256
12 Digital Democracy
should not communicate with each other. Otherwise, the “wisdom of crowds” effect
would be undermined.
47
Second, the information found needs to be shared with others. In this stage, it is
not important to “win against others”. Rather, the purpose of this step is to add to
a “bigger picture”. When a complex problem needs to be solved, it will require the
combination of many different perspectives in order to get a more or less complete
picture. For this, the information of each contributing individual does not have to be
complete. It is important, however, that the partial views will complement each other
well.
In the second step, the various bits of information should be well structured and put
into a logical order. What follows from what? Which arguments are adding further
details to a particular perspective, and which arguments establish new perspectives?
Such different perspectives could be due to different interest groups, but not necessarily so. (Just think of a beautiful building, which cannot be captured by a single
photograph, but only by a collection of photographs from different perspectives.)
In other words, the arguments should be mapped out on a virtual table. For this,
one might use so-called “argument graphs”. In the end, everyone should be able
see all relevant arguments in a well-structured way, such that different perspectives
become visible for all.
In the third step, well-versed representatives of the different perspectives should
be invited to a round table—either a virtual or real one. In this step, the goal again is
not to win against the others. Rather, the representatives of the different perspectives
would have the task to work out integrated solution approaches that take on board
many perspectives. If the round table does not succeed with representatives of the
different perspectives, it is worth trying to work with people who are to represent
perspectives that are not their own. In many cases, of course, it will be difficult to find
a solution that satisfies all of the different perspectives at the same time. However, as
a result of step three, one should have several integrated solutions that satisfy various
perspectives simultaneously.
Hence, in step four, a decision needs to be taken for one of the integrated solutions.
This would happen by voting, where typically those people would be the voters, who
are affected by the solution (i.e. people with “skin in the game”
48 ).
However, rather than deciding by majority vote, one may consider to use different
voting rules, for example, “Quadratic Voting”.
49 This allows every voter to give a
certain number of points to each solution, representing the “pain” the solution would
produce to the respective voter. The solution with the smallest number of points
would be chosen, corresponding to the “minimization of pain”. A similar procedure
could be applied for the “maximization of gain”. It is clear that our society urgently
needs to collect experiences with various voting rules in order to see which one works
best in what kind of situation.
47 Mann and Helbing [21].
48 Taleb [22].
49 Posner and Weyl [23, 24].
12 Digital Democracy
should not communicate with each other. Otherwise, the “wisdom of crowds” effect
would be undermined.
47
Second, the information found needs to be shared with others. In this stage, it is
not important to “win against others”. Rather, the purpose of this step is to add to
a “bigger picture”. When a complex problem needs to be solved, it will require the
combination of many different perspectives in order to get a more or less complete
picture. For this, the information of each contributing individual does not have to be
complete. It is important, however, that the partial views will complement each other
well.
In the second step, the various bits of information should be well structured and put
into a logical order. What follows from what? Which arguments are adding further
details to a particular perspective, and which arguments establish new perspectives?
Such different perspectives could be due to different interest groups, but not necessarily so. (Just think of a beautiful building, which cannot be captured by a single
photograph, but only by a collection of photographs from different perspectives.)
In other words, the arguments should be mapped out on a virtual table. For this,
one might use so-called “argument graphs”. In the end, everyone should be able
see all relevant arguments in a well-structured way, such that different perspectives
become visible for all.
In the third step, well-versed representatives of the different perspectives should
be invited to a round table—either a virtual or real one. In this step, the goal again is
not to win against the others. Rather, the representatives of the different perspectives
would have the task to work out integrated solution approaches that take on board
many perspectives. If the round table does not succeed with representatives of the
different perspectives, it is worth trying to work with people who are to represent
perspectives that are not their own. In many cases, of course, it will be difficult to find
a solution that satisfies all of the different perspectives at the same time. However, as
a result of step three, one should have several integrated solutions that satisfy various
perspectives simultaneously.
Hence, in step four, a decision needs to be taken for one of the integrated solutions.
This would happen by voting, where typically those people would be the voters, who
are affected by the solution (i.e. people with “skin in the game”
48 ).
However, rather than deciding by majority vote, one may consider to use different
voting rules, for example, “Quadratic Voting”.
49 This allows every voter to give a
certain number of points to each solution, representing the “pain” the solution would
produce to the respective voter. The solution with the smallest number of points
would be chosen, corresponding to the “minimization of pain”. A similar procedure
could be applied for the “maximization of gain”. It is clear that our society urgently
needs to collect experiences with various voting rules in order to see which one works
best in what kind of situation.
47 Mann and Helbing [21].
48 Taleb [22].
49 Posner and Weyl [23, 24].