euroliquid
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revisionNext revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
euroliquid [2012/08/04 03:42] – [Member Weights] robotica | euroliquid [2012/08/14 16:36] – [Subscription and Certification] robotica | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 103: | Line 103: | ||
===== Member Weights ===== | ===== Member Weights ===== | ||
- | Member weights is the most delicate argument of PP-EU models. | + | Member weights is the most delicate argument of PP-EU model. |
- | In Euroliquid | + | In Euroliquid, member weight is represented by the number of tokens given to each member; |
the best way to assign weights is according to the **Square root of voters**. | the best way to assign weights is according to the **Square root of voters**. | ||
Line 113: | Line 113: | ||
== Reasons == | == Reasons == | ||
* It's easy! Only one parameter. | * It's easy! Only one parameter. | ||
- | * No exceptions, no complicated rules to remember | + | * No exception, no complicated rules to remember, easy to understand it. |
- | * Reaches | + | * Reach the goal: balance representativeness of bigger members and give a voice to the smaller ones. |
- | * Alredy used by EU for seats distribution of European Parliament ([[euroliquid: | + | * Alredy used for seats distribution of European Parliament ([[euroliquid: |
* Has strong [[euroliquid: | * Has strong [[euroliquid: | ||
Line 121: | Line 121: | ||
== Confederations == | == Confederations == | ||
- | What happens when 2 or more regional | + | What happens when 2 or more regional Pirate Parties of the __same country__ |
+ | |||
+ | Easy, they split the weight of their total voters. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Assuming for example 3 confederated parties: P< | ||
- | Easy, they split the total weight of their sum: | ||
* W< | * W< | ||
* W< | * W< | ||
* W< | * W< | ||
+ | ---- | ||
+ | A represents the voters of the party P< | ||
+ | B represents the voters of the party P< | ||
+ | C represents the voters of the party P< | ||
- | ===== Certification ===== | + | W< |
+ | W< | ||
+ | W< | ||
+ | |||
+ | \\ | ||
+ | ===== Subscription and Certification ===== | ||
Euroliquid platform has to be as much reliable as possible on representativeness of the Pirates. | Euroliquid platform has to be as much reliable as possible on representativeness of the Pirates. | ||
To avoid fakes and multiple subscriptions will be taken some precautions, | To avoid fakes and multiple subscriptions will be taken some precautions, | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Chamber of Representers subscription == | ||
+ | |||
+ | Each party member will receive a number of tokens according to the | ||
+ | weight of that Party in Euroliquid (as explained in weight section). | ||
+ | |||
+ | The party member will distribute those tokens to the representers they choose among their pirates. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Representers will use the tokens to enter in Euroliquid with the " | ||
+ | |||
+ | Representers are public officials, cannot be anonymous and have to publish their presonal data (Name, Surname, PP-XX, City, E-Mail and photo). Very welcome PGP finger print. | ||
+ | == Chamber of Pirates subscription == | ||
+ | |||
+ | Each Pirate can partecipate in Euroliquid platform. The only requirement is to be associate to a Pirate Party Member. | ||
+ | |||
+ | At the moment of subscription in the platform, the email of the pirate is automatically checked on the list of members of his party. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The list of members can be a php ajax script, a wiki, an encrypted table, a xml file, or just a mailing list. The party member will decide the way to confirm the subscriber' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The email address and the country / party will be the only obbligatory fields, all the other info are optional and the pirate can choose to remain almost anonymous. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Almost anonymous means that the representers have the autority to ask informations about any pirate to their secretariat to verify if it is real. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Bootstrap Proposal ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Long term set-up principles: | ||
+ | * For transparency, | ||
+ | * Participants are politicians thus bound to transparency. Their realnames and affiliations are displayed in their public profiles. Further data is optional. | ||
+ | * The database shall be downloadable in its entirety so anyone can set up a mirror of it. | ||
+ | * Should the European Pirates be doubtful of the Italian administration, | ||
+ | |||
+ | The euroliquid bootstrap is a sort of " | ||
+ | |||
+ | * We only create one area called " | ||
+ | * We only admit one delegate per partipating EU country to start with, so you have to coordinate among each other what your vote should be. You can use your own liquid feedback to find your party' | ||
+ | * We only create one voting-policy which is 100%-majority also known as consensus. | ||
+ | * To even start the debate, the quorum is at 50/100 - so the majority of participants needs to agree that something needs to be debated. | ||
+ | * For a proposal to pass to the vote, 10/100 support is sufficient, so you can add an extra voting option last-minute in the verification period and have a couple of folks support it. | ||
+ | * For rapid bootstrap it has a one two day new, four day debate, one day verify and three day vote policy. This is just for bootstrap presuming there will always be one delegate per member party that finds the time to participate. | ||
+ | * Whenever consensus isn't reached on time, we can reopen the same debate. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The things we will have to find consensus upon are: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Potential changes to the bootstrap policies above. | ||
+ | * Weighting maths for future non-consensus voting: by which formula do some countries get more voting power then others? Population size? Success of respective Pirate Party? | ||
+ | * How to handle participation of non-EU members. | ||
+ | * How to handle multi-ethnic/ | ||
+ | * Certification and administration procedures for slowly growing the number of participants: | ||
+ | * Suitable "no protection" | ||
+ | * Develop the policies for long-term euroliquid discussion areas: debate on statute amendments and programmatic themes. | ||
+ | * Consider long haul policies for longer debates and majority vote options. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The euroliquid bootstrap process may appear a bit strange at first, but the short term goal is to have several delegates per country, the mid term goal is to have hundreds of Pirates (and large-majority-based decision making) and the long term goal is to one day be able to host all Pirates that are willing to take on the responsability of being a European politician. | ||
+ | |||
+ | To achieve that we will have to wait for newer versions of the software that allow for weighted voting of participants. Until then we do the weighting by a counted number of participants. We can slowly grow the system into the hundreds of Pirate participants per country and still be weighted by a fair formula that respects big and small countries - and we can decide together when and how to do this. The speed at which we move there depends on the priority all the parties give to it and provide for accreditations of further participants. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
(continue) | (continue) |
/var/www/wiki.ppeu.net/web/data/pages/euroliquid.txt · Last modified: 2020/12/08 15:44 by bastian