Home › Blogs › davidfarrar's blog ›

Give all a voice. Allow all to speak. Let all be heard.

Submitted by davidfarrar on Tue, 03/03/2009 - 17:10
in

Okay, I have found a website that, if adopted by the Republican party, will give all party members a voice. Allow all to speak and all to be accurately heard.

 Please go to DeepDebate and check it out.

What I envision is to have the Republican party create a web-presence at the precinct level. Within every precinct website will be this type of deliberative groupware that will allow all of its members to speak. Granted, there will work required to create a connective link with the whole (the whole being the local county party). But this is great stuff and I hope I can count on all of you here to give me your thoughts on this process.

Let me know what you think.

ex animo

davidfarrar

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

Comments

Interesting, but not sure it's ideal for political campaigning..

Submitted by sflcon on Tue, 03/03/2009 - 23:38.

It seems like a good tool and concept, especially if it is used in the manner you propose.

However, like a lot of these social 2.0 setups with commenting and rating systems, it might quickly degenerate into Digg or Reddit style environment with profanity and insults that would not give the debates/candidates/platforms as much credibility.This deepdebate.org site seems like they might have fairly good, professionalism moderation, but only time will tell.

I think creating software and/or sites like this yourself for local causes/elections would be the best option, to keep the debate on topic without all the Web 2.0 distractions and possiblities of abuse. It's a stretch, but maybe getting local government or community groups involved in funding or administrative assistance would be an option, too or perhaps pay for some of the hosting costs with a click ad or two with a local advertiser's banner.

Yes, you are right, sort of.

Submitted by davidfarrar on Wed, 03/04/2009 - 10:58.

This website isn't exactly geared for the use I have suggested. It is, however, a good model for the use I have suggested.

Ideally, I am looking for deliberative groupware that can be used in a smaller setting, perhaps in a five to eleven member setting, with connective software to the next larger group. In this way, all who join and participate will be heard, which is the key to continued participation.

I also agree with you that funding can be generated by commercial advertising, so I like to think of this endeavor as self-funded, with no need to seek political donations to keep your voice heard.

I also strongly believe the five to eleven members in each group should be the ones deciding on who has access to engage the group as a whole This can be accomplished by setting up a "public notice" board where anyone authorized can post a "notice'" that s/he would like to address the group. If any of the members of the group would like the petitioner to address the group, a motion, a second, and a majority vote of the group would be required. In this way the group would not be used as a political target.

I do like the ability of the participants to get rid of the trolls and pirates. I have always believed an "Ignore" button was essential in these settings. But,again: if any member of a small group is to be asked to leave, a motion, a second, and a majority vote would be required.

But if the party wants to actually build a bottom-up grassroots structure, this is the direction they should follow.

Thanks for you comments.

ex animo

davidfarrar

I did a little more thinking

Submitted by sflcon on Wed, 03/04/2009 - 21:02.

I did a little more thinking about it, and you might be able to use software like the system this very site is built upon - Drupal - for saving money on initial setup fees (it's free!).

It's a complex system with a steep learning curve compared to other open source CMS (content management system) options, but if you can get a developer that can organize it, you could really get something going.

I would suggest different tiers of membership with different priviliges, specifically one for the candidates or officials. Give them their own accounts, and have them answer a question or address a topic that is brought up by the adminsitrators. Perhaps brought up by voters who send in questions.

It could be visually set up like the deepdebate site so the user can see both arguments (maybe teasers) and delve deeper if they wish or move onto another. Maybe even give the candidates their own blogs to discuss the issues too, as a more casual approach.

Going non-partisan would be ideal to gain general credidibility and word-of-mouth, and I don't imagine it would work in all districts/precincts, but perhaps in an area with candidates that are interested in exploring new technology to reach the public. Seeing that "transparency" is such a political buzzword and the Internet is the way they are doing it (with varying degrees of success) more officials and voters would be interested than ever before.

Great idea all in all, David.

PS - I am coming from a website standpoint, do you have any groupware systems in mind that would operate like that? I'm not familiar with that term nor can I think of anything that would fit it, except the Web 2.0 approach.

Unity08 was Drupal

Submitted by davidfarrar on Wed, 03/04/2009 - 23:06.

It was easy to use but limited in its functions. I spell out my approach and its application in somewhat more detail at my website at The National Online Party.

From my website you can see I don't go the non-partisan route, but the partisan route, with a left party, an independent party, and a right party. Some people are confused when they see that I am including the other two political persuasions into the mix.  Of course I started out with building up this idea for just the Republican party, but started reading Frederic Bastiat's work, and when I came across his statement in his seminal work: 'The Law', "For when people's true political aspirations are accurately reflected by their political parties, all will seek the common good." I realized it wasn't enough. All had to be included. Besides, the Republican party is a big tent and I am sure if it actually engages in the pursuit of giving its members a voice, allowing them to speak and to be accurately heard, others will be left with no other choice but to follow or see their own members join the Republican party's web-effort in order to have their voices heard as well.

Deliberative groupware is still in its infancy. DeepDebate is by far the most advanced web-effort in this area I have personally found so far, but I am sure there will be others. I will say this, creating the web structure will be the easy part. Achieving total transparency will be the real challenge. This web-effort not only has to be totally transparent, it has to be perceived as totally transparent in order to attract and hold enough peoples' interest to make this effort meaningful.

To this last point I had mentioned on another blog that Rush Limbaugh might to persuaded to mount just such an effort. With his 20-million member audience, that force alone would insure success.

Food for thought.

ex animo

davidfarrar

Great.  I agree transparency

Submitted by sflcon on Thu, 03/05/2009 - 20:44.

Great.  I agree transparency is key to establishing legitimacy. I'll be looking further into this - thanks again for some insight into these new developments.