Hi Tom - and others As much as I like your stance on the whole petition issue, I think the question is ill posed: too many leads in one rhetorical, type II [negative answer] stem. To your specific question, the answer is: yes, it would have been possible to build in deliberation. It has been done in relation to Parliamentary Committees, and in departmental consolations. Why not with No10? Were you allowed to do so? I don't know, you should tell us, did you ask? Should money follow maturity? No, it should foster maturity. That is the point of deliberation [you you believe deliberative theorists]. Is moderation too expensive when billions are spent in man+equipment in Iraq [that people in Britain seem reluctant to accept]? Well, I leave that to No10. Comments welcome Best Wainer
x-posted from mysociety.org
Tom Steinberg says:
Dominic,
You quoted me from that list, but I think you missed the core question I posed for everyone there, and anyone reading this:
"Do you consider it possible to design deliberative discussion system on a site as sensitive as No10 which will generate debate sufficiently mature as to merit the sizeable public spending on moderation that would be required? If so, how?"
In my view, that's what's at the heart of your three posts above.
Tom
written on November 24th, 2006
Dominic Pinto says:
In a representative democracy there will (or perhaps that should be) be multiple fora for 'deliberative discussion' for 'debate' that is 'sufficiently mature' to justify the cost of moderation. I paraphrase, and slightly distort, as I'm not aware of any means that meet your tests .. the Houses of Parliament don't (slight qualification that the second chamber does probably do more mature things than the junior one). Judging by the quality of what this government in particular, and other governments generally, have come up with in the recent Queen's speech, and the pitiful 'japes' of their spin machines, rubbishing of individuals seem as 'not one of us', and the general paucity of real debate, and the impoverishment of our archaic form of government, I see little justifcation of the No 10 site.
The petition system exposes people concerns and interests, and enables 'my' support to be made public also. So perhaps these will reach a wider audience, and delivered 'direct to Downing Street.' The publicity and exposure of a mass petition delivered publicly reaches (or potentially reaches) vastly more than any of these do. A suggestion to try and measure reach would be to record site hits and naviagtion to individual petitions, and show this, as well as the actual signees.
Friends are highly dubious about this petition system, and that the support of say the repeal of the Hunting Act is representative.
And at the end of the day, it is still a matter of what significant impact or effect these have. Surely you don't envisage Blur or Broon acting because the highest number counted support the repeal of the Hunting Act? :-)
Dominic
x-posted to Air-l
written on November 28th, 2006
Dominic Pinto BA MIEEE MCMI MRi FRSA http://www.ecademy.com/user/dominicpinto
e-m: dominic.pinto@ieee.org M: +44 780 302-8268 Ph: +44 207 379-8341
In the U.S. M/Cell: +1 215 667-3001 _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/