Talk:Open Source Party Platform
From Wiki
maybe we should just combine 1a and 1b into 1?
I did some tightening, keeping what I think is the essence of the thing intact, so have a look.
Since we've got a wiki should we start trying to get into the specific for each category? I'd recommend working on the One Man/One Vote section and hammering out some of the ambiguity. Maybe we should take a cue from the Libertarian platform and do a section where we push for whatever long term solution we want and for whatever transitional solution we'll adopt until we can get there. Some questions about the One Man/One Vote. Do we want to recommend Internet Voting, or stick with physical polling places? What do we want to say about paper trails? What do we want to say about the hardware and software that voting will be done on? Do we really want to use SS#'s? (I'd say no but I'll get into why later). Just some questions to start with.
- Any "hammering" beyond existing comment threads should probably wait until we have some sort of Deliberation tool in place. Thebonobo 09:18, 7 December 2007 (PST)
I'm interested in whether a bunch of hacker geniuses can come up with the solution to having accessible voting and a precise count. Some kind of "Here's how it can be done" statement would be very powerful
- Expect other outcomes here, such as, are "representatives" and therefore candidates, even necessary? Can we code software that allows the people to govern themselves? Thebonobo 11:07, 7 December 2007 (PST)
That's a great long-term goal, which a small minority of people will be ready to hear about. I'm actually thinking about a popular issue and a massive pr score creating interest in OSP as people become hysterical about vote counts as the 2008 election approaches. Greg Palast will be out there showing us how people are getting their votes ripped off... mostly non-white people in poor neighborhoods...
Contents |
[edit] the world's oldest "democracy"?
the united states is not the world's oldest democracy, is it? maybe it's the oldest democratic nation-state?
[edit] Candidate attributes
I like this breakdown so much I started a forum topic about it for inclusion in the definition of the deliberation tool: community:node/8 --Michael 17:33, 11 December 2007 (PST)
[edit] "tools" instead of "paradigm"
tools not policy has long been a part of the open source philosophy, it comes from unix
check this out http://clusty.com/search?query=%22tools+not+policy%22&sourceid=Mozilla-search
i would insist we change it back to "tools", because "tools not policy" IS the paradigm
[edit] do we really want to get rid of secret ballots?
maybe i'm the only one this bothers, but i don't want to be accumulating handy lists of who to round up after elections. the secret ballot is one of the only ways to prevent this. yet, eliminating the secret ballot is one sure way of knowing that an election is untainted.
i was just wondering if i'm the only one troubled by this. once it's gone, it can't be taken back. and i am deeply paranoid about the government. maybe this must be the next step in the evolutionary process for our government, but given the amount of abuse we just watched calmly precipitate out of this administration, i'm pretty sure we're not ready for it. i do not want my name or social security number tied to my vote. i feel like maintaining the right to be anonymous is going to be one of the biggest challenges of our generation. is anyone willing to jump on board with that?
second, where does the "fact" at the top of "open source currency" come from? it needs some kind of background because right now it sounds like a conspiracy theory. rushkoff's blog is intriguing, but i'm not sure how open source currency is different from bartering. is it different?
