in some cases been called the vulgate). In any algorithmic voting system, I propose that, should a voter feel that the system is failing, and the algorithms are favoring a political faction, then rather than casting a vote about the issue at hand, the voter can always cast their "panic vote".
According to the principles of algorithmic democracy which I am making up and haven't read anywhere, this vote has to always be equal. Everybody's BS dectector (nose) is considered equal.
QUALIFIED VOTING: Except for the panic vote, all other votes are qualified according to the current algorithm, which takes into account factors such as proximity to the issue under consideration, education about the issue under consideration, service hours working on the issue under consideration, reputation for solving similar issues to the issue under consideration, and so on.
INITIAL POOL OF ALGORITHMS: so all those factors can be tweaked this way or that, with more emphaisis given to education, or to proximity, or to reputation, etc. If a groupware based on this concept began with an initial pool of say, 100 algorithms, these would be created before adopting the system and thus be exempt from manipulation by future politics.
IF 50% or more of the voters panic over an issue, then stats about how well the current algorithm worked and for how long get recorded, and another algorithm gets randomly selected from the initial pool.
So come on all you LQ programmers: add this kind of concept to your groupware. We don't need representation anymore. We don't need presidents, vice presidents, or treasurers. With this type of checks-and-balances in place within your groupware, we can fairly crowdsource a group's policies, without the need for secret board meeting, or a small minority deciding fate of many...
Let's replace the corporate structure from within with algorithmic democracy.
Ponder that.
All feedback welcome.