[Noisebridge-discuss] Why Consensus Kills Community

Adrian Chadd adrian.chadd at gmail.com
Tue Jan 7 00:30:06 UTC 2014

On 6 January 2014 16:21, Curtis Gagliardi <gagliardi.curtis at gmail.com>wrote:

> Also I don't know if anyone mentioned it, but voting for leaders is quite
> a bit different from directly voting on rules, which as I understand it is
> the idea here, not to elect Al president of the NB cabal.  The US voting
> system is obviously a joke, but I don't see how you can say voting is to
> give you the illusion of democracy in a direct democracy.

No voting system is going to offset for an apathetic voting populace with a
system that allows unbounded amounts of funding for candidates from outside

Please don't conflate "the voting process is broken" from "humans are
acting in an un-excellent manner." If the latter is the problem, no amount
of jiggling the former will fix things in the long term.

Again, I'm sorry for stepping in and acting contrarian/devil-point on a
post, but I really dislike these existing group-think memes, like "US
voting is bad", "democracy doesn't work", etc.

IMHO, the problem here still seems to be "(a core group of leader-showing)
people aren't necessarily acting in enlightened self interest", and all of
the problems keep stemming from that.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140106/88a23fb3/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list