[Noisebridge-discuss] Why Consensus Kills Community

Curtis Gagliardi gagliardi.curtis at gmail.com
Tue Jan 7 00:42:45 UTC 2014

I don't think I'm conflating those at all, I don't think the campaign
financing system we have is good either, but I don't think you can expect a
populace to be anything other than apathetic with a simple majority first
past the post system.  I don't think people are acting unexcelently as much
as rationally.  I didn't say democracy can't work.

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian.chadd at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 interests.
> 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.
> -a
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140106/9c45f67c/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list