Countries with parliaments are in fact oligarchies (few lead). In order to be a true democracy, the decisions of the Parliament should be submitted to the approval of the citizens. The democratic aspect is a side effect in societies where economies have a strong competitive aspect, where the interests of those who hold economic power in society are divergent. Thus, those with money, and implicitly with political power in society, are supervising each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. Because of this, countries with large mineral resources, like Russia and Venezuela (their share in GDP is large), do not have democratic aspects, because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries, the main resource exploited may even be the state budget, as they have converging interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. This is what is observed in Romania, Bulgaria, when, no matter which party comes to power, the result is the same. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if most of his constituents consider that their interests are not right represented
I really luke your idea. This form of government is better than what we have today. Outside emergency situations and confidential national matters. Govt must let the citizen consent before making a decision.
Your missing the power of mainstream media IMO. If you want a best democracy vote for it. If you can't because of no Deliberative Democracy candidates sort that
Switzerland wasn't mentioned once?! You would think that the best-governed nation-state in the world being a deliberative democracy would be a decent argument to include...
I feel like this video might have been slightly longer than necessary. I was hoping for a more concise and tangible introduction. This seems rather abstract.
You should be thanking the uploader. "Concisement" is a euphemism for conventional formation which you will only find in conventional endeavours that promote conformity and repress transformative intersubjective communication. In summation, big ideas require more space and time to unpack. Stick to 3 minute news segments if you want conventional explanations and concisement. Kathryn Kelly, Thank you for uploading and spreading this innovative discourse on public empowerment!
Whistleblowering protection is vital on big decisions and numbers really matter to that . Since this was made Meta/Facebook at the time have completed a 6000 person online DD assembly
@@ioanagrancea6091 I asked Claude Sonnet 3.5 "Delve at your maximum length init the largest exercise in Deliberative Democracy or polling by META of approximately 6000 users of the then Facebook. Include the results real life effects" I've added a bit of separate observation at the end. IT replied " Thank you for providing more context about the deliberative democracy exercise conducted by Meta (then Facebook). I'll do my best to provide a comprehensive overview of this initiative based on the information available to me up to my knowledge cutoff in April 2024. However, please note that I may not have the most up-to-date information on its long-term effects. The exercise you're referring to is likely the "Facebook Deliberative Poll" conducted in 2019 in partnership with the Center for Deliberative Democracy at Stanford University, led by Professor James Fishkin. This was indeed one of the largest exercises in deliberative democracy ever conducted, involving approximately 3,200 Facebook users from 27 European Union countries. Here's an in-depth look at this initiative: Background and Purpose: The poll was conducted in the lead-up to the 2019 European Parliament elections. Its primary goal was to explore how deliberative democracy methods could be applied at scale using social media platforms. The exercise aimed to gauge informed public opinion on key issues facing the European Union and to test whether online deliberation could lead to more informed and considered views. Methodology: 1. Participant Selection: Approximately 3,200 participants were recruited from Facebook users across all 27 EU member states. The selection process aimed for a diverse and representative sample. 2. Pre-deliberation Survey: Participants completed an initial survey to assess their knowledge and opinions on various EU-related issues. 3. Information Provision: Participants were provided with carefully curated briefing materials on key EU issues, translated into 22 languages. These materials were designed to be balanced and informative. 4. Small Group Discussions: Participants were divided into small groups of 10-15 people, each with a trained moderator. These discussions took place in 22 different languages, with real-time translation provided. 5. Plenary Sessions: Larger group sessions were held where participants could ask questions to experts and policymakers. 6. Post-deliberation Survey: After the deliberations, participants completed another survey to measure changes in knowledge and opinions. Key Issues Discussed: - EU integration and expansion - Economic policies and the euro - Climate change and environmental policies - Migration and refugee policies - Security and foreign policy Results and Findings: 1. Increased Knowledge: Participants showed significant increases in knowledge about EU issues after the deliberation process. 2. Opinion Changes: There were notable shifts in opinions on several issues. For example: - Support for a common EU foreign policy increased. - Attitudes towards refugees became more positive. - There was increased support for measures to combat climate change. 3. Decreased Polarization: The deliberation process appeared to reduce polarization on some issues, with participants moving towards more moderate positions. 4. Enhanced Democratic Engagement: Participants reported feeling more engaged with EU politics and more confident in their ability to participate in political discussions. 5. Cross-cultural Understanding: The process fostered dialogue and understanding between citizens of different EU countries. Real-life Effects and Implications: 1. Policy Influence: While the poll wasn't directly tied to policy-making, its results were presented to EU policymakers and may have influenced discussions on EU reform and policy priorities. 2. Methodology Innovation: The project demonstrated the potential for conducting large-scale deliberative exercises online, which has implications for future democratic innovations. 3. Platform Role in Democracy: It sparked discussions about the role social media platforms like Facebook could play in fostering democratic engagement and informed public opinion. 4. Research Impact: The project has been widely discussed in academic circles, contributing to ongoing research on deliberative democracy and digital citizenship. 5. Public Awareness: The initiative raised awareness about deliberative democracy methods among a broader public. 6. EU Democratic Deficit: The exercise was seen as a potential way to address the perceived "democratic deficit" in EU governance by directly engaging citizens. 7. Facebook's Public Image: For Facebook (now Meta), the project was part of efforts to demonstrate the platform's potential positive impact on democratic processes, amidst controversies about its role in elections and public discourse. Long-term Effects and Challenges: 1. Scaling and Replication: While successful, questions remain about how to scale such exercises further and integrate them into regular democratic processes. 2. Digital Divide: The reliance on Facebook highlighted issues of digital access and representation. 3. Sustained Engagement: It's unclear whether the increased engagement and knowledge among participants persisted long-term. 4. Platform Dependency: The project raised questions about the appropriateness of relying on private platforms for democratic exercises. 5. Methodology Refinement: Lessons from this exercise have informed subsequent deliberative democracy initiatives, both online and offline. This Facebook Deliberative Poll was a significant experiment in applying deliberative democracy methods at scale in an online environment. While its direct policy impacts may be hard to quantify, it has contributed valuable insights to ongoing discussions about democratic innovation, citizen engagement, and the role of technology in governance. For the most up-to-date information on any follow-up studies or long-term effects, I'd recommend checking recent academic publications or contacting the Center for Deliberative Democracy at Stanford University or Meta's research team directly. Eds bit. 6000 people using Deliberative polling a form of DD could allow everyone in the world to participate in DD if enough of them reporting daily worldwide. This was and perhaps still is ruled out a Professor of Politics at UKs Newcastle university but he is wrong again. His podcast is promoted and it had perhaps the highest viewing figures last time I asked Copilot earlier this year 2024. Shame to have a sabotaging academic rewarded with a professorship. Broken democracy corrupted from within
sounds like an important step for democracy.. if not a leap
Thank you for this. It's quite informative
Countries with parliaments are in fact oligarchies (few lead). In order to be a true democracy, the decisions of the Parliament should be submitted to the approval of the citizens. The democratic aspect is a side effect in societies where economies have a strong competitive aspect, where the interests of those who hold economic power in society are divergent. Thus, those with money, and implicitly with political power in society, are supervising each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. Because of this, countries with large mineral resources, like Russia and Venezuela (their share in GDP is large), do not have democratic aspects, because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries, the main resource exploited may even be the state budget, as they have converging interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. This is what is observed in Romania, Bulgaria, when, no matter which party comes to power, the result is the same. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if most of his constituents consider that their interests are not right represented
I really luke your idea. This form of government is better than what we have today.
Outside emergency situations and confidential national matters. Govt must let the citizen consent before making a decision.
Your missing the power of mainstream media IMO.
If you want a best democracy vote for it. If you can't because of no Deliberative Democracy candidates sort that
But direct democracy is subject to what James Fishkin calls "rational ignorance". Deliberative democracy doesn't have that problem.
Switzerland wasn't mentioned once?! You would think that the best-governed nation-state in the world being a deliberative democracy would be a decent argument to include...
Thomas Shirrefs you must know that Switzerland is an direct democracy
I feel like this video might have been slightly longer than necessary. I was hoping for a more concise and tangible introduction. This seems rather abstract.
You should be thanking the uploader. "Concisement" is a euphemism for conventional formation which you will only find in conventional endeavours that promote conformity and repress transformative intersubjective communication. In summation, big ideas require more space and time to unpack. Stick to 3 minute news segments if you want conventional explanations and concisement. Kathryn Kelly, Thank you for uploading and spreading this innovative discourse on public empowerment!
@@DvylikaVilkaiThere are 3 minute versions that might lead people to this and other more detailed evaluation
Sir in which country u r belonging from
and then we will all sing kumbya! 😅😅😅
We certainly won't be singing it on our present course.
3 contrived topics given to 100 people decide how a nation moves forward. It's another swindle.
Whistleblowering protection is vital on big decisions and numbers really matter to that . Since this was made Meta/Facebook at the time have completed a 6000 person online DD assembly
How so? It certainly seems better than the status quo.
@@EdSurridge Could you please tell us more about this DD assembly organized by Meta?
@@ioanagrancea6091 I asked Claude Sonnet 3.5 "Delve at your maximum length init the largest exercise in Deliberative Democracy or polling by META of approximately 6000 users of the then Facebook. Include the results real life effects" I've added a bit of separate observation at the end.
IT replied " Thank you for providing more context about the deliberative democracy exercise conducted by Meta (then Facebook). I'll do my best to provide a comprehensive overview of this initiative based on the information available to me up to my knowledge cutoff in April 2024. However, please note that I may not have the most up-to-date information on its long-term effects.
The exercise you're referring to is likely the "Facebook Deliberative Poll" conducted in 2019 in partnership with the Center for Deliberative Democracy at Stanford University, led by Professor James Fishkin. This was indeed one of the largest exercises in deliberative democracy ever conducted, involving approximately 3,200 Facebook users from 27 European Union countries.
Here's an in-depth look at this initiative:
Background and Purpose:
The poll was conducted in the lead-up to the 2019 European Parliament elections. Its primary goal was to explore how deliberative democracy methods could be applied at scale using social media platforms. The exercise aimed to gauge informed public opinion on key issues facing the European Union and to test whether online deliberation could lead to more informed and considered views.
Methodology:
1. Participant Selection: Approximately 3,200 participants were recruited from Facebook users across all 27 EU member states. The selection process aimed for a diverse and representative sample.
2. Pre-deliberation Survey: Participants completed an initial survey to assess their knowledge and opinions on various EU-related issues.
3. Information Provision: Participants were provided with carefully curated briefing materials on key EU issues, translated into 22 languages. These materials were designed to be balanced and informative.
4. Small Group Discussions: Participants were divided into small groups of 10-15 people, each with a trained moderator. These discussions took place in 22 different languages, with real-time translation provided.
5. Plenary Sessions: Larger group sessions were held where participants could ask questions to experts and policymakers.
6. Post-deliberation Survey: After the deliberations, participants completed another survey to measure changes in knowledge and opinions.
Key Issues Discussed:
- EU integration and expansion
- Economic policies and the euro
- Climate change and environmental policies
- Migration and refugee policies
- Security and foreign policy
Results and Findings:
1. Increased Knowledge: Participants showed significant increases in knowledge about EU issues after the deliberation process.
2. Opinion Changes: There were notable shifts in opinions on several issues. For example:
- Support for a common EU foreign policy increased.
- Attitudes towards refugees became more positive.
- There was increased support for measures to combat climate change.
3. Decreased Polarization: The deliberation process appeared to reduce polarization on some issues, with participants moving towards more moderate positions.
4. Enhanced Democratic Engagement: Participants reported feeling more engaged with EU politics and more confident in their ability to participate in political discussions.
5. Cross-cultural Understanding: The process fostered dialogue and understanding between citizens of different EU countries.
Real-life Effects and Implications:
1. Policy Influence: While the poll wasn't directly tied to policy-making, its results were presented to EU policymakers and may have influenced discussions on EU reform and policy priorities.
2. Methodology Innovation: The project demonstrated the potential for conducting large-scale deliberative exercises online, which has implications for future democratic innovations.
3. Platform Role in Democracy: It sparked discussions about the role social media platforms like Facebook could play in fostering democratic engagement and informed public opinion.
4. Research Impact: The project has been widely discussed in academic circles, contributing to ongoing research on deliberative democracy and digital citizenship.
5. Public Awareness: The initiative raised awareness about deliberative democracy methods among a broader public.
6. EU Democratic Deficit: The exercise was seen as a potential way to address the perceived "democratic deficit" in EU governance by directly engaging citizens.
7. Facebook's Public Image: For Facebook (now Meta), the project was part of efforts to demonstrate the platform's potential positive impact on democratic processes, amidst controversies about its role in elections and public discourse.
Long-term Effects and Challenges:
1. Scaling and Replication: While successful, questions remain about how to scale such exercises further and integrate them into regular democratic processes.
2. Digital Divide: The reliance on Facebook highlighted issues of digital access and representation.
3. Sustained Engagement: It's unclear whether the increased engagement and knowledge among participants persisted long-term.
4. Platform Dependency: The project raised questions about the appropriateness of relying on private platforms for democratic exercises.
5. Methodology Refinement: Lessons from this exercise have informed subsequent deliberative democracy initiatives, both online and offline.
This Facebook Deliberative Poll was a significant experiment in applying deliberative democracy methods at scale in an online environment. While its direct policy impacts may be hard to quantify, it has contributed valuable insights to ongoing discussions about democratic innovation, citizen engagement, and the role of technology in governance.
For the most up-to-date information on any follow-up studies or long-term effects, I'd recommend checking recent academic publications or contacting the Center for Deliberative Democracy at Stanford University or Meta's research team directly.
Eds bit. 6000 people using Deliberative polling a form of DD could allow everyone in the world to participate in DD if enough of them reporting daily worldwide. This was and perhaps still is ruled out a Professor of Politics at UKs Newcastle university but he is wrong again. His podcast is promoted and it had perhaps the highest viewing figures last time I asked Copilot earlier this year 2024. Shame to have a sabotaging academic rewarded with a professorship.
Broken democracy corrupted from within
@@ioanagrancea6091 you can copy paste into free AI Chatbots for any summary length wanted:)