Netizens-Digest Monday, March 10 2003 Volume 01 : Number 430 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: Re: [netz] Democracy ( was: Representation....) Re: [netz] Democracy (was: Representation...) Re: [netz] Democracy (was: Representation...) Re: [netz] Democracy (was: Representation...) Re: [netz] "Equiaccessibility" of access ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 22:10:23 -0500 (EST) From: Ronda Hauben Subject: Re: [netz] Democracy ( was: Representation....) Mark and others on the netizens list, It is good to see we are having a discussion on these issues on the Netizens list. This is important to explore. On Sat, 8 Mar 2003 lindeman@bard.edu wrote: > Ronda, > > Thanks, the excerpt from Michael is helpful. > Good. There is more discussion elsewhere and it would be good to consider the various aspects that Michael considered about this. > > This is not what Michael was saying, Michael was discussing > > "democracy" and how to achieve it given the limitations in the > > time of Rousseau and then James Mill's time, and comparing that > > to what is possible now. > > > > So the issue was "democracy" rather than "representation". > > Well, what I meant was, roughly, "representation may have been a necessary > compromise in the past, but with today's communication technologies we can >move toward/to direct democracy." Which does seem to be something like what >Michael meant, although in this excerpt I don't find a specific claim about >how far we can move toward direct democracy. Michael does explore this further in other writing. I will look for other instances. For example, he refers to how people discuss issues on newsgroups or mailing lists and through the discussion ideas are clarified and new insights obtained. He saw that the online world, and also the grassroots processes of creating the Internet and Usenet, provided real world experience toward how direct democracy could function. > I believe that we still can't have democracy > without representation. But it would have been better for me to put the > emphasis on democracy, not representation. > Good. I agree that the issue is how to have democracy. > I've snipped freely, but without malice. Folks should refer back to the > original to check the context. Thanks. > > > Democracy is a desirable form of government, but Mill found it > > to be impossible to maintain. Mill lists two practical obstacles in > > his essay. First, he finds it impossible for the whole people to > > assemble to perform the duties of government.[...] > > Second, Mill argues that an assembled body of differing > > interests would find it impossible to come to any agreements. Mill > > speaks to this point in his essay: > > > > "In an assembly, every thing must be done by speaking and > > assenting. But where the assembly is numerous, so many persons > > desire to speak, and feelings, by mutual inflammation, become > > so violent, that calm and effectual deliberation is impossible."(2) > > So, arguably the Internet allows us to overcome both these obstacles: > The Internet does begin to provide for the means to deal with these obstacles to democracy. > > The Net allows for a > > meeting which takes place on each person's own time, rather than all at > > one time.(7) [...] > > Yes, this is a great boon of the Net. [I'll skip the "on the other hand," > lest > I sound needlessly snarky.] > It helps to keep the focus on the main issues. > > Mill's second observation was that people would not be able to > > communicate peacefully after assembling. Online discussions do not have > > the same characteristics as in-person meetings. As people connect to the > > discussion forum when they wish, and when they have time, they can be > > thoughtful in their responses to the discussion. Whereas in a traditional > > meeting, participants have to think quickly to respond. In addition, > > online discussions allow everyone to have a say, whereas finite length > > meetings only allow a certain number of people to have their say. Online > > meetings allow everyone to contribute their thoughts in a message, which > > is then accessible to whomever else is reading and > > participating in the discussion. > > I would suggest that the Net technically allows many people to speak, without > altogether overcoming the real obstacle to effective deliberation inherent in > numbers. The Net allows millions of people to speak on any given issue, but > it doesn't allow me to listen to all of them. Truly complicated > conversations _may_ be more peaceable on the Net, but they aren't much more > efficient. > But the discussion does provide a means to process them. I have read discussions of several hundred posts and found that not difficult to do, as they were part of a discussion, rather than in isolation. Also not everyone has to be involved in every discussion. But there is a means to be involved in the issues that are of interest. This is much like going to the newsgroup or mailing lists that are of interest, not to everyone. (Though in early Usenet, one had to go thru all posts I thought, and one could :-) > I'm not sure they're more peaceable, either; I've seen many flame wars > that I don't think would've happened in person. However, the Net does In the early days of Usenet, some flame wars were seen as a constructive process. Also when I first got on Usenet, in 1992, I found that there would be times that there were attacks on people online with minority views, but others would often speak up to encourage the diversity of discussion. Lately on some newsgroups I find that there is less support for minority viewpoints and that is a problem when it develops. > help give folks like me (who tend to be shy in groups) more voice, and > it lets people converse about issues who otherwise never would have, > either because they live far apart or for any of the other reasons that > people often don't address controversial topics. > I have had the experience of meeting people who are involved with Usenet, whether I knew them on Usenet or not, and finding that we could have wide ranging and interesting discussions where our differences were a treasure, not a problem. One researcher has noted that Usenet has encouraged people to explore their different views. This is to me, some of what is so special about the online world. > > In society where people live > > together, it is important for people to communicate with each other > > about their situations to best understand the world from the broadest > > possible viewpoint. > > Absolutely. Yes we agree. > > > Public and open discussions and debates are grass-roots, > > bottom-up development which enable people to participate in democracy > > with enthusiasm and interest more so than the current system of secret > > ballots allows. Of course, at some point or other, votes might be > > taken, but only after time has been given to air an issue in the > > commons. > > OK. So, how do we organize votes that give everybody a say on every > aspect of legislation? It's when we actually get down to decisionmaking > that I start to suspect big limitations in the Internet revolution. > (But the revolution is young, and my imagination is not the largest.) It isn't that everybody will want to have a "say" on "every aspect of legislation". But it is that people need to have a way to have such a say when they want to be involved. The Internet's development provides a model of such processes. And Usenet does as well. Both the early development of Usenet and more recent processes. I have written some about these. And Michael documents some of this. For example, the fact that people can start a newsgroup or a mailing list on a topic, means that people can influence what is discussed. The contributions to the list mean people are making up the content of what is developed. This is a grassroots process. Also Usenet has a process for voting for newsgroups. And there is a means for discussion before the vote. There are lessons to be learned from this process, as well as problems with the process. But it is that people can both contribute to the discussion, and then vote, if one wants to . When this has functioned, I have found that though people seemed to disagree during the early discussion, later in the discussion it was clear that people did pay attention to what was said and incorporated the ideas into their processes. Then when the vote took place, there was an indication that the discussion affected the vote. So the online world does provide experience to draw on in trying to create a more democratic set of governing processes. But as another researcher noted, it takes hard work on a number of people's parts to create and support such democratic processes. > I'll stop here for now.... > > Mark > > Ronda ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 22:35:36 -0500 (EST) From: Ronda Hauben Subject: Re: [netz] Democracy (was: Representation...) On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > >Ronda, > > > >Thanks, the excerpt from Michael is helpful. > > > >> This is not what Michael was saying, Michael was discussing > >> "democracy" and how to achieve it given the limitations in the > >> time of Rousseau and then James Mill's time, and comparing that > >> to what is possible now. > >> > >> So the issue was "democracy" rather than "representation". (...) > > To follow up on this, and trusting to memory, a US congressional > district may contain 200,000-500,000 voters. Let's assume every one > of these people expresses an opinion, and it takes 1 minute to figure > out the basic position. I'll assume 360,000 voters because it makes > some calculations easier. > > 360,000 voter statements take 250 24-hour days to read and note, > ignoring any supplemental information sent with them. Even if the > issue is critical, how much time can the representative give to > reading the comments? Assuming 8 hour days of doing nothing else, the > representative is going to take slightly over 2 years to read them. > No time to think about issues, propose compromises, vote, reply, etc. The process that has developed on the Net is a grassroots process, not just trying to incorporate people into the top down process. The issues can be discussed by many, and the result of the discussion is some of the processing of the information that each contributes. It's not that any one person has to read all the issues or do all the processing. The discussion by many means that there are more people involved in the responsibility to process the information. Thus the "grassroots" process is more dynamic and inclusive than the current top down, "representation". > > What? Have staff read them and summarize? A possibility. First, > there may not be enough office staff funded to cut the time > significantly. Second, we've now delegated some part of > decisionmaking to the staff. > No. You are assuming that the information is sent to the staff. Michael described the situation where people contribute to the whole process. He was describing Usenet, or the U.S. government online policy conference, or the means for the early development of Usenet or the Internet etc. But he was looking at actual experience where there was a more grassroots process functioning. If there is an online newsgroup, for example, where the staff of a legislator supports discussion about different issues, then the discussion will be part of the processing of the information. The staff will have help from the citizens. The citizens will be part of the process of not only providing information, but discussing it and evaluating it. Michael refers to this as well in Netizens, in chapter 13. " The Effect of the Net on the Professional News Media: The Usenet News Collective - The Man-Computer News Symbiosis" by Michael Hauben In this chapter, Michael quotes from one of the people who describes how the Net makes it possible for people to help in the processing of information - ------------ Michael writes: Karl Krueger describes some of the value of Usenet in a posting to Usenet, "Over time, USENETters get better at being parts of the USENET matrix - -- because their *own* condensations support USENET's, and this helps other users. In a way, USENET is a 'meta-symbiont' with each user -- the user is a part of USENET and benefits USENET (with a few exceptions...), and USENET includes the user and benefits him/her."(43) Krueger points out how experienced Usenet users contribute to the Usenet community. He writes, "As time increases normally, the experienced USENET user uses USENET to make himself more knowledgeable and successful. Experienced users also contribute back to USENET, primarily in the forms of conveying knowledge (answering questions, compiling FAQs), conveying experience (being part of the environment a newbie interacts with), and protecting USENET (upholding responsible and non-destructive use, canceling potentially damaging spam, fighting 'newsgroup invasions', etc.)."(44) As new users connect to Usenet, and learn from others, the Usenet Collective grows and becomes one person richer. Krueger continues: "Provided that all users are willing to spend the minimal amount of effort to gain some basic USENET experience then they can be added to this loop. In USENET, old users gain their benefits from other old users, while simultaneously bringing new users into the old-users group to gain benefits." - ---------- > Another option is to form ad hoc coalitions, in a TRUSTED manner > (i.e., with voting that can be authenticated), and provide coalition > positions to the representative. > But voting is the last, and perhaps not needed, when a good solution is found to a problem. And it is the broad inclusion of information and processing of that information that can make it possible to find that solution. > You could go to sampling, with its potential inaccuracies. > > My point is that one-man-one-vote pure democracy doesn't scale to > work in large governmental systems, without imposing some > compromises. While the net may have removed Mill's concern about the > impossibility of assembling the whole people, an assembled people > sending email may be no more manageable. > I am not talking about "one-man-one-vote: as "democracy". I am talking about a grassroots process that involves people in a much more inclusive way in determining the issues that need to be explored and then in determining how to solve the problems of the society that these issues help one to sort through. > Of course, if all of those people simply send messages to the > representative, there's no real opportunity for lateral discussion > among the electorate. > Yes precisely. In fact the discussion among the electorate is what is crucial. Once the questions are determined and then framed, there is no democracy. And that is how our system in general works. But that isn't how the Net works. (...) > > One of the ways individuals can be especially effective is to make > points on issues where huge numbers of people aren't involved. An > example I might use, and something I haven't followed up on, involves > US tax and medical reimbursement law. > But it is the crucial issues that need to be taken up, and the other issues secondarily. I don't disagree that the issue you suggest is something that could be explored, but the laws regarding health insurance and social security and how the money is protected are probably more key. > Social Security tax is collected up to a certain ceiling. In most > recent years, I meet that ceiling sometime in September. > > I have participated in various Medical Savings Account programs that > let me set aside pre-tax income for medical expenses, but all claims > for it must be made by the end of the first quarter of the next > calendar year. I don't disagree that legislation would be better if more people were involved in helping to clarify what is needed. But somehow that is part of a bigger problem. It is part of the problem of how the issues to be taken up are determined and then how they are explored. Ronda ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 07:37:59 EST From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] Democracy (was: Representation...) - --part1_25.35851e27.2b9de127_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/9/03 10:36:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, ronda@panix.com writes: > I don't disagree that legislation would be better if more people > were involved in helping to clarify what is needed. > If we can all agree on this point, I believe we would be experiencing a profound breakthrough, no matter the interpretation. Larry - --part1_25.35851e27.2b9de127_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 3/9/03 10:36:44 PM Eastern Standard= Time, ronda@panix.com writes:

I don't disagree that legislati= on would be better if more people
were involved in helping to clarify what is needed.


If we can all agree on this point, I believe we would be experiencing a prof= ound breakthrough, no matter the interpretation.

Larry - --part1_25.35851e27.2b9de127_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:24:10 -0500 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] Democracy (was: Representation...) >In a message dated 3/9/03 10:36:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, >ronda@panix.com writes: > >>I don't disagree that legislation would be better if more people >>were involved in helping to clarify what is needed. >> > > >If we can all agree on this point, I believe we would be >experiencing a profound breakthrough, no matter the interpretation. > >Larry I applaud broader-based participation. My concerns lie variously in: -- the ability of charismatic grass-roots leaders to hijack positions. Do note that there are techniques, such as the Delphi method, to elicit information from all. The potential limitation of these techniques is they tend to require a trusted moderator/facilitator. -- no one interferes technically with the process of information exchange (e.g., hacktivism and spamming can do so) -- the logistics work -- assuming (and I don't see how we can do otherwise) that the unstructured people actually make and enforce decisions, there are ways to convey their consensus to decisionmakers in a manner that well-intentioned decisionmakers can use, rather than be flooded in raw data. -- issue discussions remain many and specifically focused, rather than becoming broad fronts that co-opt positions. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:56:48 -0500 From: Mark Lindeman Subject: Re: [netz] "Equiaccessibility" of access Howard, You lost me when you went into pneumothorax (hmm, that doesn't sound quite right...), but I think you're onto something here. > The matter of accessibility to experts, and their appropriate use, > might also lead to thinking about something about which I don't have a > good name -- indepenent review, democracy-by-proxy, etc. > > Here's the underlying issue. Getting deeply into some issues simply > requires substantial background. Even if large numbers of people > disagree with some position, in the words of Scotty from the original > Star Trek, "Ye canna ignore the laws of physics." This reminds me of a broad discourse on the politics of science and technology which basically poses the question, How can we have democratic control of science and technology when the vast majority of people don't understand the facts -- and never will? This isn't just a rant about scientific illiteracy, although the extent of that is disturbing. Even the best informed among us have enormous zones of absolute ignorance, and areas of dangerously little knowledge. [It's debatable whether science and technology issues are actually distinctive in these respects, but to me that debate seems moot.] Mark Mark ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #430 ******************************