Author: Jana Buchmann
Translation: Laura Killian
This article aims to explain that the old #LQFB of the Pirate Party is not REAL Liquid Feedback and that, for 4 years now, Pirates have had a new concept for a real Liquid Feedback which may for the first time enable a REAL liquid democracy, due to guaranteed real-time protection of human rights and of common goals or values for conscientious, participatory decision-making.
How come the old LQFB 3.0 is neither liquid nor feedback?
The old LQFB is neither LIQUID nor FEEDBACK! Decisions are made through a quality-unspecific black-and-white schema by quality-unspecific majority voting. The result of quality-unspecific majority votes (yes or no) includes no feedback about how well a solution or a candidate is actually suited to solve a possibly urgent problem. It doesn’t even allow for a valid and reliable detection of the most important problems!
To understand this, imagine a very old camera called LQFB or “Republikstandard”, which can only take white or black pictures of a beautiful, colourful motif of nature – let’s call it the tree of dying self-knowledge:
Picture: cc, source: see below.
Using this camera, Pirate Party takes 100 pictures (representing 100 voting people) of the tree of dying self-knowledge, which, however, all turn out to be either absolutely black or absolutely white, depending on the angle of the light. These 100 pictures are then summed up to an aggregate. Thereby, each distorted percept of the tree of dying self-knowledge, implicitly represented by the white or black pictures in comparison to the original object, is superimposed layer by layer to get a single distorted image. The result is a grey picture, which is completely foreign to the original and its nature, or to any opinion based on deeper reflection about it. It is irrecognisable in retrospect. The result of voting by the old LQFB 3.0 looks something like this:
This example makes it clear, that our common voting methods (i.e. the usual majority votes, not only the wrong LQFB 3.0) are strongly dependent on external manipulation and top down control and quality-unspecific and distorted – because: WHAT’s ADDED ARE not reflections of reasonable, reality-oriented perceptions or mindful and unbiased opinions. Instead, what’s added are the quality-unspecific DEVIATIONS FROM REALITY or from reason! Thus the overall picture shows the aggregated success of manipulation, made up by the black and the white pictures of the tree of self-knowledge, where each white or black picture already represents a rough distortion of reality.
What happens in quality-unspecific majority voting is not an aggregation of reality-based representations to finally get a clear and fitting portrayal of reality. Rather, it is the error of manipulation and design (i.e. the deviation from reality or reason stemming from the categorical black-or-white design of majority voting), which is accumulated (i.e. called “categorical accumulation error”). Quality-unspecific tools and methods like LQFB and majority votings measure neither what the voter wants, sees nor thinks, but rather how effectively the mass manipulation through the political marketing has worked (in either direction of foreign interest, or the decision for black or white).
Critically viewed, the old LQFB is merely an imitation of the current system of mass manipulation, but even increases the effects of alienation, authoritarianism and divide-and-conquer through what are called superdelegates. Black-and-white voting doesn’t contain, like a thermometer or an actual colour-sensitive, high resolution camera, any liquid feedback with information about someone’s diverse reality, nor about how well the performance or how adequately a solution fits human rights. Thus, it primarily informs those in power, and the media (and superdelegates) how effectively their programs for mass manipulation has worked.
Quality-unspecific majority voting violates Pirate and constitutional values of transparency, freedom of opinion and self-determination!
Quality-unspecific majority voting violates demands for transparency because:
- It doesn’t facilitate a transparent, undistorted and consensual discussion about what are actually the most urgent problems of the (party) base. Discussions and decisions about urgent problems are made in a reactionary manner without transparent problem spaces (see 2.). Thereby, discussion topics are either dominated and intransparently reduced by those in positions of power, or it results in an inflation of less important topics, with a high risk of losing touch with the most elemental topics and goals. For this issue of needs-oriented action, the human body, intelligently, has reality-oriented need detectors whose activation leads to e.g. stronger or weaker feelings of hunger, thirst or cold.
- Intelligent solutions to problems can only be found, when the problem is transparently mapped by bottom-up consensus, and holistically discussed/pictured by means of universal reality criteria (iP7). A transparent problem space contains all negative aspects of the current state, which constitute and create the problem, as well as all aspects of the desired state, which describe what the aim, direction and goal criteria of the solution are. If these are not given, the formation of political opinion can easily be hacked, manipulated or biased, something which can be seen in Chancellor Merkel’s “Wir schaffen das!” (“Yes, We can”), which is an opinion hack through intransparent problem spaces.
- In accordance with Article 21 (1) GG [German constitution], political parties and politicians should “be publicly accountable as to the origin and use of their means”. Strictly speaking, this does not only include financial means, but also ideas and psychological means, i.e. which considerations and criteria weightings (e.g. of human rights and cultural values vs. interests of lobbyists and corporations) contributed how strongly to the prior problems discussed, and the decisions made? With the current practice of decision-making by quality-unspecific majority voting, these considerations are made within the dark field of political-economic corruption, and are afterwards bent to sound as if resulting decisions were made by considering the interests and concerns of the people. On closer inspection though, a great number of our politicians’ decisions are adverse to human rights or to civil rights and must be put to long-term trials in court.
Quality-unspecific majority voting undermines freedom of opinion and inhibits self-determination because:
- Majority-based decisions are usually, intransparently and top-down instead of bottom-up, reduced to just a small number of alternatives, and even, as with Merkel, often dictatorially claimed to be “without alternatives”. The design of majority voting for black or white incorporates or induces a false dilemma (e.g. pest vs. cholera), which eliminates freedom of opinion in the early origins of the (self-)perception and decision-making process.
- The human brain works with probabilities; and an individual’s intelligent decision-making includes balanced considerations that are processed in terms of grey-scales under a given uncertainity, eg. how much a certain goal or a solution matches the own values and future expectations. An individual with conscientious considerations and a certain grey-scaled opinion-picture which is forced into a black-or-white voting structure, is made to change or reduce their reality to a black-and-white schema and therefore can not express it as originally formed in a free, independent and conscientious manner. Freedom of expression and opinion is thereby injured by the compulsory black-and-white voting schema which forces the voter into a false dilemma. This can cause rough misrepresentations of reality, as well as cognitive biases, and political action against personal or common values.
- A number of mechanisms of external control or alienation underly quality-unspecific majority voting: those which emerge under peer, social or conformity pressures, the Divide-and-Conquer effect with conditioned opinions, prejudices and fight-flight reactions (eg. somebody hears that you are a Nazi and, not actually knowing you, starts to verbally bash you up), which are subconscious manipulations of the formation of opinions and decisions. This is why current decision-making structures massively contradict the principles of peaceful, free, pluralistic, conscientious, and self-concordant decision making. Instead, we are like rabbits in false dilemma experiments of conformity without any formal real-time control of human rights, and whose results mainly provide information about how well the mass manipulation has worked.
Such conformity experiments, in which people make decisions mostly independent of objective reality and human rights, in line with the majority or with the leading authorities, are anything but democratic. They are much more demonscratic! Often it is the case, like with eg. ESM, CETA, TTIP and other lobbyist inputs, that external interests sneak in intransparently and remotely influence decision making processes in a political party or in a governmnent.
Whoever wants REAL democracy, should therefore use a relaunched or real liquid feedback system, where maximum participation, transparency, freedom of opinion and self-determination, as well as real-time control of universal human rights are scientifically guaranteed.
Source Picture (Tree of dying self-knowledge): Carl Julius von Leypold – The Yorck Project: 10.000 Meisterwerke der Malerei. DVD-ROM, 2002. ISBN 3936122202. Distributed by DIRECTMEDIA Publishing GmbH., Gemeinfrei, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=151052