Newsgroup: it.politica
Titolo: Che ne dite di un wikiparlamento?!? VOTARE ONLINE!

io ho già aperto questa discussione ma è divagata tra sinistra /
destra fascisti / comunisti...che palle.
allora secondo me sarebbe fantastico.
immaginati un mondo senza parlamento in cui le leggi vengono messe su
una sorta di wikipedia, dove liberamente vengono scritte e dove se
ricevono abbastanza voti vengono approvate.
io propogo una legge e la metto su internet. sul sito dello stato
italiano (da definirsi).
la descrivo
ricevo diciamo che so 100000 persona che la visionano e la votano.
a questo punto scatta il referendum online. entro un mese si vota ed
alla fine la legge viene approvata o respinta.
lo stato finalmente sarebbe completamente in mano ai cittadini
si potrebbero fare leggi tecniche, dicendo che solo i laureati in
Economia possono redarre e votare che so la finanziaria. solo quelli in
ingegnieria elettronica/informatica le leggi sulle telecomunicazioni...
l'unico problema è che alcune lobby sarebbero + potenti. ma molto vedi
la chiesa che muoverebbe centinaia di miaglia di voti.
ma almeno, non ci sarebbe + demagogia. i partiti non esisterebbero e
con loro nessuno stronzo con l'immunità che fa i viaggi e le cene a
sbafo.

 Economia possono redarre e votare che so la finanziaria.
un laureato in economia quanto ne può sapere dei bisogni della gente?
farà quadrare i conti , ma non servirebbe a molto, lo scopo non è
mica quello
secondo me la tecnocrazia sembra la strada giusta, ma alla fine si
trasformarebbe in un inferno.

il fatto è che secondo me se questa cosa porta a votare che so anceh
solo 50000 persone a legge, e se queste persone sono dei tecnici, è
sempre meglio che votino 300 persone. ogniuno si assuma una piccola
responsabilità dello stato, poco tempo a testa è molto iu' del tempo
che gli dedicano quei 300 idioti.

si chiama e-democracy e i partiti politici sono (per ovvi motivi) contrari a 
prescindere.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
La mia Cartella di Posta in Arrivo è protetta con SPAMfighter
3198 messaggi contenenti spam sono stati bloccati con successo.
Scarica gratuitamente SPAMfighter! 

ciccio ha scritto:

Da come l'ha descritta vladimir sono contrario anchio, per le ragioni
che ho detto, sono contrario alla 
tecnocrazia.se
 è semplicemente per
una consultazione , ok.
 però una cosa  del genere sono d'accordo
''Democrazia Elettronica sono comprese le pratiche e le sperimentazioni
di utilizzo delle tecnologie telematiche (Internet in particolare ma
anche telefonia mobile) da parte dei cittadini per condizionare le
scelte politiche delle istituzioni democratiche di qualsiasi livello
(locale, nazionale, sovranazionale, internazionale''


Creator and Director of E-Debates
Minnesota Electronic Democracy
Doctoral Candidate, University of Cambridge, UK
Faculty of Social and Political Sciences
In the early 1990s Al Gore, then a Senator from Tennessee, fashioned the 
metaphor of an 'information superhighway.' This innovation was a derivative 
of the National Superhighway initiative championed in the Senate a 
generation ago by Gore's father. The belief in the potential of computers 
and an information superhighway was carried by Gore further into the 
mainstream media as a part of the Clinton-Gore literature in the 1992 
presidential campaign. At that time the concept of an "electronic town hall" 
was also brought into the mainstream media by the Independent candidate for 
president, H. Ross Perot. The rhetoric about the beginning of an information 
age was given immediacy by traditional media institutions because the 
Clinton-Gore and Perot campaigns began to bypass traditional media 
institutions during the 1992 campaign. Increasingly they reached the public 
through radio call-ins, satellite television, cable television, C-Span, 
talks shows, and the like. As a result, in 1993 there was a rapid increase 
in stories about new technology, computers, and the media business. There 
was also concern about convergence in the forms of media such as print, 
audio, and video through computer networks, etc. There was also a new sense 
of urgency in these stories. The interest in these issues was, once again, 
furthered by the new administration when it launched a National Information 
Infrastructure initiative and then a Global Information Infrastructure 
initiative, as well as calling for a re-write of the 1934 Communications 
Act.
The Minnesota Electronic Democracy Project (MN E-D Project) was founded in 
July, 1994 by Steven Clift, a 24-year-old student at the Hubert H. Humphrey 
Institute of Public Policy in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Clift was interested 
in studying the impact of new communications technologies on governmental 
organizations and the political process and in the summer of 1994 used his 
free time to formulate and initiate the Minnesota Electronic Democracy 
Project. Originally, the project was designed to create a place on the 
Internet for the public to access information from the candidates and about 
the candidates running for office in the up-coming state and national 
elections in November, 1994. Clift drafted a preliminary proposal and sent 
it to several local electronic discussion lists.
The idea was warmly received by other individuals interested in both 
information networks and Minnesota politics. Several well-attended 
electronic democracy meetings were organized. An infrastructure was quickly 
put into place. Although the Twin Cities Freenet (TCFN) was not yet open to 
the general public, the main organizers, Scott Fritchie, a systems manager 
at St. Olaf University in Northfield, and Olaf Holt at the University of 
Minnesota, had put TCFN on the Web. As TCFN was itself a new organization 
interested in getting involved in the community, Fritchie and Holt offered 
TCFN as the host site for the MN E-D Project. A connection between Steve 
Clift, who had considerable experience and understanding of Minnesota 
politics, and the technical people involved with TCFN was forged, developing 
a pathway for political information to migrate onto the Web. Clift would 
create contacts with people in the political campaigns, put the information 
on computer disks and give the disks to volunteers to code so it could 
appear at the MN E-D Project site at the Twin Cities Freenet.
Another key innovation of project organizers was the decision to create an 
e-mail-based public discussion forum using listserve technology. Dennis 
Fazio, President of Minnesota Regional Network, a publicly funded Internet 
Service Provider, agreed to host the forum, MN-POLITICS, using computers at 
their site. MN-POLITICS was open to anyone who had the ability to send an 
e-mail message to "Majo...@MR.Net" asking the computer to subscribe them 
to the forum. Furthermore, anyone could send an e-mail message to all of the 
individuals subscribed to MN-POLITICS by sending a message to 
"
MN-PO...@MR.NET
". Mick Souder, a student investigating the impact of 
computer-mediated communication at the University of Minnesota, agreed to be 
the list-manager, meaning that he would watch over the unfolding discussion 
to make sure the technology and dialogue ran smoothly. Scott Fritchie, who 
would become the technical coordinator of the project, decided to create an 
archive of MN-POLITICS at the MN E-D Project site at the Twin Cities 
FreeNet. He was able to do this using an application called Hypermail. This 
application posts the exchanges in an e-mail-based listserve discussion to a 
Web site. As a result, all of the comments from participants in the 
discussion become available over the entire Internet through hypertext 
links. In this way, a globally accessible conversation about politics in 
Minnesota was created.
The infrastructure for the project was in place and open to the public by 
late August, well in time for the Minnesota primaries in early September, 
when the major parties would choose their candidates. Through contacts that 
had been made at all of the campaigns, position papers on a variety of 
subjects had been made available from candidates running for the United 
States Senate and Governor of Minnesota. Furthermore, by mid-August, a group 
of individuals had signed on to participate in the conversation in 
MN-POLITICS, creating another important dynamic to the project. The stated 
purpose of MN-POLITICS is as follows, "The Minnesota Politics and Public 
Policy E-Mail Forum (MN-POLITICS) will promote the sharing of information on 
and discussion of Minnesota politics and public policy during the election 
season and beyond. The list encourages discussion from diverse political 
perspectives that is respectful in nature. This forum is more about the 
presentation of ideas and information than being right with one's ideology."
Given the stir that had been building in Washington and around the world 
about information superhighways and electronic democracy, the early 
experiment was of interest to the media. The metropolitan daily, The 
Minneapolis Star-Tribune, ran a piece in the Metro section, "State politics 
exploring cyberspace," on September 1. The subheading of the Star-Tribune 
piece indicated reporter Bob von Sternberg's angle, "Fringe parties, 
political junkies beat mainstream candidates to electronic bulletin boards." 
While the media had an eye on the project, they were careful to emphasize 
the distance between the new technology and the mainstream. They did, 
however, allow Clift to express his view that the new technology could 
eventually alter the locus of political power. Von Sternberg quoted Clift, 
"It's novel and new now, but a few years from now it could help set the 
agenda, determine how political power is distributed." Although skeptical 
perhaps, von Sternberg also raised the subject of the democratic potential 
associated with the new medium, writing, "In effect, the experience of 
MN-POLITICS bears out what computer aficionados have said all along about 
the Internet: It's the ultimate democratizing tool, where everyone (and 
every idea) is equal."[1]
Based on a press release distributed across the Internet by e-mail in early 
September, the potential of the project was clear. The effort possessed the 
features necessary to facilitate a an alternative system of public opinion 
formation. As the press release said, "This is the first citizen-based, 
state-level, multi-candidate election effort that we are aware of in the 
United States." At the time no other project had the combination of features 
possessed from the start by the MN E-D Project. It was designed for the 
electoral process; it was locally based; it was organized by citizens and 
civic organizations; it sought to distribute political information directly 
from the candidates; and it featured an interactive public forum. Most 
important was the combination of the contacts created with candidates and 
the e-mail based listserve for citizen dialogue being preserved in a 
Hypermail archive at the Twin Cities Freenet. Finally, the organizers 
possessed an experimental approach. They wanted to insert this into the 
political landscape in Minnesota and observe the results. As the press 
release concluded, "We hope to learn something about how electronic 
communication can help improve our representative democracy."
I became aware of the existence of the Project on September 6th, 1994 when I 
received the press release in another e-mail listserve forum in which I was 
a participant. Realizing the potential of the project, I decided to travel 
to Minnesota to conduct field research on the development of electronic 
democracy during the 1994 elections. I was particularly interested in 
observing the development of MN-POLITICS. Over the course of the project, I 
became increasingly involved in the development of the public discussion 
forum. Immediately after meeting with Steve Clift, the opportunity for 
involvement was clear and hard to refuse. First, Clift and I possessed a 
compatible interest in observing and participating in how the new technology 
would change the distribution of power in the democratic process. It is not 
insignificant that Clift was a student at the University of Minnesota, 
working in a program under the direction of Harry Boyte, who has written 
extensively on John Dewey and American pragmatism. After all, I was studying 
the new technology from a Deweyan perspective as a graduate student at 
Cambridge in England. Second, Clift had the attitude that he was the founder 
of an infrastructure in which volunteers would have as much latitude to get 
involved as they desired. Third, Clift had accepted a job at the Minnesota 
Government Information Access Council, assisting in the design of state 
information services and the development of state policy. While he would 
stay involved in the project throughout, his new position in government 
required that he step into the background. Not only did the MN E-D Project 
possess tremendous potential, but organizers were eager for assistance.
In any event, the combination of the e-mail listserve technology and the 
Hypermail archive proved to be very effective as a unit of political 
machinery. From September 1 to October 18, 431 separate messages were sent 
to MN-POLITICS and archived at the Twin Cities Freenet. On September 1, 128 
individuals had subscribed to MN-POLITICS. By the Minnesota Primaries on 
September 13, when the political parties would choose their candidates for 
the November 8 election, 244 individuals had subscribed. By the end of the 
first period on October 18, 308 individuals had subscribed.
Between September 28 to October 18, I became an active participant in 
MN-POLITICS. My contributions were designed to experiment with what I had 
discerned to be the potential of the medium and the particular 
implementation of the medium. For example, I created my own vehicle for 
communication within MN-POLITICS, a journal called AGORA - THE MN E-D 
CHRONICLE. The name "agora" was, of course, taken from the name of the 
marketplace in which citizens discussed the issues of the day in the 
classical Athenian city-state. The Statement of Purpose of AGORA listed 
three aims: "1. To facilitate the democratic process in MN. 2. To discuss 
the construction of a new public space, a prototype for an electronic town 
hall. 3. To explore the relationships between the new electronic medium and 
the traditional media." AGORA was used to aid the further development of the 
project into an alternative system of public opinion formation. The primary 
strategy was to further awareness of the presence of the MN E-D Project in 
the community and to involve actors in the political process in MN-POLITICS. 
The first entry was the story of my effort to establish the MN E-D PRoject 
as an official member of the media by securing a White House press pass to a 
rally for Ann Wynia, one of the candidates for the Senate, at which 
President Bill Clinton would be the featured speaker. Subsequent entries 
included a critical account of the campaign process by a former campaign 
manager; a report of my experiences on the campaign trail with the 
Republican candidate for Senate and eventual victor, Rod Grams; a piece 
written by a woman running for Lt. Governor of Wisconsin; and press releases 
in electronic form from Minnesota candidates. The last two offerings were 
part of a deliberate strategy to involve candidates in the deliberation 
taking place in MN-POLITICS. This strategy culminated in a challenge to the 
candidates to contribute to AGORA. Based on developments during this period, 
Steve Clift and I eventually agreed that it would be possible to organize 
the Electronic Debates or E-Debates. Approximately four weeks before the 
election, I wrote a proposal for the E-Debates that was given simultaneously 
to the candidates, the League of Women's Voter's of MN who were asked to 
sponsor the debates, and the media.
Once the proposal had been submitted to the relevant parties, myself and 
other organizers began to publicize the E-Debates on MN-POLITICS, elsewhere 
on the Internet, and in the local and national media. The media took an 
interest in the project, the League of Women Voters of MN agreed to 
co-sponsor the project, and, one by one, the two major party candidates 
running for the United States Senate, and the two major candidates running 
for Governor of the Minnesota agreed to participate.
On October 19, an official announcement was made of the two political 
debates that would be hosted on the Internet and in MN-POLITICS. The 
E-Debates occurred between October 23 and November 5. The first E-Debate 
involved candidates running for Governor of Minnesota and the second 
E-Debate involved the candidates for the United States Senate. A separate 
e-mail listserve, MN-DEBATE, was created to provide a secure candidates-only 
platform for the formalized debate. While MN-POLITICS was open subscription 
and open submission so that anyone could join and contribute, MN-DEBATE was 
open subscription and moderated submission. Anyone could join MN-DEBATE, and 
therefore read submissions, but a moderator was in place to ensure that only 
submissions pertaining to administrative matters and submissions from the 
candidates were permitted. Not only did this provide a secure platform for a 
candidate debate but it allowed citizens the option of viewing the E-Debates 
without themselves participating. As the E-Debates were forwarded into 
MN-POLITICS, citizens also had the option of joining in and commenting on 
the E-Debates along with fellow participants.
Each E-Debate lasted five days. The first ran from Monday, October 24 to 
Friday, October 28; the second ran from Monday, October 31 to Friday, 
November 4. Five candidates participated in each E-Debate, including all 
major party candidates. The candidates were given three debate questions on 
the Saturday before the E-Debates. They were required to send a 500-word 
response to the first questions to MN-DEBATE on the following Monday between 
9:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. They were required to send a rebuttal to an 
opponents original response that same afternoon. The candidates were 
required to send in responses and rebuttals to the second and third 
questions in like manner on Wednesday and Friday.
During this period, 512 separate messages were sent to MN-POLITICS, 
including 71 forwarded from MN-DEBATE. Furthermore, at their peak on 
November 1 and November 2, 137 citizens were subscribed to MN-DEBATE and 530 
citizens were subscribed to MN-POLITICS.
There were a countless number of decisions to be taken before the E-Debates 
had ended. Each decision was necessarily influenced by both practical 
concerns and a notion of what a democratic machinery required. First among 
the practical concerns was a calculus about what it would take to convince 
the candidates to participate. For example, the primary goal leading into 
the E-Debates was to involve the major candidates for the US. Senate race 
and the Minnesota Governors race. In focusing on securing the participation 
of these four individuals the fact that the E-Debates would be open to both 
major and minor party candidates was not emphasized. Once the major 
candidates agreed to participate, the rest of the candidates were invited to 
participate as well. The importance of this concession to practicality is 
that it emphasizes the power wielded by candidates in negotiating the terms 
of participation. In other venues the candidates invariably backed out when 
it became clear that minor party candidates would be involved. They did not 
back out of this venue, I assume, because the campaign staffs realized that 
the venue was experimental and believed it to be unlikely to have a long 
enough reach into the population. Furthermore, the candidates were not 
required to type the responses and rebuttals to the questions but were 
required to be involved in drafting the responses. This was necessary to 
minimize the effort required by the candidates to take part in the E-Debates 
and maximize the potential for discussion in the public forum. The major 
candidates did not, in fact, draft their own responses. In fact, the 
juxtaposition of the major party candidate responses and the minor party 
candidate responses was significant.
Second among practical concerns were a large cluster of decisions that 
resulted in the basic format of the E-Debates as described above. For 
example, there were two E-Debates run consecutively over a two week period. 
Each E-Debate consisted of three questions, responses, and rebuttals, and 
each debate was stretched over a five-day period. The intention was to 
concentrate on a few specific issues and stretch each debate over a week so 
that participants in the MN-POLITICS would have time to discuss the 
E-Debates and issues as they developed. Furthermore, the inclusion of the 
rebuttal feature was an effort to highlight interactivity between the 
candidates. In MN-DEBATE, candidates were encouraged to learn how to use the 
interactive feature of the technology. Some used this feature better then 
others and therefore had an advantage in this forum. More importantly, in 
using the rebuttal feature correctly within the debates such individuals 
demonstrated how it can be an effective tool for candidates in the future. 
Finally, two lists, MN-POLITICS and MN-DEBATE were used. The manner in which 
these lists were implemented and interconnected is indicative of the 
democratic theory underlying the project. As has been described, one list 
was an open forum for citizen dialogue and the other was a moderated forum 
for focused candidate debate. The lists were linked because the candidate 
debate was forwarded to the open citizen dialogue.
Several respondents commented on the lack of a moderator in MN-DEBATE and 
MN-POLITICS. These respondents wanted someone to make certain the candidates 
answered the questions in MN-DEBATE and wanted to impose some sort of 
editorial function on the submissions to MN-POLITICS. In MN-DEBATE, I 
thought it unwise to impose strict rules on the candidates. It would be 
difficult to demand too much from them, especially as the forum reached only 
approximately 700 citizens directly. MN-POLITICS wasn't moderated either. 
There are many reasons for this. One reason is that the technology makes it 
difficult. Another reason is that I wanted to minimize my role in the 
development of the public forum once it was underway. For methodological 
reasons to do with my academic research, I was careful to separate my 
perceptions of events in MN-POLITICS from my function as E-Debate 
facilitator.[2]
Finally, the original intention was to develop the questions used in the 
E-Debate by asking the individuals who were already participating in 
MN-POLITICS. They did not provide a substantive contribution at first 
because, I think, they were skeptical about whether the debate would 
actually take place.[3] I formulated most of the questions used in the 
E-Debates by gleaning ideas from conversations in MN-POLITICS, in 
conversation with Steven Clift, and in consultation with the League of Woman 
Voters of Minnesota. Once it was clear the E-Debate would take place, I 
returned to MN-POLITICS and asked for suggestions again. This time, a number 
of replies were submitted from which the final question of the Senate 
E-Debate was fashioned. This demonstrates that it is feasible to ask the 
participants in the public forum in which the debate will take place for the 
questions if there is some certainty that a debate is, in fact, going to 
take place. I believe the best way to develop questions is through a 
consultation between the debate moderator and the citizens-participants.
The MN E-D Project was well received by the local national and global 
political media. In fact, based on my experiences, I believe there is an 
important link between civic participation and the local media in the age of 
the Internet. MN E-Democracy 1996 will host another United States Senate 
debate. Our goal is to get between 6,000 and 10,000 Minnesotans involved in 
the deliberation. To achieve this goal, we will receive assistance from The 
Minneapolis Star-Tribune Online, MN Online (a collaboration between Twin 
Cities Public Television, Minnesota Public Radio, and Minnesota Regional 
Network) and the Internet presence of the St Paul Pioneer Press, the Pioneer 
Planet. In addition, we hope to promote other local electronic democracy 
projects around the country and world. It would be great if E-Debates took 
place for Senate races, House races, state races, city council races, etc. 
in every community. For example, some people in England including myself are 
planning a UK E-Democracy Project based on the Minnesota E-D Project model. 
What would be particularly exciting is if enough local e-democracy projects 
emerge around the country to convince the presidential candidates - Clinton 
and Dole - to participate in a national presidential E-Debate. This could be 
the birth of a National Electronic Democracy Network - and, eventually, even 
a Global Electronic Democracy Network.
Endnotes
  1.. von Sternberg, Bob. Minneapolis Star-Tribune. "State politics 
exploring cyberspace". September 1, 1994. p.1B.
  2.. I did occasionally make suggestions to guide the forum along, urging 
people to make contributions or setting limits on the number of posts once 
it became apparent that certain individuals might well seek to monopolise 
the conversation.
  3.. At that point the candidates had not accepted the invitations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
La mia Cartella di Posta in Arrivo è protetta con SPAMfighter
3202 messaggi contenenti spam sono stati bloccati con successo.
Scarica gratuitamente SPAMfighter! 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Ross_Perot
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
La mia Cartella di Posta in Arrivo è protetta con SPAMfighter
3202 messaggi contenenti spam sono stati bloccati con successo.
Scarica gratuitamente SPAMfighter!