Re: [apsa_itp] community law-making, a system based on recombinant text

[Michael Allan <mike@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 03:59:45PM -0400, Michael Evans wrote:
> I actually submitted a short paper to a "collaborative sensemaking"
> workshop here at the University of Maryland's 2007 Human-Computer
> Interaction conference proposing essentially the same thing. I hope we
> will discuss further off-list, but a few brief points:

Thanks Michael, I am citing it as a proposed Wiki-based system.
(It does differ, though, from one based on recombinant text.)
 
> (1) An obvious "political problem" is that faced by anyone attempting
> to implement any serious institutional reform:  those in the best
> position to implement such reforms are (almost by definition) those
> who most benefit from the institutional status quo, and even those
> with the best of intentions tend to be very resistant to reforms that
> would threaten their status and influence.  Just look at the history
> of attempts to pass serious campaign finance reforms or changing
> voting rules to increase turnout or make it possible for (esp.
> proportional) representation by alternative parties, and you will see
> what you would be up against. It seems to me that the most succesful
> reform movements graft institutions onto existing ones rather than
> seek to replace them.  One good example is the initiative and
> referendum systems that many states adopted in the progressive era:
> rather than replace legislatures, they just created an alternative
> channel for the people to express their will.

I cannot disagree, I would only add:

 * the system could be proven outside of legislatures
   (e.g. in other rulemaking applications)

 * once proven, it could easily become a lightning rod for otherwise
   separate groups who (formerly seeking reform in separate channels,
   and in separate polities) would then become united, and harder
   to ignore

 * implementation would be a gradual, step-by-step process of
   confidence building -- not an immediate threat to the status quo

> (2) The reason I'm excited by the idea of a Web 2.0 participatory
> legislative process is that I think it holds the promise of overcoming
> some of the (fatal, in my view) flaws of the initiative and referendum
> systems. Most importantly, the process would encourage participants to
> "refine and enlarge their views" (to paraphrase Madison's hopeful
> description of representative assemblies) and to thus discover their
> true preferences in light of greater understanding of the likely long
> and short run consequences of alternative courses of action on the
> values they hold dear. The initiative and referendum systems do a
> terrible job of this and so often create outcomes ultimately disliked
> by the majority (worse yet, when they do work, they often do so at the
> detriment of vulnerable minorities).

One thing I've noticed is that people tend to learn best when the
learning is hands-on. But it's better if their hands are in the real
thing, because, as you point out, half measures are just as likely to
mis-educate and mislead.

I think of education in this context because I believe (as they say)
the strength of a democracy depends on a politically educated
public. What better way to achieve it than to place the business of
politics in the hands of the public? (Other side of the coin: it is
dangerous when politics are in the hands of a few.)

> (3) Related to my last point, as your proposal is for a deeply
> democratic legislative process (in the strict sense of that term), you
> will have to consider the danger of "majority tyranny." If you believe
> in the ideal of popular BUT LIMITED government, then thought will need
> to be put into how to design this Web 2.0 democracy to give proper
> balance between the will of the majority and the rights of minorities.

(This was just mentioned elsewhere, and I copy the same reply.)

It seems to be a general criticism of democracy.  But I have yet to
find a scenario where it would affect community law-making in
particular, as opposed to a traditional legislature. Both are
democratic, and both susceptible.  I think that if society really
wanted to tyrannize its minorities, then community law-making would
give it the means; otherwise, it would give it tolerant laws,
reflective of society's own tolerance. See also:
http://groups.google.com/group/torcamp/browse_frm/thread/495cb0d9c0c08d0a

-- 
Michael Allan

--
apsa_itp mailing list served by Harvard-MIT Data Center
List Address: apsa_itp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.hmdc.harvard.edu/?info=apsa_itp