Massively Collaborative Direct Democracy

From Mass-Collaboration.net

Massively collaborative direct democracy (MCDD) is a theoretical form of government wherein sovereignty is lodged in the assembly of all citizens who choose to participate. Participation occurs in an electronic massively collaborative assembly of citizens. Massively collaborative direct democracy does not employ elected officials, the collective consciousness of the populous is a self-policing and self-governing entity.

1 Structure of a Massively Collaborative Direct Democracy
2 Apathy
3 Examples
4 Status
5 See Also

Structure of a Massively Collaborative Direct Democracy

General Structure

The general structure of a massively collaborative direct democracy can best be described as a database with a wiki interface. Citizens of a MCDD will discuss and modify laws and policies much the same way they might edit or discuss an article on Wikipedia.

The functioning of a massively collaborative direct democracy depends on computer software. The software required is Goal Oriented Mass Collaboration Software.

Structure of Legislation

Laws are based on goals. For example, a goal to provide safety for society in general might be connected with the creation of thousands of laws focusing on crime and punishment. Therefore, a hierarchical structure is required for the organization of legislation. The hierarchy of legislation consists of the following levels:

Goals that define the general and fundamental desires of the society.
Objectives that define specific pre-requisites for achieving the parent goal. For example, an objective for the goal of providing safety might be to prevent citizens access to certain kinds of weapons.
Policies that define specific rules or guidelines that must be followed to achieve the parent objective. This could be a ban on the sale of a particular kind of weapon.

Within this hierarchy, policies of crime and punishment can be drafted, budgets can be created, projects can be outlined, and entire agencies can be created. All of the functions of government can be executed or created through this hierarchical system.

Editing Legislation

Any citizen can create and discuss any goals, objectives, or policies that apply to him directly or indirectly as a citizen. Additionally, any citizen can participate in discussions regarding goals, objectives, and policies that do not apply to them directly or indirectly based on the concept that they might make valuable contributions to such legislation. Unlike Wikis, users do not edit legislation directly, but through discussion. Users must make proposals for changes to legislation, the proposals are discussed in a highly organized and focused way, and the discussion leads to a resolution that will become part of the legislation. Below is an example of how the process works.

A user writes a proposal to change a gun law that contains wording that allows for a very powerful and dangerous type of weapon to be sold legally (a loop hole in the policy). The proposal would effectively ban this type of weapon from being sold commercially.
Other users examine the new wording and participate in a discussion about the changes. Some users might argue that the wording does in fact ban the weapon in question and that anyone selling the weapon is in violation of the policy. Some users might point out that even the new proposed wording does not effectively exclude the weapon.
Finally, new wording is agreed upon by those participating in the discussion and this resolution becomes part of the existing policy instantly.

Voting

Voting is a part of the discussion process and is involved in the formation of a resolution. During discussions, users rate each others proposals for the resolution until one resolution emerges that is agreed upon by a mass majority of those participating in the discussion. A mass majority is loosely defined at this point, the goal for any resolution should be completely unanimity. However, it is likely that some users will be difficult, stubborn, and irrational, and slow the legislative process. Therefore, a mass majority is not quantified numerically, but users can discuss the comments of difficult voters and come to a resolution that their vote is based on irrational reasoning.

Anonymity

Voting and participation in discussions can be anonymous, but each user must have a unique and persistent identity. This means that there should not be a way to identify a user's real-world identity, but that there should be a way to see a users history of activity on the system.

Compensation

Working on legislation should be compensated for. As government workers are paid a salary for their work, so should collaborationists be paid for their contributions to collaborative legislation. The payment system should be based on the amount of progress associated with a users contributions. For example, if a user posts nonsense to threads, those contributions will be voted down by other users and the user will not receive credit for them. However, if a user posts useful information, those contributions will be voted up by other users and the user will receive credit for them.

Apathy

A common concern regarding direct democracy is that citizens are apathetic to government activities and policies. Most citizens don't even bother to vote. However, MCDD gives citizens real power, real control, and immerses them in the business of running their society. This will give citizens a strong motivation to pay attention to policy changes to keep their society healthy. Participating in a massively collaborative direct democracy is far more significant and meaningful than casting a vote for one giant bundle of promises over another as is the case in a republican democracy. Apathy will exist in MCDDs, but it will be minimal and will not harm the effectiveness of the system. Consider the fact that there are millions of people who have never edited a page on Wikipedia, yet Wikipedia is by far the greatest encyclopedia ever written.

Examples

www.futuremelbourne.com.au/wiki - a wiki-based collaborative environment for developing Melbourne's 10 year plan, which, during public consultation periods, enables the public to edit the plan with the same editing rights as city personnel and councilors.
New Zealand Police Act - In 2006 the New Zealand government allowed the public to collaboratively develop suggested wording for a new police act.
DemocracyLab - A Portland Oregon based nonprofit organization seeking to connect the values people hold to their positions on issues and the policies they advocate. Currently partnering with the Oregon 150 Project to help high school students in the state craft a vision of what Oregon should look like in 2059.

Status

Tracking the status of the movement towards massively collaborative direct democracy. The following links demonstrate the increasing popularity of the theory behind massively collaborative direct democracy.