open Democracy News Analysis - page - Comments

Not logged in on "openDemocracy's Licensing Policy"

Not logged in — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 17:02:32 +0000

Dear Madam, Mrs, Sir,

I am glad to contact you indeed.

I am a Moroccan youngman aged of 32 y.o.I was a university student studying English& Linguistics and now a researcher and novice writer in the fields of Human Rights, Politics, Cultures& Media.

Furthermore, being a translator and so keen on dialogue between Cultures&Civilisations, I feel deeply interested in many of your Open Democracy website's articles/ reports&researches that enhance me to think of a humble project,i.e. to present some of your articles translated into Arabic or French for the benefit of the Arab readers who fail to read in English or have not internet within their reach so as to make it possible for those readers to get in touch with some others' points of view from other corners of the world,and thus, gather a wide view and understanding of what is going on in the world.

What I want ,in fact from this mail to you, is to ask whether it is legal and allowed for me to translate into Arabic/French some of the articles that appear on your website and present for publish elsewhere in some Arab newspapers/ magazines on behalf of the Arab readers.

Again, I will be glad and at your disposal if I can establish some kind of collaboration with you via your respectful newspaper/ website.

At the end, do please receive kindest regards, sincere thanks and heartful encouragements of mine.

Looking forward to hearing from you when possible.

Thanking you in anticipation for your time and attention.

Sincerely yours,

Salim Najm Noury.

Ian Press on "PayPal Donations"

Ian Press — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 18:22:16 +0000

I made a one-off donation, but came to the conclusion a regular subscription, not ruling out further donations, made so very much sense.

Joe Boyd on "PayPal Donations"

Joe Boyd — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:20:46 +0000

I already subscribe but hope this extra one-off helps.

pastor salomanjobs on "Instructions for US and other non-UK Donations"

pastor salomanjobs — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 07:10:35 +0000

We have an orphanage consisting of 40 children&old age home consisting of 10 persons.we are ministring them recently due to some reasons
Our sponsors are unable to sapport,
Soon we will get dry.our orphans mayface starvation. So please kindlypray and sapport us.

opendemocracy on "Avina Latin American Journalism Awards"

opendemocracy — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 10:40:56 +0000

Hi Jorge,

As it says in the "what should I do next" section:

"Look at the Avina guidelines for the awards.

Look at the form that we will together need to complete for your proposal.

Send us at openDemocracy a 300 word email summarising your article and attaching your curriculum vitae. We will get in touch with you to tell you whether we would like to endorse your project for an Avina award and whether we have editorial suggestions for modification.

We will together proceed to complete the Avina application form.

jsanpedro on "Avina Latin American Journalism Awards"

jsanpedro — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 02:53:20 +0000

Hi!

¿How to apolly? Don't see any option to enter the contest...

Best regards, Jorge

renata.avila.pinto on "Avina Latin American Journalism Awards"

renata.avila.pinto — Thu, 29 May 2008 13:26:07 +0000

Great!

For sure I will spread the word among journalists in Guatemala and the amazing Global Voices Latin America team!

Good news!

Renata Avila

Paula Allen on "The de Borda Experiment - Results"

Paula Allen — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:11:00 +0000

Unfortunately I was unable to vote as none of the options really reflected my views on the issues. As a creature of conscience when faced with a situation of "the lesser evil" I am forced to abstain completely. The option "none of the above" not being available.
I suspect a large number of the non voters also fall into this category.

This omission seems to be the largest failing in Western so called democracies. The lack of facility for the electorate to express dissatisfaction with all the options/candidates. Maybe I'm cynical, but. I think the lack of this option is because the systems feel that to allow the public to express anger openly by returning "none of the above" in a large number of elections may just rock the boat too much for the liking of the vested interests who pay off the parties for corporate influence.

Overall it has been an interesting experiment, and with a few concerns addressed (as others have raised earlier about the possible abuse of the system by pressure groups) I look forward to participating in any further trials.. Work and time permitting of course..

PPA

{Ed. With a full slate of nine options, there is no 'lesser evil'. Now admittedly, a "none of the above" option is used in some electoral systems, while the best form was used in Norway, for people could then add in the name of someone new. "Adding in something new" was also used in Guam which currently holds the world record for plurality: they had a 6/7-option ballot in 1982, with 6 options and 1 blank, ready to be filled in by any who thought of something better.
One of the lessons from Weimar Germany led to the introduction of what is now called "the constructive vote of no confidence". It's no good saying just 'no' to everything, as Mr. Paisley did for so many years! It is much better if the procedures ask the critic to put forward an alternative.
And this is what we did here. The consensors collated all the ideas, or we tried to, so as it were by definition, and especially if you played your part during the debate, one of the nine options was bound to be less evil than the others. Peter Emerson}

Mary Taylor on "The de Borda Experiment - Results"

Mary Taylor — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 22:34:00 +0000

This experiment highlighted the need for extensive, in-depth debate before decisions are made. Debate over something as fundamental as funding the electoral process should begin with debate about the principles we want the electoral process to reflect. This phase is likely to be lengthy, difficult, and unpopular, but it is essential if our genuine views - rooted in our philosophical and ethical assumptions - are to be expressed. Rigorous debate is a forging process for our own individual views, preparatory to decision-making.

Without such debate, I do not think the result can be held to represent in any meaningful way the participants’ views on electoral funding. It might be used as a demonstration model for a voting system, though it would be clearer if function were separated from content. To show a voting system at work, it is not necessary to vote about voting systems. The procedure could be shown just as well by a trivial problem, such as the design for an insurance broker’s window display.

{Ed. True. Consensus voting has been used in such easy cases. But, as noted in the comment above, it can also be used on complicated and/or controversial subjects. Suffice to say that one very distinctive feature of consensus voting is that the procedure allows the participants to participate, not only in casting their preferences, but also in choosing the options upon which they will cast their preferences. Which is why we chose a relatively complex topic. Peter Emerson.}

Stuart Boothman on "The de Borda Experiment - Results"

Stuart Boothman — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 22:07:00 +0000

Thanks for that - are you suggesting that MPs work through such a "preferendum", or the population?
Once the questions are worked out, possibly via focus groups or a working group of MPs, it could be done well, couldn't it?

{Ed. Absolutely. Basically, consensus voting could - and should - be used, wherever and whenever the subject under debate is contentious. For if it is contentious, and if we do enjoy a plural democracy, then doubtless there will be more than two options 'on the table'.

So consensus voting could be used either when the House is meeting in plenary, or when a committee of the House is in debate, or whatever. The options could be determined in plenary, in which case you would have a rule to suggest that any one party could only put forward one option; or the list could be drafted in committee or even, as you suggest, via focus groups... as long as the list of options were, as I say, a draft: the final decision-makers must have the final say as to the options.

You could even have a consensus vote in the country as a whole. Take, for example, the Jenkins Commission on the UK's Westminster electoral system. If he had been instructed to draw up a short list of electoral systems (as happened with the Royal Commission in New Zealand), the entire electorate could have been presented with, let us say, a five option ballot (which again is what happened down under) and then we could all have cast our preferences (whereas, in New Zealand, the voters only had one preference - they used a funny version of the two-round system).

There are exceptions to consensus voting, of course. Not least when ratifying treaties, as with the EU Constitution. Though even here, to take the French example, they should have voted "EU comme ci (d'Estaing) or EU comme ca (Maastricht)"; by asking "d'Estaing, oui-ou-non?" the vote was an absolute nonsense, with people voting 'non!' if they didn't like the EU comme ci, or if they didn't like it at all, or if they didn't like Chirac, Macdonalds, Turkish accession, or je ne sais quoi!

The whole thing was handled very badly, for it was all very top-down. Whereas, if Giscard d'Estaing had been asked, via public hearings and so on, to draw up a list of options... OK, it gets a bit complicated, but where there's a will, and at least we (Europeans) could have had a short list of five, say, constitutions, as opposed to being told, comme ci, take it or leave it.

OK, I think that will do for one comment! Peter Emerson.}

Oliver Tringham on "The de Borda Experiment - Results"

Oliver Tringham — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 10:29:40 +0000

I did not find the process overly complex.
I did find myself looking for a sort of menu of choices from all the different possibilities - rather than the grouped alternatives of aggregated choices (A - M).
It is helpful having someone to make sense of the different alternatives.

Oliver Tringham on "The de Borda Experiment - Results"

Oliver Tringham — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 10:23:33 +0000

I enjoyed the process.
I particularly like the Dull/Bright vs. Small/Big aspect - although I find it difficult to find the explanation: one refers to the importance of the point; the other to how much you agree. Which is which?
(And with the points above, the S/B aspect was not functioning)
It surely would not be impossible to make this clear?

Stuart Boothman on "The de Borda Experiment - Results"

Stuart Boothman — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 23:01:00 +0000

I do agree with a number of the comments already posted - an existing interest in democracy increased my motivation to take part, and yes it was a little long winded. However, I am not sure that the process could have been streamlined very much more - the fact that the proposals had to be refined as part of the process increased both the complexity and effectiveness of the process.

The next question is about its widespread use...
- the complexity suggests that it is not really suitable for use with an entire population;
- the fact that only highly motivated people manage to complete the voting process suggests a risk of a ballot being dominated by interest or pressure groups;
- perhaps the dreaded focus groups would be able to make highly effective use of the process, improving their effectiveness;
- it would be a good way to engage interest groups in exploring opinions and approaches.

{Ed. In many instances, the preferendum would be very appropriate. Take, for example, the 2003 debate on reforming the House of Lords when there were five options 'on the table': all elected, 80/20, 50/50, 20/80 and all appointed.
Or take the infamous debate on poll tax when again there were (probably) five options 'on the (non-existant) table': the Tory (poll tax), the (Labour) property tax, the (Lib-Dem) local income tax, the (Green) land tax, and the status quo.
Or the 1997 Scottish and Welsh referendums, when the independence option might also have been on the ballot papers.
Or to-day's (1st April) debate on detention powers: it does not have to be 90 days yes-or-no, or 42 days, or 28 days, or whatever, yes-or-no. This too is obviously a multi-option question. So, have the debate, draw up a short list of options, and then vote.
Our own exercise was indeed pretty complex. In real life, however, there are numerous occasions when a form of multi-option voting would actually be the sensible way to proceed. Peter Emerson.}

Robbie Hoque on "The de Borda Experiment - Results"

Robbie Hoque — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:26:37 +0000

Opendemocracy didn't load kindly on my home connection, so didn't make the time to participate in debate but did intend to submit a ballot. But I found that the ballot didn't do what it said on the tin. Perhaps because I didn't partipate in debate, I found picking apart that many multiple options required a measure of analysis. 2 to 5 minutes was not enough time to register meaningful preferences.

I would have found voting on less multiple options, 5 or 6 say, or a dozen or so single options (so that the options with the top three aggregate scores could be combined into a policy set) more convenient.

Convenience would be my expectation of any voting procedure.

Phil Booth on "The de Borda Experiment - Results"

Phil Booth — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:48:26 +0000

...are two distinctly different things. I was one of those who pointed out that the insecurity and non-secrecy of the ballot might have an effect. Almost by definition, anyone who took part in this exercise would be more-than-averagely concerned about democracy, and therefore more attuned to such concerns. Glad to see this picked up in your PS, not entirely sure that it doesn't inform your footnote [1].

In practical/presentational terms, were pictures/graphical 'icons' for the common features (or absence of them) ever considered for the 'voting paper'? I'm afraid I can't imagine the Electoral Commission ever signing off on something so complex, but there are quite a few things that could be done to make it more comprehensible.