[Air-l] epetitions

[Wainer Lusoli]

Hi Tom - and others

As much as I like your stance on the whole petition issue, I think the
question is ill posed: too many leads in one rhetorical, type II [negative
answer] stem.

To your specific question, the answer is: yes, it would have been possible
to build in deliberation. It has been done in relation to Parliamentary
Committees, and in departmental consolations. Why not with No10?
Were you allowed to do so? I don't know, you should tell us, did you ask?
Should money follow maturity? No, it should foster maturity. That is the
point of deliberation [you you believe deliberative theorists].
Is moderation too expensive when billions are spent in man+equipment in Iraq
[that people in Britain seem reluctant to accept]? Well, I leave that to
No10.

Comments welcome

Best

Wainer


> x-posted from mysociety.org
> 
> Tom Steinberg says: 
> 
> Dominic,
> 
> You quoted me from that list, but I think you missed
> the core question I posed for everyone there, and
> anyone reading this:
> 
> "Do you consider it possible to design deliberative
> discussion system on a site as sensitive as No10 which
> will generate debate sufficiently mature as to merit
> the sizeable public spending on moderation that would
> be required? If so, how?"
> 
> In my view, that's what's at the heart of your three
> posts above.
> 
> Tom 
> 
> written on November 24th, 2006 
> 
> Dominic Pinto says: 
> 
> 
> In a representative democracy there will (or perhaps
> that should be) be multiple fora for 'deliberative
> discussion' for 'debate' that is 'sufficiently mature'
> to justify the cost of moderation. I paraphrase, and
> slightly distort, as I'm not aware of any means that
> meet your tests .. the Houses of Parliament don't
> (slight qualification that the second chamber does
> probably do more mature things than the junior one).
> Judging by the quality of what this government in
> particular, and other governments generally, have come
> up with in the recent Queen's speech, and the pitiful
> 'japes' of their spin machines, rubbishing of
> individuals seem as 'not one of us', and the general
> paucity of real debate, and the impoverishment of our
> archaic form of government, I see little justifcation
> of the No 10 site.
> 
> The petition system exposes people concerns and
> interests, and enables 'my' support to be
> made public also. So perhaps these will reach a wider
> audience, and delivered 'direct to Downing Street.'
> The publicity and exposure of a mass petition
> delivered publicly reaches (or potentially reaches)
> vastly more than any of these do. A suggestion to try
> and measure reach would be to record site hits and
> naviagtion to individual petitions, and show this, as
> well as the actual signees.
> 
> Friends are highly dubious about this petition system,
> and that the support of say the repeal of the Hunting
> Act is representative.
> 
> And at the end of the day, it is still a matter of
> what significant impact or effect these have. Surely
> you don't envisage Blur or Broon acting because the
> highest number counted support the repeal of the
> Hunting Act? :-)
> 
> Dominic
> 
> x-posted to Air-l 
> 
> written on November 28th, 2006 
> 
> 
> Dominic Pinto BA MIEEE MCMI MRi FRSA
> http://www.ecademy.com/user/dominicpinto
> 
> e-m: dominic.pinto at ieee.org
> M: +44 780 302-8268
> Ph: +44 207 379-8341
> 
> In the U.S.
> M/Cell: +1 215 667-3001
> _______________________________________________
> The air-l at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: 
> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
> 
> Join the Association of Internet Researchers: 
> http://www.aoir.org/
>