Policies for the People needs better moderation or voting systems. I don’t mean types of censorship, but instead organization.
Like a form of forum ‘General Assembly’ for us to not just add meaningless ‘likes’ (votes) to posts.
For Example:
and
Are supporting the similar policies, but with different wording-which can make all the difference. Merges seem to go unnoticed, and unchanged. Not allowing for any advancment of the forum’s attention/support
Yes, individuals need to be able to post their individual views, but there needs to be way for people to see similar policies and combine support. The proposal with more support should advance.
A system of voting policies up, into a forum ‘General Assembly’ which would then be voted on by all member (trusted/verified) status accounts → ‘For’ or ‘Against’ would allow for citizen involvement of passing/repealing our own policies to appear in a ‘Top’ or ‘Supported Policy’ section for law makers to actually look at.
Policies that have been passed on-site can then be used to sort newer, or original posts from already on-going ideas, discussions and policies. Preventing a stream of continuous repeat policies.
The most popular and voted on version of policies like ‘Term Limits For Sen. and Rep.’ would pass from the regular forum section Liberty and move to the ‘General Assembly’ voting section. This could be based on a quarterly/monthly basis of whichever policy gets to the ‘Top’ section; or a select amount of support.
This would clear up the forum of repeats, what will be long standing/outdated posts, and establish clear and concise support of certain policies.
What’s Needed:
-
A type of posting category would be needed called ‘site repeals’ and ‘site amendment’ for previously passed posts, with an option/requirement to link said repeal or amendment to a previously passed proposal.
-
An entire section for previously passed and repealed proposals.
-
A system of verifications for users that want to participate in the ‘General Assembly’; ID, photo or biometric verification. If this is too extreme for you, think about how it could potentially prevent bot systems granting votes, and creating a clearer more established voice to the exective and legislative branches.
-
A time/counting based system of advancing proposals that allows for them to gain enough popularity. This could be brought on when a proposal gets to a certain number of votes per users, or after a certain period of time has passed; quarterly, monthly.
-
An entire section for debate under the current proposal up for the vote in the ‘General Assembly’.
Policy Proposal Advancement Path
Proposals are posted to the general forum in their respective categories.
→
The proposals with the highest support (votes) advances based on the quantity of support or the allotted amount of time between each voting session.
→
Proposal moves to a ‘General Assembly’ section of the forum, were it is displayed and open for debate. After a period of debate, votes should be then be able to be cast during a short period of time. (A time based scheduling organization of voting sessions would allow for larger voter turnout)
→
Proposals then would either need to move back to the open forum, with reset support (reset of votes) and a tag that it had been to the ‘General Assembly’ already; or it would move to a 'Forum Supported Policy’ section of the site. The ‘Forum Supported Policy’ section would allow for a clearer more concise voice of what the People of this forum support and want to see in policy.
- For a Forum General Assembly
- Against a Forum General Assembly