Proxy voting
Delegated Voting is a form of joint decision-making in the context of a direct democratic system, which was supplemented by representative elements. Delegated Voting is the most important instrument in the context of the concept of " liquefaction of democracy" ( Liquid Democracy ).
Any interested party may either issue in the theoretical model in political elections and votes his vote in person ( element of direct democracy ) or his voice to someone else transferred ( element of representative democracy ). It is also possible to transfer the voice to a group, such as a political party. The delegation of voting rights may relate to individual decisions as well as on comprehensive policies. Many supporters of the Delegated Voting hope that the votes are piling up in an evolutionary process with competent people. The voice transmission may be withdrawn in the concept of Delegated voting at any time; Instead, the voice of another person or group can be transferred, or the voter can personally cast his vote.
Someone who has given a voice by another transfer, in turn, may delegate his or her own voice, along with the votes acquired by delegation. This leads delegation chains. A delegate who has obtained by Delegated Voting more than ten percent of those votes, all of which have registrants together in a topic area of the Pirate Party of Germany is party internally called " Super Delegate ". These superdelegates have the power to enforce only the vote on a proposal. In the Pirate Party Germany there was the date December 2, 2012 29 superdelegates.
The theoretical model is restricted by any applicable laws in its applicability. Thus, for example, the National Association Berlin, the Pirate Party of Germany stated: " None of the systems presented should of course replace the statutory decision-making at party, but they can be very useful for preparation. "
A further development of Delegated Voting introduces the concept of direct parliamentary system with the instrument of the policy field Parliament dar.
History
From the circle of American online communities the concept of liquid democracy is from 2003 has been formulated, which provides a flexible method for developing and delegation of recommendations by experts on the delegation of the voice out ( answer recommendation ).
Use in policy
Proponents of Delegated Voting argue that due to the proliferation of electronic means of communication can be determined quickly by Delegated voting, which political projects in the population of an area as well as in parties and other organizations, are a majority. The phenomenon of the digital divide is known in the art. Due to the progressive spread of Internet connections in Germany and their active use (as of 2013: 77.2 percent) of Liquid Democracy supporters hold the digital divide, although for a remarkable, but negligible to an ever greater extent problem. Added to this is the argument that, even offline elections were not without hurdles.
It is currently for instance in the framework of Liquid feedback from the Pirate Party Germany, whose national associations, the Pirate Party and the Pirate Party Switzerland Brazil used in test mode and prepare for the party conventions. The SPD parliamentary group sets as part of its "Future Dialogue" Liquid Democracy software adhocracy a. In the fall of 2011, the SPD continued the browser software for creating an online application for the federal party. The North Rhine-Westphalian CDU wants according to media reports from June 2012 to use Liquid Feedback to " integrate expertise of the members of " the.
In September 2010 the Enquete Commission of the German Bundestag Internet and Digital Society has decided to try to use the software adhocracy to include in the form of Liquid Democracy the public in their work. Although the planned introduction of this system was stopped in January 2011, initially as deputy of CDU / CSU and FDP (Commission for the use of new information and communication technologies and communication media ) due rejected in the ICT Commission further use of its high cost, it was end of February 2011 as the 18th " Expert beta " online the Commission of Inquiry. It was first implemented, among others, by the association Liquid Democracy. In the interim reports of the Commission are some suggestions from the participation platform have been incorporated.
Criticism
Psychology of competence attribution
In the concept of Delegated Voting is assumed to vote willing estimated regularly their own competence correctly and would in the case of lack of competence to delegate their vote, rather than vote despite a lack of competence itself. They would also the competence and reliability of the person to whom they are voting for, to correctly assess the normal case.
Both assumptions may not be realistic. To tend in the context of the Dunning - Kruger effect many to overestimate their own competence, and to make judgments whose dubiousness they can not see. The phenomenon of naive trust in others is known as " sausage turner phenomenon" of parties ago: Who grilling sausages at a party, is anyone who wants to have a sausage, known and loved for its service. The probability that he will be commissioned in other contexts of the " sausage - customers " to implement their interests is great. In fact, with specific recognition and popularity in the commissioning of the " sausage Wenders ' the rash and not his expertise.
Inadmissibility of imperative mandates
Voices that were transferred to a trusted person can in the context of Delegated Voting in Germany " abused " in the same way as in a parliament is made possible by the transfer of a mandate to MPs by the delegate vote help but be the client has presented. § 15 para 2 of the Law on Political Parties writes namely for decision-making within all parties: " In elections and referendums binding to decisions of other organs is not permitted. " Even for delegated voices in the context of the Delegated Voting is it so within parties not imperative mandate. Only after a change in the law on political parties, it might be permissible to change this state of affairs within a party, unless there are constitutional hurdles contrary.
The fact that it is the fear that the confidence of members of the Pirate Party, which delegate their voting rights could be disappointed by party members, not a purely hypothetical assumption shows an example from 2010: "Der Spiegel " reported that many members of the Pirate Party in 2010 her voice Martin Haase contributed, as the party sought a position for an unconditional basic income. You have to trust that Haase may establish it. To her surprise, he transferred his vote to another pirate who voted against it; the request failed. Haase explained his rejection with linguistic weaknesses. His supporters not convinced the. About 50 pirates immediately deprived him their votes. Only a revised proposal agreed Haase - since the number of his supporters has risen again.
The case also illustrates a problem that is connected with chain delegations: Those who have a mandate Martin Haase knew not who would actually strengthened by the weight of her voice vote. Generally chain delegations are problematic because there trust relationships often lack portability. Thus it follows from the sentences: " Fritz Love Lisa " and " Lisa loves John" is not the phrase: " Fritz loves Hans ". If a relationship of trust based on popularity and not on rational grounds, then the conclusion is: A " trusts B, and B trusts C; So familiar A C " inadmissible. On the second national congress of the Pirate Party of Bavaria in 2012, therefore, the application was made, the weight of transitive delegations (ie delegations with more than two chain links ) " dampen " to.
Bid secret ballot and the possibility of secret ballots
The system of Delegated voting is vulnerable to tampering as regards the procedures. To prevent this, it must always be possible to control who has who transmitted a voice for that matter and how the elected representatives voted. However, this is contrary to the law laid down by party bid secret ballot and the imperative to follow the requests for a secret ballot. The Federal Constitutional Court found in its judgment on voting machines that it is currently technically possible, digitally perform elections, which sufficiently meet both the requirement of secret elections as well as the principle of accountability of the electoral process. It has banned the use of voting machines. Thus, elections must be carried out as in Germany ( by physically at a general meeting, at a polling station or in a parliamentary electors present or by postal ballot ). The same is true for those votes in which a legal claim for a secret ballot.
It follows from all above mentioned, previously, that in Germany Delegated Voting may only be used for creating opinion leaders, but not for binding decision-making at the time, unless a potential claim for a secret ballot would be made not successfully enforced.