[MG] Free range voting project
epastore at metagovernment.org
Thu Jun 24 07:53:43 EDT 2010
Again, not nearly enough time, far too much to say. Please excuse the
brevity and hurried nature of my interjections here.
On Jun 23, 2010, at 4:23 PM, Michael Allan wrote:
> Who are these people? :-) Can't they do e-democracy (just a little)
> without incorporating, setting up offices, and giving themselves
> titles? If I had funds to donate to e-democracy, I'd give 'em to the
> folks who are doing the real work. At the moment, that appears to be
> Steven Clift and his crew. Who else is out there on the front lines?
> (And indeed, they are funded.) So the first order of business (at
> least for this workhorse) is either to join 'em, or to emulate 'em:
I want to emphasize again that while the term "e-democracy" seems
ideal for what we are talking about, it is not understood to mean what
we mean. E-democracy is the use of online tools in existing political
and governance processes. So for example, the political campaign of
Barak Obama was a great triumph of e-democracy. Is getting a
politician elected anything like what we are trying to accomplish? See http://vilfredo.org/viewquestion.php?q=53
for some proposed alternatives.
And note that this applies to the e-democracy.org site as well. They
are doing great work, but they are happy with results like getting
people more actively engaged in politician's campaigns. It is a
natural and beneficial thing to do given the limitations of the status
quo, but I thought most of us were interested in something more akin
to a revamp of the status quo than a general improvement of it.
>> It would for example be much better if such an organization was the
>> owner of the domains than just you and I.
> I think it has to be public ownership, as I'll argue during this poll:
The thing that has been stopping me from releasing metagovernment.org
and .com has been figuring out what to give it to. What I would really
like is a lawyer (but from what country, since I don't want to create
a single-nation organization). We are trying to create an entity that
hasn't really been created before: an organization that is not legally
bound to bow to the decisions of a select group of board members.
...or has it? There are cooperatives and other such organizations. And
now I see that Mark has added this extremely interesting page to the
I would encourage those who have more than a couple minutes to read
that over and see what we can do with it.
>> Ok, so I started a poll: http://u.zelea.com/w/G/p/owdo
> OK. This is useful, because agreement here will give us a domain
> name. (So, not only will we be active *in* e-democracy, we'll also be
> active *under* a domain name. (The cart begins to move. :-)
> I'll post on p/owdo in a separate thread.
As I have noted, while I have advocated for Metagovernment.org
(and .com, not .net, Thomas), I am really open to anything that gets
us together. Perhaps freevoters has a better ring to it. I can see
using that. My only caveat in that regard would be to ensure that we
can port this community there, or otherwise keep it directly involved.
Since it seems to me that the FRVP is a major and primary subset of
what Metagov is trying to accomplish (the other main thing being
advocacy for the concepts of collaborative governance).
> @ p/mho
>> I like both yours and Ed's formats. For me, the content is not
>> disturbing for the question of the format. The homepage is not my
>> first priority right now though.
> Well, I can see the humour in it. That's one sorry-ass poll, and the
> remaining participant isn't much interested in it either. Easy come,
> easy go. :-)
Technical question. Aqain. So, I am on this page:
and it looks like two people are voting for me. Am I supposed to be
able to vote for myself? I don't see how I would do that. Sorry if
this is demonstrating some major ignorance. Again... I am really
looking forward to the day when I can spend uninterrupted hours on this.
More information about the Start