Jan 20, 17 / Aqu 20, 01 04:11 UTC

Should we, Asgardians, improve democracy ?  

A new space nation is the best way to change what's wrong with earth governments. I believe that if democracy is going to rule Asgardia it should be an improved democracy.

In my opinion, one of the biggest problems with current democracy is potential polarization of the people. 50+1 ℅ of the population should not rule the other 49℅, how can a person or a government work effectively if almost half the people is against it ? But we already know this, that's why in most democratic countries in order to approve a law it has to be supported by two thirds (or even more) of the Senate. We should embrace this in our new constitution and stablish that any popular election must be won by two thirds or three quarters of the voting population. It certainly will not be easy but it would be the real voice of the majority speaking on behalf of the people instead of just a bit more than half.

The second biggest problem in our democracy is that people do not vote! I really can't believe how people can just say 'i don't feel like voting today' or something like that and create silly excuses to stay home on voting day. We should impose an obligatory duty to vote. Democracy can't work if people do not vote and it is something we can see happening in several countries around the world. If we are going to live in a democracy it must be obligatory to vote, it is the only way it will work.

I apologise if my English is not good enough and hope to read your opinions on this matter.

Jan 31, 17 / Pis 03, 01 16:40 UTC

Short answer: Yes

Or at least that is my opinion.

Although your post is a good opener, however, I do not agree with everything in it. I think there are a few over-simplifications, although you point out some clear problems in democracy. But the issue (of democracy, and it's flaws) is complex, and the solutions will not be simple, either.

For example, in some situations requiring more than a majority for a resolution to pass is a good idea. But it can not be a general solution, since there is the danger that the system will be stuck in a stalling state of indecision (which might obviously bring in problems). You are suggesting this for any popular elections - it might be a good idea, or not (I can't say really, I just have some doubts). Eventually, there will be situations when people are polarized. If the election can not be passed because of this, and the situation persists - well, it is difficult to say what will happen, but in the long run it might at least erode people's trust in the system.

There are some things that should be difficult to change, and where a simple majority of a parliament should not be enough to pass a change. I believe this is the case in many governments around the world already in some cases - for example, changes in constitution is more difficult than changes in other legislature. I must admit I'm not in any way an expert in this field.

As for non-voting, there may be several reasons why people do not vote; some reasons may be populism in politics (which will cause people to not trust the political system at all), alienation from society etc.; there are probably too may to list here. I'm not certain making voting mandatory would be a solution without any problems.

However, one thing I would like to suggest and what I think should be looked into is this: democracy.earth. It sound something that is made for Asgardia or similar projects, and something that could be used to improve democracy beyond what it is now.

It is difficult to say how it could be used, and where; but a simple centralized government which is chosen every 1-6 years by general elections, may be something that was made just because paper ballots was the best thing that could be made with the technology available 2000 years ago. In many ways it still is (such as anonymity, security, simplicity in a way that everyone can understand the system) - but if Asgardia will eventually have some kind of democratic elections, this is an option that should be looked int (IMHO!). I know there are drawbacks (compared to traditional democracy and elections) and a long analysis of the options, pros and cons is required.

(p.s. your English is quite fluent; and I'm not a native speaker, either)

Jan 31, 17 / Pis 03, 01 16:44 UTC

I see there are already threads about blockchain -based voting system in this forum. Considering them, I believe my suggestion about democracy.earth is superfluous (as I've understood it is just one implementation of a blockchain voting).

Jan 31, 17 / Pis 03, 01 18:44 UTC

There are threads on blockchain voting systems. They're more concerned with wasting peoples cycles needlessly than actually providing for any particular measure of security or authenticity. Most seem to ignore the complete fail in allowing to reverse engineer who voted for what, when.

"Democracy" - simply telling the slaves they are free then charging them for the privilige - is something quite easily improved upon. Should you isn't something that should really come into the equasion. The question should more be: why shouldn't you? "Direct democracy", IMHO, is the obvious solution.

Generalised indecision is a relatively small risk, overall, and there have been models submitted that encompass this possibility with solutions. Stagnation isn't an option. Polarisation isn't something that should form too heavily at least until we're a few generations in - but generally people are not in wild disagreement about a particular topic. There's usually clear sway in a general opinion. Rather than set a fixed percentage to "win" a descision it may be more productive to classify descisions by reach and impact, and different "grades" require different percentages.

As for not voting that might be the system where you come from but I'd like to think ours isn't like that, and will stay thus. Because it won't parody Earth's. But should they vote or not should be purely up to them. Trying to force someone to decide something really isn't clever. The way it works is the descisions in hand are relevant to or interest you, and you thusly pay attention. If there's things that can't attract sufficient attention to gain votes, then that's possibly not the way the people want to be going.

Feb 2, 17 / Pis 05, 01 02:50 UTC

I agree my solutions are quite simple and that's because I'm not an expert in this subject. However I think they are good starters for something bigger.

Perhaps forcing people to vote is not a solution and that's probably because I am thinking in an earth-like country, and that's exactly what Asgardia is not. I would really like to think that should Asgardia be a democratic country then all Asgardians would be eager to participate (may be not in all but in most matters and debates).

Direct democracy could be a good idea but, IMHO, in small populations. Although I think there should still be a Senate or something similar because they are the ones that can dedicate their time entirely to debates and law-planning. People will go to the debates that most concern them but they will always have other things to do. So with a small population and the right regulations I think direct democracy could work very well.

Finally, I don't know a lot about block-chain voting but I think it would be one of the regulations on direct democracy that I mentioned before. As I understand it, people would be able to check every entry and make sure every vote is legit and even more important it deletes the possibility of rigged voting.

Feb 2, 17 / Pis 05, 01 02:55 UTC

We can not improve what we do not openly celebrate. Nothing at asgardia is actually managed democratically. The contest up- or down-votes are not representational as a democratical vote would be, nor is it secure enough.

I also expect the vote on the constitution as an acceptance vote, not as a choose between options, which makes - with a good campaign - the constitution vote obsolete and a Decree to engage the constitution more logical.

What we should improve is our minds and the understanding of those who are responsible and those who build the bridge between us and the people who are responsible. Whatever happens now is our future, whatever now is blocked for whatever reason, will downgrade our society.

Feb 2, 17 / Pis 05, 01 14:00 UTC

"Direct democracy" can work equally well when scaled into larger numbers - it really doesn't behave any differently when scaled to tens or hundreds of thousands of participants - can get a little hectic when some CBA to read previous input and continually raise points long since put to rest - and this would become the senate of which you speak. Especially considering the variables involved, we have no requirement for incredibly time sensitive decisions at this point, on the whole. There is time to afford discussion on a particular topic for at least a month wherin the discussions should find both the merits and pitfalls of persuing various actions and hopfully either agree on a solution or provide a range of solutions to select from collectively.

Blockchain voting is a wonderful way to waste a lot of processing power achieving very little, least of all in the name of security. The largest and most obvious flaw - beyond taking 50,000,000 CPU cycles to achieve what could be done in four - would be the ease at which the reverse engineering of the blockchain data itself will yield who has voted for what, and when they did so. I'm currently ignoring how that could be used to build an "activity map" of the voting process, and othersuch, instead focusing purely on how trivial it would be to find out what you'd voted for, and then use that information to define if you have conformed to my wishes and deserve payment for. That's the consequences of "checking". Short of contacting every individual and asking them to confirm this is what they input I don't see how simply having a ledger makes it possible to assure legitimacy.

It certainly doesn't prevent "rigged voting" as blockchains tend to be easily posioned, you just need a greater number of nodes, commonly. This is not difficult or restrictive to obtain, least of all to the well funded.

You account for every vote being legit by rolling out a trustable system. Ideally this would be open sourced and fingerprints of hardware/softwares provided to assure what's running is actually what's in the code published - and no extra - it can be independantly verified.

And nothing operates in Asgardia democratically yet. We need to build the framework in which that operates. Or quite simply put, it'll never happen.

  Updated  on Feb 2, 17 / Pis 05, 01 14:03 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: Additional data

Feb 2, 17 / Pis 05, 01 16:28 UTC

True EyeR. But what we currently accept is trusting blindly in the skills of people who are not elected to do what they do. It is out of control what they do. (I don't want to offend anyone here, it is just a fact)

We could solve a lot of current issues when we would have any collective power to do so. The current progress of asgardia civic for example could be entirely re-managed to a network of people who work with a proposal based system that massively involves the resources of our community. Same counts for the development stuff and prototyping of concepts, groups, standards and borders. I don't downgrade the current system, but things could progress a lot faster with the right concept.

Feb 2, 17 / Pis 05, 01 17:02 UTC

Close, What we're currently forced to accept, by virtue of little other option, is trusting blindly in people that have already demonstrated a lack of skill. Undisputable fact. I really don't care about causing offence. If me pointing out incompetence offends you, cease being incompetent - especially when asking others to pay the price of your failure.

Although it's completely out of control what they do, now, there is a loosely specified date by which we should form some "government" - and if this appears via the "direct democracy" model then change is assured. It's assured either way, because I don't predict most to stick around once this starts going tits up, and any other model is assured to head in that direction. But we'll be best to worry about crossing that bridge when we get there.

As a community we should be developing this framework - concepts, groups, standards and borders etc. so that when the time comes it can drop into place with the minimum of fuss. Between now and then it's pure trust and hope however - two incredibly poor foundations to be building from. If it doesn't get a more stable foundation, then quite simply cease attempting to build. As for progressing faster, yes it should be really, but there's a good excuse behind it's lack - after placing several thousand "special" people into a room there's not a lot to honestly expect to come out of that room beyond dribbles and hugs and the occasional loud whooping when they see something shiny.