1. Right Brain - Imagining it in Stories

Who to nominate as Mayor?  It's a difficult choice, and you need more information, so you decided to begin close to home, by voting for a neighbour.  She's something of a leader in the local community, someone you know pretty well, and whose opinion you respect - a good choice for a delegate.  But now you're looking over the latest results, and considering whether to shift your vote.  You can see how your vote has been carried from delegate to delegate, until it reached a consensus candidate.  But there are several of them, and it's difficult to choose among them.  So you decide to speak with your neighbour, and ask her, "Why do you think our candidate is the best choice?"

Peer-to-peer voting in a delegate cascade

Someone has initiated a proposal to change the Landlord and Tenant Act, and people are voting on it.  You're concerned about the issue, because you live in an apartment block.  But you're unsure how to vote, so you decided to vote for a friend who works at a real-estate agency.  And now you're with some neighbours and they're shaking their heads.  They say you're voting for the wrong version of the proposal - one that puts apartment dwellers at a disadvantage.  So you call up your friend and ask, "Are you sure we're voting for the right version of the proposal?"

Text flow (top) and vote flow (bottom)

You are crossing the local park, when you meet someone who is carrying a sign.  She says she is campaigning to improve the park, and has a plan.  She explains the plan to you, and it sounds pretty good, so you cast a vote for her from your mobile phone.  Later that night, you're looking over the details on her Web site.  You're thinking, "Maybe there's something I can do, to help."

*** joining channel #albion ... synced in 0.043 secs (need #canuck version)

2. Left Brain - Imagining it in Theory

Public consensus will naturally translate to administrative action. This is the point where government re-enters the picture. What follows is extracted from The Structuring of Power and the Composition of Norms by Communicative Assent.

Peer-to-Peer Voting and Communicative Assent. Introduces a medium of communicative assent for the purpose of consensus building. The backbone of the medium is a peer-to-peer voting mechanism that is open to continuous recasting (delegate cascade). It differs from the conventional media of mass assent in preserving the deliberative basis of consensus, regardless of scale.

Day-to-day public consensus (top) translates
to mass assent on election day (bottom).

The Communicative Structuring of Power. Explains how the medium may function as a primary electoral system, one in which candidates for executive office are nominated by open, cross-party consensus. Defines the ultimate election of a consensus candidate as an instance of communicative action by society as a whole. Defines assent as a steering medium, alongside money and power, and describes how it might rationalize the relations between lifeworld and system. Describes how the structure of assent may serve as scaffolding for the construction of power.

The structure of public consensus (green) serves
as scaffolding for a structure of administrative power (red).

The Communicative Composition of Norms. Explains how the medium may be combined with a peer-to-peer medium of collaborative drafting (recombinant text), in order to build consensus on the composition of societal norms (laws, plans and policies). Describes how vote flow and text flow are interwoven in the composition, such that voters and drafters are made equal in its authorship. Suggests how a consensus norm might be actualized by government. Provides an example from a legislative context, in which the unofficial participation of assembly members opens a "public bridgehead" into the legislature.

Public consensus on a bill (top) translates to action in
the legislature (bottom), as elected members join in the voting.

3. Or Just Doing It

Coding: Everything is on the project site. Please feel free to run with it, and do your own thing. If you have questions, or anything's locked, just talk to the janitor.

Competing: Speed is important because we do have competitors. So far, we're doing well, at least for the design direction we've chosen - 100% free, open and transparent.

Growing: Votorola is decentralized and locally rooted, with a pollserver in every city and region. We'll be relying on independent system administrators to set up pollservers, and bring change to their own communities.

Cooperating: Votorola has potential connections to many other projects.  Maybe the best strategy for establishing those connections is to concentrate on supporting ChangeCamp, attending its events, and talking to the people there.

Considering: Change is not always for the better. More often it leaves us worse off, as the benefits come only afterwards, in fits and starts. If we openly advocate change, should we not also be discussing the negative consequences?

Thoughts, ideas?  Please add your own...