Blind Voting

exactly. i would add this fature only as very expensive option for closed - corporate use...never on main website

In my experience in Northern Ireland, cross-community discussions only work when people can use pseudonymns. There is too much fear of reprisals to reveal their names. And without blind voting people vote the way others expect them to do, rather than how they feel. There is pressure to confirm to extreme norms.

Blind voting assumes a majority-rules decision-making model, where the people participating 1) can't all trust each other to participate in good faith, and 2) don't care about the reasons for the positions other are taking. The focus is getting at least 51% of participants to vote for the position you favour, so you can impose it on the remaining 49% or less. Blind voting functions to make sure "your" voters aren't coerced by "them".

Loomio is designed primarily for groups using consensus decision-making, not majority-rules. In a consensus process the comments people make on why they agree, disagree, abstain, or block, are as important as the "votes" themselves. In this model, when a good argument given in one person's position statement sways those who take a position after them to follow their lead, this is a feature, not a bug. Open "voting" functions to help the group understand each others' concerns, and converge on the best possible decision for all participants.

All that said, it would be interesting to have the option to anonymize the position statements while a poll is open (or alternatively forever). That way, I may still be swayed by relevant arguments made in the positions statements, or indeed by how close/ far the rest of the group is to consensus; sometimes getting to a decision is better than making no actionable decision because everyone is too attached to their own solution. But I'm not being swayed by who made a particular comment or took a particular position, and I might feel more free to express a position that might otherwise make me a target for a frustrated group.

Protection of identity in expression of opinion is absolutely essential to democracy. Whether a decision requires 51, 67, or 100 percent support is a different issue. Helping people understand each other is also a different issue and function. Forcing people to reveal their preferences to others is not going to work in the real world where there are always power differentials. Online, pseudonyms can be used to provide both protection and reputation.

I find this such an interesting topic, and I marvel when David can say so strongly that for him protection of identity is essential. From my perspective and in my own 'reality bubble', it depends on an existing culture and what kind of a culture one is seeking to encourage.

I can understand how, in a culture of fear and suspicion, a secret ballot might be desirable to safeguard individual members. I also see a kind of paradox in that it could then actually get in the way of a deeper democracy developing.

In our Gene Keys Society we aspire to embody transparency as a community founding value. To have blind voting for us would inhibit, even go against our basic purpose and reason for being. As a group called together through common interest in how Gene Keys teachings can help us transmute shadow patterns of fear and mistrust, we're about learning to support each other beyond secrecy.

Reading this dialogue, I realise I had assumed that Loomio founders had a political motive to foster greater transparency and openness through its systems. Interesting how the requests of users might influence, inform and extend.

I agree, great discussion, thanks to everyone who's participated so far.

Protection of identity doesn't necessarily reduce transparency. When you have a secret ballot, transparency can be increased, since people with power know that if they repress people, the secret vote can strip them of their power. People can always tell others how they voted, if they feel safe. Aspirations alone are not adequate to produce transparency. If there is no structural support, the transparency will not last long. Messages can be public, anonymous, private, or secret. The anonymous communication, like a secret ballot, protects the public space and keeps it free. Similarly, private messages - hidden message content- protects the anonymous communication, etc.
DECISION PROCESSES IN A DEMOCRACY (PRINT AT 1/2 SIZE):
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_zxYlTkSnKQSm1HZDNfWEJhY0U

See also my E-democracy "review" https://plus.google.com/112954247252607898206/

I note there are no secret messages on Loomio either, not because there's any rule against backchannel discussion, but because there are other tools (eg email) that already serve this purpose for those who need it. I have been part of many, many groups and situations in the real world that used well-facilitated consensus process, and had no need of blind voting. Groups practicing majority-rules decision-making, whose members don't know each other well, or don't have a lot of shared context, or which have membership above Dunbar's number (140) , may find blind voting useful. But saying that:

protection of identity in expression of opinion is absolutely essential to democracy

... is heavily over-stating the case for it. A democracy can make use of majority-rules decision-making (when there is consensus on doing so ;)) but to reduce democracy to majority-rules is to replace it with electoral dictatorship.

I've implemented and deployed a beta version of this feature. If you'd like to try it out in your group, please send a message to contact@loomio.org saying you'd like to turn on anonymous voting for your group :D

Looking forward to hearing further feedback about it :)

If you think that social change is going to occur with only groups below 140, you are naive. Democracy is defined by expressions of interest related to the options. The Athenian democracy included anonymous voting. You are using the term in a non-standard manner, which undermines communication.

You are using the term in a non-standard manner

You are entitled to your definition @davidstodolsky , but I don't know how democratic it is to insist that other people adopt your preferred definition as the "standard" one. 'The Democracy Project', by David Graeber, explores a number of way democracy has been understood and practiced, drawing on both the historical and the ethnographic record. I highly recommend it.

If 999 people vote that 1 person should be summarily executed for no reason, is this acceptable in a democracy? If not, then it becomes clear that democracy cannot be reduced to majority-rule voting.

I am in agreement "David Graeber rejects the notion that “democracy” means the freedom to cast a desultory vote for this or that candidate’s slate of corporate-sponsored beliefs. " https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/democracy-what-is-it-good-for-david-graeber-and-gar-alperovitz/#!
"If 999 people vote that 1 person should be summarily executed for no reason, is this acceptable in a democracy?" No, democracy is based upon rule of law and includes protections for basic rights. Even Athens had courts that dealt with perceived individual misconduct.

Sorry, but I don't think we should have a discussion about what
democracy is.

Le 14/11/2017 à 14:12, David Stodolsky
(Loomio) a écrit :

I'd appreciate it if someone wanted to write a summary of the discussion from here and the parallel secret vote thread.

There has been some really good arguments for and against the feature, which I think can help develop awareness of how to choose your tools and facilitate the best participation for the needs of your group.

Personally I'm convinced some groups will benefit from the feature, and the Loomio team is happy to include it as an option for groups to try if they wish.

Hi @davidstodolsky and @strypey - I'm concerned that the conversation might be going off topic at this point.

Fair enough @robertguthrie . I wasn't planning to continue debating the issue here, but I thought it was useful to reference Graeber's book in closing, for anyone who's interested.

My point, viz-a-viz Loomio develoment, is best summed up by my initial comment. I think anonymization of responses during a voting round could be helpful, but my concern is a feature that obscures position statements during a voting round might increase polarization, and make it slower and harder to find consensus.

i am intrigued to see where the conversation goes....off topic?

voting is blind...and standards are a big, rigid spike hammered into the ground so that whatever is attached does not move too much... :thinking: