[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Membership] James Fishkin proposes Internet Deliberative Council
An anonymous voting body can just as easily be replaced with a star chamber.
Given anonymity, who is to know if the voting body is a select group that
never changes. Those who control the selection process could just as easily
"augment" the star group with truly random people in order to maintain the
appearance of a representative sample group while the "star" voters make the
Sounds paranoid, but without checks and balances... History is replete with
examples of the usurpation of democracy.
> From: Mark R. Measday[SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Reply To: email@example.com
> Sent: Friday, February 26, 1999 11:25 AM
> To: Wendy Seltzer; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Cc: Diane Cabell
> Subject: Re: [Membership] James Fishkin proposes Internet
> Deliberative Council
> Whilst applauding many aspects of this model, do I understand these
> users undertake to remain anonymous to avoid 'capture'?
> If I have read the text correctly, deliberative polling is a sampling
> for one time questioning, not continuous representation.
> Also the problem of anonymity remains, in terms of identifying whether the
> pollee (?) is the same as last time, has been influenced by (i) outside
> i.e.captured by interest (ii) has learned too much to be representative of
> sample or (iii) changed in some other way.
> Why not take the model, but submit it to a new randomly selected
> group anonymously each time there is a decision to be made. Confers great
> to the group of people assembling the results, but is otherwise complicit
> vox populi and the principles stated by professor Fishkin.
. . .