LiquidFeedback

Liquid feedback is a free software for political debate and decision. The most important feature is the implementation of the Liquid -democracy approach, which is to establish a new form of political representation and participation. The boundaries between representative and direct democracy here are fluent. Besides the function of expression and decision-making, it is also possible to channel the skills of the participants differently mounted on a topic efficiently.

The basic idea

Liquid feedback is designed to assist parties, associations and groups that want to use the Internet to form opinions, especially when the number of participants is too large to ensure this in a common forum. In addition, the members should be given the opportunity to promote their own initiatives, and the impact of decision hierarchies are mitigated. The software has the ambition to always determine a democratic reflection of the opinion, which is not distorted by hierarchies, differences in knowledge or other restrictions. In addition, Liquid Feedback provides the ability to determine hurdles and time frames for the initiatives.

History

Liquid Feedback was developed in October 2009 by Jan Behrens, Axel Kistner, Andreas Nitsche and Björn Swierczek. The publication will be made by the Public Software Group V. On 15 April 2010 the first stable version 1.0.0 of the backend has been published. Adopters was from January 2010, the Pirate Party Germany ( National Association Berlin ) for intra-party opinion.

The use is open to all parties and organizations. As the interest in information events is very large to LiquidFeedback and other interactive forms of democracy, the developers have decided on June 27, 2010 for this to start his own club Interactive Democracy eV. The development of Liquid feedback is unchanged under the " Public Software Group eV" continued.

Liquid feedback in the German Pirate Party of the regional associations of Berlin (since 2010), Mecklenburg -Western Pomerania ( since 2012 ), Saxony -Anhalt used (since 2012) and Saarland (since 2013). The Pirate Parties Italy and Austria use LiquidFeedback since 2011 and 2012 respectively. Other parties or their subdivisions set LiquidFeedback one in test mode and prepare for the party conventions. Slow Food used since March 2012 also LiquidFeedback. A first example has become known for use in business is the Synaxon AG.

Use

The essential functional feature of Liquid feedback is the introduction of text proposals to be voted on later. Here, the user must first select a suitable topic and decide whether the text proposal ( called Initiative) to form a new thread, or is set as alternative proposal for an initiative of an existing theme. In the case of opening a new topic, a set of rules to be used is selected according to the objectives of the initiator, which limits and quorums, and the importance of a successful vote pretending.

Rules are specified by the operator of the software installation. Examples are:

• Amendment of
• Application to the General Assembly
• Opinion for Board decisions
• Quick Poll

Issues and the initiatives contained therein, to each other in competition through shared the following phases:

• New
• In discussion
• Frozen
• Vote
• Completed or Canceled

As long as an issue in the phase " New", " in discussion" or " Frozen " is, participants in the system can support one or more initiatives to one subject. A topic is in the " New", then first must unite a value determined by the rules share of supporters votes on an initiative. If this is done within a specified period by the rules, gets the theme " in discussion". Otherwise, the subject will be canceled.

While a topic in the phase "New" or " discussion" is, though, the initiators of the initiative possible to improve their boilerplate through changes. Supporters of the initiative can record suggestions for initiative or link their support to the implementation of specific suggestions for improvement. After a predetermined time the topic comes from the discussion phase to the state " Frozen " about. This phase serves to prevent the text changes shortly before the vote, there will be suppressed with the freeze changes to the initiative. After the lapse of a further period the subject is in the phase " tuning".

Only initiatives, which received a second quorum of supporters votes, at the end of voting. The height of the second quorum of supporters, it also follows from the rules used. The voting is done by means of a preferential voting method based on the Schulze method.

Basically it can be delegate 's own vocal weight to other participants in all these processes. But can be used delegations granted only if one is not active even in a subject. Granted delegations can be undone at any time.

The system data of Liquid feedback are always available to the user for the purpose of testability, only the data of current votes are hidden to avoid tactical Select. See also Arrow 's theorem and Gibbard - Satterthwaite theorem.

Protection of minorities

Liquid Feedback has various mechanisms for the special protection of minorities. Although Voters finally follow the democratic principle of majority rule, the software allows

• Minorities and even individuals to present their views,
• Minorities who have reached a certain size to provide their views to the vote.

Here, the posts are sorted so that a proportional representation of minorities will ensure. Depending on the integration of the software, it is possible to minorities to express their views directly to the top level of an organization for discussion.

Technology

The frontend of Liquid feedback is written in Lua, the backend is a PostgreSQL server, PL / pgSQL is used for procedural programming the database. Both parts are developed by the Public Software Group eV and are available under the MIT license.

For LiquidFeedback an API is available with which external programs on the installation can access and so to provide additional services.

Applications

Originally LiquidFeedback was designed as a tool for organizations and parties. The developers have made it clear that they hold in addition to the mandatory intra-party use, under certain conditions, the use as an additional channel between citizens and the legislative or administrative sensible. By contrast, they preclude any binding commitment in the legislature.

Decision-making in political parties

The statutes of the Berlin Pirate stipulates that the institutions are required to " use the Liquid -democracy system is required to obtain recommendations on the basis of their decisions and to justify these recommendations divergent decisions ," the National Association of Mecklenburg- Vorpommern goes one step further and operates a " permanent members of assembly." Christopher Lauer, leader of the Pirate Party in the Berlin House of Representatives, criticized the fact that decisions of central importance within the Pirate Party traditionally, are therefore taken at party conferences, where members are physically present. It also calls on the federal level "permanent virtual general meetings ", where binding decisions should be made with the help of Liquid feedback. That would solve his view also the problem of low participation rates in polls.

In 2000, there were the Greens in Baden- Württemberg for the first "Virtual Congress ". Till Wester Mayer holds in a statement to the form of communication " Virtual Congress " a physical presence of delegates (a " co-presence " ) then for beneficial and advisable " if the internal structure of the party is to be changed: by elections at party, through the integration and socialization of new members or by making their own picture of the new, still unsure placed actors. "All the other functions of a party day could be carried out without the co-presence of actors and spectators. The question of whether and to what extent online party conventions are legally permissible, is controversial. In essence, the issue is whether a " meeting " ( according to the German Association Law and the Law of Parties meetings of the members have as the central organ of intra-party decision-making function ) must necessarily be regarded as coming together of physically present people.

Citizen participation

In July 2012, the district council of Lower Saxony district Friesland unanimously decided to use the software as a platform for public participation from November 2012 under the name "Liquid Friesland ". Liquid Friesland was commissioned in November 2012. For liquid Friesland was in addition to the possibilities of a bottom-up communication, the instrument of top-down communication in LiquidFeedback installed in order to explore the acceptance of projects of the district administration with the citizens can.

The use of Liquid Democracy concepts encountered in the field of civic participation in Germany generally to legal limits. A mixture of elements of representative democracy with those of direct democracy (which is always given when Delegated voting) is not provided in German law: Binding decisions may (if they do not by the police or by the municipal administration as a "business day management may be " taken to be like ) either by representatives of the citizens or by citizens or referendum. Direct Democratic votes should be conducted in voting places or in writing. Under these circumstances, determined with the aid of Liquid Feedback majorities in the process of political decision-making can be directly binding only within organizations.

Media interest

Liquid Feedback has caused some media interest. On the part of the Pirate Party, the hope is expressed that can be solved with the software the problems of grassroots democracy (see Bronze, law of oligarchy ) better than this has happened to the other parties. It is expected that the system rewards competence rather than public suitability. In addition, the resistance of the system against interferers ( " trolls " ) is praised as only constructive feedback is to be possible.

Criticism of Liquid Feedback

The introduction of Liquid Feedback conducted within the German Pirate Party disputes. Against the background that the software has the concept every statement and every vote to be able to assign a person also subsequently, inadequate data protection has been criticized in the case of use of the Pirate Party. Since the software is to allow only roll-call votes, conclusions on the respective political opinions are inherently always possible and intends ( See also: Roll-call votes in the Bundestag ). Because of this contrast between pseudonymous voting and democratic principles, the developer distanced from use in the Pirate Party. The Pirates Group in the Berlin House of Representatives said in a statement, the assessment of the developers.

There is disagreement over the question of whether, despite the possibility of being able at any time revoke delegations could consolidate power structures. This delegated voting weight of participants who no longer participate in the system, can not contribute to such an effect that was with an update of the software allows you to automatically disable inactive subscriber accounts.

It was further criticized that the protection of minorities in the system was not given. However, minorities can always bring their points of view expressed. For the setting of initiatives no quorum is required. After a specified period by the operator reaching a certain quorum of supporters (eg 5 %) may be required. Only in the final vote, a majority of at least 50 % (or even higher depending on the setting ) is required.

In the ranks of the Pirate Party Friesland criticism against the use of Liquid feedback is practiced in the context of the model Liquid Friesland: The mere use of voting results for " suggestions " within the meaning of § 34 of the Lower Saxon Municipal Constitution Act had nothing to do with direct democracy, in the opinion of Janto Just should actually be anchored by Liquid Democracy in Germany. However, this rating contradict much of his own party and call for the support of local pilot projects on digital participation along the lines of Liquid Friesland.

Similar systems

• Adhocracy