Pirate Party Belgium - User contributions [en]

Democracy/Meeting/12 11 2012

2012-11-14T12:05:27Z

Zenonal: /* Direct democracy and the Pirate party */

The first meeting of the democracy squad was held in Brussels.
Present were Michel Lefebvre, Pierre-Alexandre Klein and Alexandre Zénon.

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss about the statutes of the party. Formal propositions need to be submitted by Nov. 21st.

== Direct democracy and the Pirate party ==
One topic of discussion in this context was the inclusion of direct democracy as a basic principle of the pirate party, written in the statutes. The possibility to adhere to the [http://e2d-international.org/manifesto/ E2D manifesto] was discussed. One potential issue is with the concept of neutrality of the party, i.e. the prevalence of democracy principles over other pirate governing principles such as transparency, privacy and freedom of intellectual property. For instance, if citizens choose to vote for a strengthening of copyright laws, will the pirates follow this decision, given that it is against their principles?

Another topic of discussion was the rules governing the behavior of elected representatives. It was said that they should sign some contract with the party, ensuring they will vote only according to the choices of the citizens. This is however illegal (see this [http://www.proyectos.cchs.csic.es/euroconstitution/library/documents/Council%20of%20State%20Belgium.pdf document]):
"Le système représentatif ainsi instauré par la Constitution implique que les représentants de la na- tion prennent eux-mêmes les décisions dans les matières relevant de leur compétence et que, dans l’exercice de leur mandat, ils ne peuvent être liés, ni en droit, ni en fait."
"Het door de Grondwet aldus ingesteld representatieve stelsel impliceert dat het de volksvertegenwoordigende vergaderingen zijn die de beslis- singen nemen in de aangelegenheden die tot hun bevoegd- heid behoren en dat ze in de uitoefening van hun mandaat, noch in rechte, noch in feite, mogen worden gebonden."

== The structure of the party ==
Another topic is the way to modify the structure of the party to address a list of issues that we are currently facing:
- excess of centralization of power and responsibilities
- lack of trust in this centralized power
- lack of transparency (e.g. budget)
- lack of information flow

=== The "ideal" form ===
We all agreed that the ideal form of structure would be a purely decentralized one but we are unsure about the practicality of it. All the different functions of the party could be fulfilled by squads, e.g. administrative tasks, budget, international communication, organization of a party, etc... Anybody could join any squad. The advantages would be the total openness of the system, the potential for education of the newbies by the most skilled participants in the squad, the division of the tasks in multiple subtasks, etc...
But the problems arise especially when the work of such a squad would affect all the other pirates (e.g. budget). In that case, it is unsure whether this type of organization would allow the work to be done well and in time. It is also unsure how the information about what all the squads are doing would be shared.

=== Some level of centralization ===
A probably better solution would be to have some level of centralization, but keeping it minimal. We prefer to avoid, as far as possible, giving any task to a single elected person. So this centralization organism would be a community of persons. We discussed many different possibilities: free assemblies of any pirates, assemblies of crews captains, assemblies of crews navigators, etc...

=== Assemblies of captains, navigators or boatswains ===
An interesting idea was to have each of the responsibility positions within a crew gather in regular assemblies, whose role would be specific to the position within the crew. For instance, assemblies of captains would have an arbitration role (deciding on reclamations raised by other pirates). Assemblies of navigators would be responsible for working on communication aspects of the party. And boatswains (?, maître d'équipage), could have this role of centralizing the work of all the squads.

=== How this would work ===
So for instance, the assembly of boatswains would gather every 2 weeks or so. One of the crews would be selected randomly to preside the meeting and would change regularly (rotating presidency). All the members of this particular crew would then participate and prepare the agenda, invite the squads representatives, write the minutes, etc... The advancement of each of the squads would then be successively reviewed, with an emphasis on squads that have a global role for all the pirates and for which the deadline is approaching. Squad participants could be invited to the meeting in order to present their advancement.
Then the possibility to define new workgroups could be discussed. If the creation of a new workgroup is decided, at least one of the participants of the meeting takes the responsibility to form a squad to fulfill this particular function. An associated agenda would be created.

=== Outstanding questions ===
How to deal with the different regions-subregions?
What to do when a squad does not satisfy?
What to do if the presidency of the meetings is not satisfying?
...

Democracy/Meeting/12 11 2012

2012-11-13T20:42:18Z

Zenonal:

The first meeting of the democracy squad was held in Brussels.
Present were Michel Lefebvre, Pierre-Alexandre Klein and Alexandre Zénon.

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss about the statutes of the party. Formal propositions need to be submitted by Nov. 21st.

== Direct democracy and the Pirate party ==
One topic of discussion in this context was the inclusion of direct democracy as a basic principle of the pirate party, written in the statutes. The possibility to adhere to the [http://e2d-international.org/manifesto/ E2D manifesto] was discussed. One potential issue is with the concept of neutrality of the party, i.e. the prevalence of democracy principles over other pirate governing principles such as transparency, privacy and freedom of intellectual property. For instance, if citizens choose to vote for a strengthening of copyright laws, will the pirates follow this decision, given that it is against their principles?

Another topic of discussion was the rules governing the behavior of elected representatives. It was said that they should sign some contract with the party, ensuring they will vote only according to the choices of the citizens. The legality of this point is not certain.

== The structure of the party ==
Another topic is the way to modify the structure of the party to address a list of issues that we are currently facing:
- excess of centralization of power and responsibilities
- lack of trust in this centralized power
- lack of transparency (e.g. budget)
- lack of information flow

=== The "ideal" form ===
We all agreed that the ideal form of structure would be a purely decentralized one but we are unsure about the practicality of it. All the different functions of the party could be fulfilled by squads, e.g. administrative tasks, budget, international communication, organization of a party, etc... Anybody could join any squad. The advantages would be the total openness of the system, the potential for education of the newbies by the most skilled participants in the squad, the division of the tasks in multiple subtasks, etc...
But the problems arise especially when the work of such a squad would affect all the other pirates (e.g. budget). In that case, it is unsure whether this type of organization would allow the work to be done well and in time. It is also unsure how the information about what all the squads are doing would be shared.

=== Some level of centralization ===
A probably better solution would be to have some level of centralization, but keeping it minimal. We prefer to avoid, as far as possible, giving any task to a single elected person. So this centralization organism would be a community of persons. We discussed many different possibilities: free assemblies of any pirates, assemblies of crews captains, assemblies of crews navigators, etc...

=== Assemblies of captains, navigators or boatswains ===
An interesting idea was to have each of the responsibility positions within a crew gather in regular assemblies, whose role would be specific to the position within the crew. For instance, assemblies of captains would have an arbitration role (deciding on reclamations raised by other pirates). Assemblies of navigators would be responsible for working on communication aspects of the party. And boatswains (?, maître d'équipage), could have this role of centralizing the work of all the squads.

=== How this would work ===
So for instance, the assembly of boatswains would gather every 2 weeks or so. One of the crews would be selected randomly to preside the meeting and would change regularly (rotating presidency). All the members of this particular crew would then participate and prepare the agenda, invite the squads representatives, write the minutes, etc... The advancement of each of the squads would then be successively reviewed, with an emphasis on squads that have a global role for all the pirates and for which the deadline is approaching. Squad participants could be invited to the meeting in order to present their advancement.
Then the possibility to define new workgroups could be discussed. If the creation of a new workgroup is decided, at least one of the participants of the meeting takes the responsibility to form a squad to fulfill this particular function. An associated agenda would be created.

=== Outstanding questions ===
How to deal with the different regions-subregions?
What to do when a squad does not satisfy?
What to do if the presidency of the meetings is not satisfying?
...

Democracy/Meeting/12 11 2012

2012-11-13T20:41:39Z

Zenonal:

The first meeting of the democracy squad was held in Brussels.
Present were Michel Lefebvre, Pierre-Alexandre Klein and Alexandre Zénon.

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss about the statutes of the party. Formal propositions need to be submitted by Nov. 21st.

== Direct democracy and the Pirate party ==
One topic of discussion in this context was the inclusion of direct democracy as a basic principle of the pirate party, written in the statutes. The possibility to adhere to the [http://e2d-international.org/manifesto/ E2D manifesto] was discussed. One potential issue is with the concept of neutrality of the party, i.e. the prevalence of democracy principles over other pirate governing principles such as transparency, privacy and freedom of intellectual property. For instance, if citizens choose to vote for a strengthening of copyright laws, will the pirates follow this decision, given that it is against their principles?

Another topic of discussion was the rules governing the behavior of elected representatives. It was said that they should sign some contract with the party, ensuring they will vote only according to the choices of the citizens. The legality of this point is not certain.

== The structure of the party ==
Another topic is the way to modify the structure of the party to address a list of issues that we are currently facing:
- excess of centralization of power and responsibilities
- lack of trust in this centralized power
- lack of transparency (e.g. budget)
- lack of information flow

= The "ideal" form =
We all agreed that the ideal form of structure would be a purely decentralized one but we are unsure about the practicality of it. All the different functions of the party could be fulfilled by squads, e.g. administrative tasks, budget, international communication, organization of a party, etc... Anybody could join any squad. The advantages would be the total openness of the system, the potential for education of the newbies by the most skilled participants in the squad, the division of the tasks in multiple subtasks, etc...
But the problems arise especially when the work of such a squad would affect all the other pirates (e.g. budget). In that case, it is unsure whether this type of organization would allow the work to be done well and in time. It is also unsure how the information about what all the squads are doing would be shared.

Some level of centralization
A probably better solution would be to have some level of centralization, but keeping it minimal. We prefer to avoid, as far as possible, giving any task to a single elected person. So this centralization organism would be a community of persons. We discussed many different possibilities: free assemblies of any pirates, assemblies of crews captains, assemblies of crews navigators, etc...

Assemblies of captains, navigators or boatswains
An interesting idea was to have each of the responsibility positions within a crew gather in regular assemblies, whose role would be specific to the position within the crew. For instance, assemblies of captains would have an arbitration role (deciding on reclamations raised by other pirates). Assemblies of navigators would be responsible for working on communication aspects of the party. And boatswains (?, maître d'équipage), could have this role of centralizing the work of all the squads.

How this would work
So for instance, the assembly of boatswains would gather every 2 weeks or so. One of the crews would be selected randomly to preside the meeting and would change regularly (rotating presidency). All the members of this particular crew would then participate and prepare the agenda, invite the squads representatives, write the minutes, etc... The advancement of each of the squads would then be successively reviewed, with an emphasis on squads that have a global role for all the pirates and for which the deadline is approaching. Squad participants could be invited to the meeting in order to present their advancement.
Then the possibility to define new workgroups could be discussed. If the creation of a new workgroup is decided, at least one of the participants of the meeting takes the responsibility to form a squad to fulfill this particular function. An associated agenda would be created.

Outstanding questions
How to deal with the different regions-subregions?
What to do when a squad does not satisfy?
What to do if the presidency of the meetings is not satisfying?
...

Democracy/Meeting/12 11 2012

2012-11-13T20:41:21Z

Zenonal:

The first meeting of the democracy squad was held in Brussels.
Present were Michel Lefebvre, Pierre-Alexandre Klein and Alexandre Zénon.

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss about the statutes of the party. Formal propositions need to be submitted by Nov. 21st.

== Direct democracy and the Pirate party ==
One topic of discussion in this context was the inclusion of direct democracy as a basic principle of the pirate party, written in the statutes. The possibility to adhere to the [http://e2d-international.org/manifesto/ E2D manifesto] was discussed. One potential issue is with the concept of neutrality of the party, i.e. the prevalence of democracy principles over other pirate governing principles such as transparency, privacy and freedom of intellectual property. For instance, if citizens choose to vote for a strengthening of copyright laws, will the pirates follow this decision, given that it is against their principles?

Another topic of discussion was the rules governing the behavior of elected representatives. It was said that they should sign some contract with the party, ensuring they will vote only according to the choices of the citizens. The legality of this point is not certain.

== The structure of the party ==
Another topic is the way to modify the structure of the party to address a list of issues that we are currently facing:
- excess of centralization of power and responsibilities
- lack of trust in this centralized power
- lack of transparency (e.g. budget)
- lack of information flow

=== The "ideal" form ===
We all agreed that the ideal form of structure would be a purely decentralized one but we are unsure about the practicality of it. All the different functions of the party could be fulfilled by squads, e.g. administrative tasks, budget, international communication, organization of a party, etc... Anybody could join any squad. The advantages would be the total openness of the system, the potential for education of the newbies by the most skilled participants in the squad, the division of the tasks in multiple subtasks, etc...
But the problems arise especially when the work of such a squad would affect all the other pirates (e.g. budget). In that case, it is unsure whether this type of organization would allow the work to be done well and in time. It is also unsure how the information about what all the squads are doing would be shared.

Some level of centralization
A probably better solution would be to have some level of centralization, but keeping it minimal. We prefer to avoid, as far as possible, giving any task to a single elected person. So this centralization organism would be a community of persons. We discussed many different possibilities: free assemblies of any pirates, assemblies of crews captains, assemblies of crews navigators, etc...

Assemblies of captains, navigators or boatswains
An interesting idea was to have each of the responsibility positions within a crew gather in regular assemblies, whose role would be specific to the position within the crew. For instance, assemblies of captains would have an arbitration role (deciding on reclamations raised by other pirates). Assemblies of navigators would be responsible for working on communication aspects of the party. And boatswains (?, maître d'équipage), could have this role of centralizing the work of all the squads.

How this would work
So for instance, the assembly of boatswains would gather every 2 weeks or so. One of the crews would be selected randomly to preside the meeting and would change regularly (rotating presidency). All the members of this particular crew would then participate and prepare the agenda, invite the squads representatives, write the minutes, etc... The advancement of each of the squads would then be successively reviewed, with an emphasis on squads that have a global role for all the pirates and for which the deadline is approaching. Squad participants could be invited to the meeting in order to present their advancement.
Then the possibility to define new workgroups could be discussed. If the creation of a new workgroup is decided, at least one of the participants of the meeting takes the responsibility to form a squad to fulfill this particular function. An associated agenda would be created.

Outstanding questions
How to deal with the different regions-subregions?
What to do when a squad does not satisfy?
What to do if the presidency of the meetings is not satisfying?
...

Democracy/Meeting/12 11 2012

2012-11-13T20:41:02Z

Zenonal:

The first meeting of the democracy squad was held in Brussels.
Present were Michel Lefebvre, Pierre-Alexandre Klein and Alexandre Zénon.

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss about the statutes of the party. Formal propositions need to be submitted by Nov. 21st.

== Direct democracy and the Pirate party ==
One topic of discussion in this context was the inclusion of direct democracy as a basic principle of the pirate party, written in the statutes. The possibility to adhere to the [http://e2d-international.org/manifesto/ E2D manifesto] was discussed. One potential issue is with the concept of neutrality of the party, i.e. the prevalence of democracy principles over other pirate governing principles such as transparency, privacy and freedom of intellectual property. For instance, if citizens choose to vote for a strengthening of copyright laws, will the pirates follow this decision, given that it is against their principles?

Another topic of discussion was the rules governing the behavior of elected representatives. It was said that they should sign some contract with the party, ensuring they will vote only according to the choices of the citizens. The legality of this point is not certain.

== The structure of the party ==
Another topic is the way to modify the structure of the party to address a list of issues that we are currently facing:
- excess of centralization of power and responsibilities
- lack of trust in this centralized power
- lack of transparency (e.g. budget)
- lack of information flow

The "ideal" form
We all agreed that the ideal form of structure would be a purely decentralized one but we are unsure about the practicality of it. All the different functions of the party could be fulfilled by squads, e.g. administrative tasks, budget, international communication, organization of a party, etc... Anybody could join any squad. The advantages would be the total openness of the system, the potential for education of the newbies by the most skilled participants in the squad, the division of the tasks in multiple subtasks, etc...
But the problems arise especially when the work of such a squad would affect all the other pirates (e.g. budget). In that case, it is unsure whether this type of organization would allow the work to be done well and in time. It is also unsure how the information about what all the squads are doing would be shared.

Some level of centralization
A probably better solution would be to have some level of centralization, but keeping it minimal. We prefer to avoid, as far as possible, giving any task to a single elected person. So this centralization organism would be a community of persons. We discussed many different possibilities: free assemblies of any pirates, assemblies of crews captains, assemblies of crews navigators, etc...

Assemblies of captains, navigators or boatswains
An interesting idea was to have each of the responsibility positions within a crew gather in regular assemblies, whose role would be specific to the position within the crew. For instance, assemblies of captains would have an arbitration role (deciding on reclamations raised by other pirates). Assemblies of navigators would be responsible for working on communication aspects of the party. And boatswains (?, maître d'équipage), could have this role of centralizing the work of all the squads.

How this would work
So for instance, the assembly of boatswains would gather every 2 weeks or so. One of the crews would be selected randomly to preside the meeting and would change regularly (rotating presidency). All the members of this particular crew would then participate and prepare the agenda, invite the squads representatives, write the minutes, etc... The advancement of each of the squads would then be successively reviewed, with an emphasis on squads that have a global role for all the pirates and for which the deadline is approaching. Squad participants could be invited to the meeting in order to present their advancement.
Then the possibility to define new workgroups could be discussed. If the creation of a new workgroup is decided, at least one of the participants of the meeting takes the responsibility to form a squad to fulfill this particular function. An associated agenda would be created.

Outstanding questions
How to deal with the different regions-subregions?
What to do when a squad does not satisfy?
What to do if the presidency of the meetings is not satisfying?
...

Democracy/Meeting/12 11 2012

2012-11-13T20:29:27Z

Zenonal:

Democracy/Meeting/12 11 2012

2012-11-13T20:21:02Z

Zenonal:

Democracy/Meeting/12 11 2012

2012-11-13T20:11:17Z

Zenonal:

Democracy/Meeting/12 11 2012

2012-11-13T20:00:29Z

Zenonal: Created page with "First meeting of the democracy squad"

First meeting of the democracy squad

Democracy

2012-11-13T19:59:56Z

Zenonal:

{{SquadSidebarEN|place=None|street=|number=|postalcode=|city=|captain=Undefined|navigator=Undefined|treasurekeeper=None|squadname=Democracy}}
== Objectives of the squad ==
The purposes of this squad are to

1. help define what a [[Pirate Democracy]] could be (working documents and presentations are listed there)

2. interact with other Pirates to try to reach a consensus on this question

3. help publicize our view on democracy (provided point 2 is achieved)

4. work on the tools that will be needed to implement this new type of democracy

== Meetings ==
[[November 12th 2012]]

== Contact ==
For questions, comments, etc... please write to Alex at zenon.alex@gmail.com (we have a mailing list but only recently. Please subscribe the list on the bottom of this page).

== Content ==
The important concepts that need to be discussed include:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy direct democracy]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_voting#Delegated_voting liquid democracy]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy deliberative democracy]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-democracy E-democracy]

General overview:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Forms Forms of Democracy]

== References ==

[http://www.democracy-international.org/book-direct-democracy.html book direct democracy]

facts, arguments and experiences on the introduction of initiative and referendum

This book is a must for anyone who has an interest in the current changes in society. It is available for free in eight languages.

[http://www.iri-europe.org/publications/guidebooks/ IRI Guidebooks to Direct Democracy]

It is the goal of the Initiative and Referendum Institute, Europe's first think-tank on modern direct democracy founded in 2001, to make a significant contribution to improving the knowledge of the history and practice of direct democracy – in the world in general, and especially in Europe.

That is why the IRI "Guidebook to Direct Democracy" (published in English, French, Spanish, German, Korean, Italian, Finnish and Chinese) focuses on the place where the tools which allow citizens to take part in political decision-making are the most extensive and have been used for the longest period of time – Switzerland. Over the past 150 years, citizens' rights have been continually extended and now cover all the levels of political life (national, cantonal and local) and all areas of politics (including foreign policy).

[http://liqd.net/en/schwerpunkte/theoretische-grundlagen/liquid-democracy/ Liquid democracy]

The idea of “Liquid Democracy” has already been circulating on the web for a couple of years, however without any suggestions for a specific execution. The core of the idea is delegated voting, which removes the previous separation between representative democratic and direct democratic decisions. The principle of delegated voting is the base for all Liquid Democracy concepts, however the idea itself is not sufficient when it comes to the describtion of complex political processes. Since the end of 2008 people associated with the current Liquid Democracy e.V. deal with the theme of liquid democracy and try to advance it ever since.

The term “Liquid Democracy”, LD stands for a new form of democracy in which various “rigid“ barriers are being “fluidised“.

== Mailing list ==
{{#widget:Mailinglist|value=cHAuYmUuZGVtb2NyYXRpZUBwaXJhdGVwYXJ0eS5iZQ==}} pp.be.democratie@pirateparty.be

Pirate Democracy

2012-08-12T14:32:39Z

Zenonal:

= Basic definition =

'''Permanent direct democracy with proxy voting.'''

Permanent: 24/7, not restricted to once every 4 years

Direct: citizens have the possibility to propose new law proposals and vote on law proposals by themselves, without the need for an elected representative

Democracy: legislative power of the citizens (citizen sovereignty)

Proxy voting: any citizen may delegate her vote to whom she wishes, change delegate anytime, or vote herself whenever she wants to.

= Implementation =
== Proxy voting ==
* The scope of vote delegation should be kept as broad as possible initially, but voters should be given the opportunity to change the rules and limit their own voting possibilities later on. More concretely:
** No limitation on the number of delegated votes
** Transitive voting without limitation

= Outstanding questions =
== Principles ==
* How about the formation of a government? How about executive power?
* What would be the role of sortition ("tirage au sort") and deliberative democracy?
* Do we need other institutions than just the citizens voting on law proposals (e.g. a judicial committee to write law proposals in judicial language, an "expert" committee to provide advices and opinions on law proposals, etc...).
== Technical details ==
* Should delegation be transitive? i.e. I delegate my vote to X who delegates her vote to Y, who delegates her vote to Z, so I delegate my vote to Z.
** For: you trusted Y, whatever his decision, so you should trust his decision to delegate as well.
* Should delegates receive a compensation for their work?
** For: this will provide an incentive for people to invest time in studying law proposals
** Against: This will leave the door open to professional politician who can abuse the system
* Should there be a limit to the number of votes a delegate can gather?
** Against: people should have the freedom to vote whatever they want

== Axioms for a democratic decision making system ==
* Nobody has more decision-making power than anybody else
* The threshold to perform any action in the system needs to be as low as possible
* Everybody needs to be able to make and vote any proposal
* The freedom to do what you want with your vote needs to be as unlimited as possible.
* The final result needs to reflect the intentions of the voters as much as possible.
* Nobody can gain more influence on the final result through strategic proposals or voting.
* You have to be able to verify what happend to your vote.
* Every voting needs to be verifiable.
* Everybody has the right to remain anonymous.

== Presentations and documents ==
[http://www.e2d-i.net/Direct%20Democracy%20e20120627.ppt Direct Democracy ppt presentation]

Pirate Democracy

2012-08-12T14:32:13Z

Zenonal:

= Basic definition =

'''Permanent direct democracy with proxy voting.'''

Permanent: 24/7, not restricted to once every 4 years

Direct: citizens have the possibility to propose new law proposals and vote on law proposals by themselves, without the need for an elected representative

Democracy: legislative power of the citizens (citizen sovereignty)

Proxy voting: any citizen may delegate her vote to whom she wishes, change delegate anytime, or vote herself whenever she wants to.

= Implementation =
== Vote delegation ==
* The scope of vote delegation should be kept as broad as possible initially, but voters should be given the opportunity to change the rules and limit their own voting possibilities later on. More concretely:
** No limitation on the number of delegated votes
** Transitive voting without limitation

= Outstanding questions =
== Principles ==
* How about the formation of a government? How about executive power?
* What would be the role of sortition ("tirage au sort") and deliberative democracy?
* Do we need other institutions than just the citizens voting on law proposals (e.g. a judicial committee to write law proposals in judicial language, an "expert" committee to provide advices and opinions on law proposals, etc...).
== Technical details ==
* Should delegation be transitive? i.e. I delegate my vote to X who delegates her vote to Y, who delegates her vote to Z, so I delegate my vote to Z.
** For: you trusted Y, whatever his decision, so you should trust his decision to delegate as well.
* Should delegates receive a compensation for their work?
** For: this will provide an incentive for people to invest time in studying law proposals
** Against: This will leave the door open to professional politician who can abuse the system
* Should there be a limit to the number of votes a delegate can gather?
** Against: people should have the freedom to vote whatever they want

== Axioms for a democratic decision making system ==
* Nobody has more decision-making power than anybody else
* The threshold to perform any action in the system needs to be as low as possible
* Everybody needs to be able to make and vote any proposal
* The freedom to do what you want with your vote needs to be as unlimited as possible.
* The final result needs to reflect the intentions of the voters as much as possible.
* Nobody can gain more influence on the final result through strategic proposals or voting.
* You have to be able to verify what happend to your vote.
* Every voting needs to be verifiable.
* Everybody has the right to remain anonymous.

== Presentations and documents ==
[http://www.e2d-i.net/Direct%20Democracy%20e20120627.ppt Direct Democracy ppt presentation]

Pirate Democracy

2012-08-12T14:31:43Z

Zenonal: technical implementation

= Basic definition =

'''Permanent direct democracy with proxy voting.'''

Permanent: 24/7, not restricted to once every 4 years

Direct: citizens have the possibility to propose new law proposals and vote on law proposals by themselves, without the need for an elected representative

Democracy: legislative power of the citizens (citizen sovereignty)

Proxy voting: any citizen may delegate her vote to whom she wishes, change delegate anytime, or vote herself whenever she wants to.

= Implementation =
* Vote delegation
** The scope of vote delegation should be kept as broad as possible initially, but voters should be given the opportunity to change the rules and limit their own voting possibilities later on. More concretely:
*** No limitation on the number of delegated votes
*** Transitive voting without limitation

= Outstanding questions =
== Principles ==
* How about the formation of a government? How about executive power?
* What would be the role of sortition ("tirage au sort") and deliberative democracy?
* Do we need other institutions than just the citizens voting on law proposals (e.g. a judicial committee to write law proposals in judicial language, an "expert" committee to provide advices and opinions on law proposals, etc...).
== Technical details ==
* Should delegation be transitive? i.e. I delegate my vote to X who delegates her vote to Y, who delegates her vote to Z, so I delegate my vote to Z.
** For: you trusted Y, whatever his decision, so you should trust his decision to delegate as well.
* Should delegates receive a compensation for their work?
** For: this will provide an incentive for people to invest time in studying law proposals
** Against: This will leave the door open to professional politician who can abuse the system
* Should there be a limit to the number of votes a delegate can gather?
** Against: people should have the freedom to vote whatever they want

== Axioms for a democratic decision making system ==
* Nobody has more decision-making power than anybody else
* The threshold to perform any action in the system needs to be as low as possible
* Everybody needs to be able to make and vote any proposal
* The freedom to do what you want with your vote needs to be as unlimited as possible.
* The final result needs to reflect the intentions of the voters as much as possible.
* Nobody can gain more influence on the final result through strategic proposals or voting.
* You have to be able to verify what happend to your vote.
* Every voting needs to be verifiable.
* Everybody has the right to remain anonymous.

== Presentations and documents ==
[http://www.e2d-i.net/Direct%20Democracy%20e20120627.ppt Direct Democracy ppt presentation]

Pirate Democracy

2012-08-06T19:44:52Z

Zenonal:

Pirate Democracy

2012-08-06T19:43:21Z

Zenonal: First draft

= Basic definition =

[[Permanent direct democracy with proxy voting.]]

Permanent: 24/7, not restricted to once every 4 years

Direct: citizens have the possibility to propose new law proposals and vote on law proposals by themselves, without the need for an elected representative

Democracy: legislative power of the citizens (citizen sovereignty)

Proxy voting: any citizen may delegate her vote to whom she wishes, change delegate anytime, or vote herself whenever she wants to.

= Outstanding questions =
== Principles ==
* How about the formation of a government? How about executive power?
* What would be the role of sortition ("tirage au sort") and deliberative democracy?
* Do we need other institutions than just the citizens voting on law proposals (e.g. a judicial committee to write law proposals in judicial language, an "expert" committee to provide advices and opinions on law proposals, etc...).
== Technical details ==
* Should delegation be transitive? i.e. I delegate my vote to X who delegates her vote to Y, who delegates her vote to Z, so I delegate my vote to Z.
* Should delegates receive a compensation for their work?
** For: this will provide an incentive for people to invest time in studying law proposals
** Against: This will leave the door open to professional politician who can abuse the system
* Should there be a limit to the number of votes a delegate can gather?

Democracy

2012-06-28T17:27:05Z

Zenonal:

== Objectives of the squad ==
The purposes of this squad are to

1. help define what a [[Pirate Democracy]] could be

2. interact with other Pirates to try to reach a consensus on this question

3. help publicize our view on democracy (provided point 2 is achieved)

4. work on the tools that will be needed to implement this new type of democracy

== Meetings ==
We will try to meet every month but a time and place still needs to be defined.
Meetings will be held in Brussels.

== Contact ==
For questions, comments, etc... please write to Alex at zenon.alex@gmail.com (we don't have a mailing list yet).

== Content ==
The important concepts that need to be discussed include:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy direct democracy]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_voting#Delegated_voting liquid democracy]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy deliberative democracy]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-democracy E-democracy]

General overview:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Forms Forms of Democracy]

== References ==

[http://www.democracy-international.org/book-direct-democracy.html book direct democracy]

facts, arguments and experiences on the introduction of initiative and referendum

This book is a must for anyone who has an interest in the current changes in society. It is available for free in eight languages.

[http://www.iri-europe.org/publications/guidebooks/ IRI Guidebooks to Direct Democracy]

It is the goal of the Initiative and Referendum Institute, Europe's first think-tank on modern direct democracy founded in 2001, to make a significant contribution to improving the knowledge of the history and practice of direct democracy – in the world in general, and especially in Europe.

That is why the IRI "Guidebook to Direct Democracy" (published in English, French, Spanish, German, Korean, Italian, Finnish and Chinese) focuses on the place where the tools which allow citizens to take part in political decision-making are the most extensive and have been used for the longest period of time – Switzerland. Over the past 150 years, citizens' rights have been continually extended and now cover all the levels of political life (national, cantonal and local) and all areas of politics (including foreign policy).

[http://liqd.net/en/schwerpunkte/theoretische-grundlagen/liquid-democracy/ Liquid democracy]

The idea of “Liquid Democracy” has already been circulating on the web for a couple of years, however without any suggestions for a specific execution. The core of the idea is delegated voting, which removes the previous separation between representative democratic and direct democratic decisions. The principle of delegated voting is the base for all Liquid Democracy concepts, however the idea itself is not sufficient when it comes to the describtion of complex political processes. Since the end of 2008 people associated with the current Liquid Democracy e.V. deal with the theme of liquid democracy and try to advance it ever since.

The term “Liquid Democracy”, LD stands for a new form of democracy in which various “rigid“ barriers are being “fluidised“.

== To do ==
Create a mailing list.

Democracy

2012-06-26T18:28:48Z

Zenonal: Link to the Pirate Democracy page

== Objectives of the squad ==
The purposes of this squad are to

1. help define what a [[Pirate Democracy]] could be

2. interact with other Pirates to try to reach a consensus on this question

3. help publicize our view on democracy (provided point 2 is achieved)

4. work on the tools that will be needed to implement this new type of democracy

== Meetings ==
We will try to meet every month but a time and place still needs to be defined.
Meetings will be held in Brussels and in English (to allow all communities to participate), unless another solution seems preferable.

== Content ==
The important concepts that need to be discussed include:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy direct democracy]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_voting#Delegated_voting liquid democracy]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy deliberative democracy]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-democracy E-democracy]

General overview:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Forms Forms of Democracy]

== References ==

[http://www.democracy-international.org/book-direct-democracy.html book direct democracy]

facts, arguments and experiences on the introduction of initiative and referendum

This book is a must for anyone who has an interest in the current changes in society. It is available for free in eight languages.

[http://www.iri-europe.org/publications/guidebooks/ IRI Guidebooks to Direct Democracy]

It is the goal of the Initiative and Referendum Institute, Europe's first think-tank on modern direct democracy founded in 2001, to make a significant contribution to improving the knowledge of the history and practice of direct democracy – in the world in general, and especially in Europe.

That is why the IRI "Guidebook to Direct Democracy" (published in English, French, Spanish, German, Korean, Italian, Finnish and Chinese) focuses on the place where the tools which allow citizens to take part in political decision-making are the most extensive and have been used for the longest period of time – Switzerland. Over the past 150 years, citizens' rights have been continually extended and now cover all the levels of political life (national, cantonal and local) and all areas of politics (including foreign policy).

[http://liqd.net/en/schwerpunkte/theoretische-grundlagen/liquid-democracy/ Liquid democracy]

The idea of “Liquid Democracy” has already been circulating on the web for a couple of years, however without any suggestions for a specific execution. The core of the idea is delegated voting, which removes the previous separation between representative democratic and direct democratic decisions. The principle of delegated voting is the base for all Liquid Democracy concepts, however the idea itself is not sufficient when it comes to the describtion of complex political processes. Since the end of 2008 people associated with the current Liquid Democracy e.V. deal with the theme of liquid democracy and try to advance it ever since.

The term “Liquid Democracy”, LD stands for a new form of democracy in which various “rigid“ barriers are being “fluidised“.

== To do ==
Create a mailing list.

Democracy

2012-06-25T18:15:35Z

Zenonal:

== Objectives of the squad ==
The purposes of this squad are to

1. help define what a Pirate Democracy could be

2. interact with other Pirates to try to reach a consensus on this question

3. help publicize our view on democracy (provided point 2 is achieved)

4. work on the tools that will be needed to implement this new type of democracy

== Meetings ==
We will try to meet every month but a time and place still needs to be defined.
Meetings will be held in Brussels and in English (to allow all communities to participate), unless another solution seems preferable.

== Content ==
The important concepts that need to be discussed include:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy direct democracy]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_voting#Delegated_voting liquid democracy]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy deliberative democracy]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-democracy E-democracy]

== To do ==
Create a mailing list.

Democracy

2012-06-25T18:14:45Z

Zenonal:

Democracy

2012-06-25T18:12:25Z

Zenonal:

== Objective of the squad ==
The purpose of this squad is to

1. help define what a Pirate Democracy could be

2. interact with other Pirates to try to reach a consensus on this question

3. help publicize our view on democracy (provided point 2 is achieved)

4. work on the tools that will be needed to implement this new type of democracy

== Meetings ==
We will try to meet every month but a time and place still needs to be defined.
Meetings will be held in Brussels and in English (to allow all communities to participate), unless another solution seems preferable.

== Content ==
The important concepts that need to be discussed include:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy direct democracy]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_voting#Delegated_voting liquid democracy]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy deliberative democracy]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-democracy E-democracy]

Democracy

2012-06-25T18:11:57Z

Zenonal:

== Objective of the squad ==
The purpose of this squad is to

1. help define what a Pirate Democracy could be

2. interact with other Pirates to try to reach a consensus on this question

3. help publicize our view on democracy (provided point 2 is achieved)

4. work on the tools that will be needed to implement this new type of democracy

== Meetings ==
We will try to meet every month but a time and place still needs to be defined.
Meetings will be held in Brussels and in English (to allow all communities to participate), unless another solution seems preferable.

== Content ==
The important concepts that need to be discussed include:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy direct democracy]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_voting#Delegated_voting liquid democracy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy deliberative democracy]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-democracy E-democracy]

Democracy

2012-06-25T18:05:32Z

Zenonal: Creation of the democracy squad