Hi Jim - many thanks for the answers to the questions. It seems the complexity is even greater than I feared! Maybe pol.is offers a way forward?
I thought I'd introduce my 'friend', Bard, into the conversation. He likes the increased transparency, greater citizen engagement, better decision-making and more representative government of Panocracy.
He also has the following concerns which echo the questions:-
Complexity: Panocracy would require a very complex system of decision-making. This could be difficult to manage and lead to gridlock.
Dominance by special interests: Panocracy could be dominated by special interests, such as large corporations or wealthy individuals. This could lead to decisions that benefit these interests at the expense of the public good.
Inefficiency: Panocracy could be inefficient, as it would require a lot of time and resources to gather input from all citizens.
Firstly, thanks for the heads-up on polis. I've had a cursory glance and it's certainly the kind of technique I was sketching out in panocracy-20. I'll need to have a much longer look at this before forming a judgement.
Our thanks to your friend for dealing with Smaug. Regrettably there are always new dragons to slay and Panocracy has many - so we appreciate his help.
"Complexity: Panocracy would require a very complex system of decision-making. This could be difficult to manage and lead to gridlock." I believe that processing all those RFCs and votes is well within the limits of current technology. Social media sites have been doing the equivalent of this for many years.
"Dominance by special interests: Panocracy could be dominated by special interests, such as large corporations or wealthy individuals. This could lead to decisions that benefit these interests at the expense of the public good." This is what we have at the moment and one of the main things panocracy is trying to reduce. No politicians means no chance for lobbying interests which is the main route by which vested interests get their way. Also required declaration of interests in the creation of RFCs will identify conflicts of interest early on.
"Inefficiency: Panocracy could be inefficient, as it would require a lot of time and resources to gather input from all citizens." Yes, this is an area that needs considerable work. Citizens will contribute their political views in different ways. Some may choose to answer a questionnaire issued by their agent, others might agree to have their Facebook or YouTube data shared with the panocracy. The Cambridge Analytica episode showed that the technology to predict accurately how you'll vote was already around a decade ago.
Thanks again and praise be to Bard the dragon slayer.
I thought this might interest you (you may already be aware)
https://open.substack.com/pub/pattern18/p/the-future-of-great-britain?r=3ezew&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
I wasn't aware of it so many thanks for the pointer. It's encouraging that there are others out there who are thinking about the issues.
Hi Jim - many thanks for the answers to the questions. It seems the complexity is even greater than I feared! Maybe pol.is offers a way forward?
I thought I'd introduce my 'friend', Bard, into the conversation. He likes the increased transparency, greater citizen engagement, better decision-making and more representative government of Panocracy.
He also has the following concerns which echo the questions:-
Complexity: Panocracy would require a very complex system of decision-making. This could be difficult to manage and lead to gridlock.
Dominance by special interests: Panocracy could be dominated by special interests, such as large corporations or wealthy individuals. This could lead to decisions that benefit these interests at the expense of the public good.
Inefficiency: Panocracy could be inefficient, as it would require a lot of time and resources to gather input from all citizens.
Hope this helps - regards,
Cliff
Hi Cliff,
Firstly, thanks for the heads-up on polis. I've had a cursory glance and it's certainly the kind of technique I was sketching out in panocracy-20. I'll need to have a much longer look at this before forming a judgement.
Our thanks to your friend for dealing with Smaug. Regrettably there are always new dragons to slay and Panocracy has many - so we appreciate his help.
"Complexity: Panocracy would require a very complex system of decision-making. This could be difficult to manage and lead to gridlock." I believe that processing all those RFCs and votes is well within the limits of current technology. Social media sites have been doing the equivalent of this for many years.
"Dominance by special interests: Panocracy could be dominated by special interests, such as large corporations or wealthy individuals. This could lead to decisions that benefit these interests at the expense of the public good." This is what we have at the moment and one of the main things panocracy is trying to reduce. No politicians means no chance for lobbying interests which is the main route by which vested interests get their way. Also required declaration of interests in the creation of RFCs will identify conflicts of interest early on.
"Inefficiency: Panocracy could be inefficient, as it would require a lot of time and resources to gather input from all citizens." Yes, this is an area that needs considerable work. Citizens will contribute their political views in different ways. Some may choose to answer a questionnaire issued by their agent, others might agree to have their Facebook or YouTube data shared with the panocracy. The Cambridge Analytica episode showed that the technology to predict accurately how you'll vote was already around a decade ago.
Thanks again and praise be to Bard the dragon slayer.
Jim