|
discussion |
| Primary Documents |
| Conceptual Documents |
| Originating Ideas (Oct. 1998) |
| Current Implementation Ideas |
|
| Links |
| Other Tool Ideas |
|
Orgnet Inflow |
| Licensing Info |
 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
© Copyright 2003 Michael Bowen.
Last update: 4/12/2003; 6:58:44 PM.
| Monday, January 13, 2003 |
|
I did a short surf through vote.com. I like it. Let me spend a moment then to distinguish it from the purposes and plans of XR. Vote.com appears to be designed as the name suggests, to create votes. XR, in contrast, is designed to create resolutions. So when I think of a resolution, I am expecting to see the thinking behind the resolution. I want an idea of how the language of the resolution was put together. Furthermore, when the facts surrounding the issue change, I want the system to allow people to change their minds accordingly. Vote.com gives us a snapshot of public opinion frozen in time, but it doesn't give us any information about how people arrived at their decisions. The entire substance of the website could conceivably be spoofed by computers. As I observed, the discussions section was not functioning and should give me some more insight when it is. XR also encourages people to do legislative work; wonking. That's why I call it 'Roberts Rules for the Future'. I want computer aided decision making to be able to handle narrative data, rather than just numbers. And I also expect XR to handle shades of grey rather than simply provide thumbs up or down and majority rule. In vote.com unlike in e-thepeople.com, I seem only able to vote pro or con but not question the premise of the litmus test. 4:33:33 PM  comment []
|