- Formation of the Pirate Party in Germany (Piratenpartei)
- 5 years of Liquid Democracy in Germany
- Deutscher Bundestag – Wikipedia
Such bindingness would be achievable through creation of a new party organ  , which could make decisions independently and at any time through Liquid Democracy. Within the limits of statutes and manifest, binding decisions could be made, which could empower the party to react, for example, to politics of the day. For such an organ, however, a verifiability of the recorded votes by directly linking the cast votes with the person who cast the vote would be necessary. Besides a person's legal name as an identification token, a self-chosen name may be possible that would be presented by the member at an assembly or similar event, and which is then sufficiently linked to the person.
The counter-proposals [21a] to keep allowing pseudonyms were preferred by the Berlin Pirates. At the federal party conference in Bingen, on May 16, , it was decided through the enacted proposal Z [21b] that the federal party would put a LiquidFeedback system into operation. It was decided that the decisions of the system would count as a non-binding view of opinions.
When closing the assembly, it was also decided to hold the next party conference as an assembly to decide on the party's manifest and to use LiquidFeedback to prepare the assembly with regards to content. In the aftermath of the conference, under leadership of Christopher Lauer, the responsible member of the executive board, and of Alexander Morlang, who was commissioned with technical implementing, an operational concept — mostly based on the example of the Berlin branch — was prepared. Also here, a pseudonymous usage was arranged for and, thereby, the missing verifiability relinquished.
Formation of the Pirate Party in Germany (Piratenpartei)
Despite the provided possibility to use the system pseudonymously, the two months preparation of system operation were characterized by an intensive, partly hysteric debate in regard of data protection and privacy. At the same time, Rieger praised the ability to pseudonymously use the system, without even mentioning the loss of verifiability. The previously almost unnoticeable trenches between the different political camps, inside as well as outside the pirate party, became visible more than ever. Also, the executive board of the federal party made — for the reason of data protection — further changes to the accreditation concept, amongst them a deletion of all voting data after 4 party conferences.
In addition to the fact that verifiability was already lost, by adding the Clearing House and the other changes to the operational concept, checking the accreditation of the members is now impossible without extensive efforts. Felix von Leitner summed up the situation in his usual direct manner on his blog: Nevertheless, the system was launched on August 13, on lqfb. More than party members registered and in hundreds of issues the upcoming party conference for changing the manifesto was prepared. Within those 2 months until the party conference took place, the probably most intensive test of Liquid Democracy at all was undertaken.
At the end, 28 initiatives that had been successfully finished in LiquidFeedback were enacted at the member's assembly. The precise effects of the usage of Liquid Democracy in the pirate party and the satisfaction of the pirates were extensively analyzed scientifically by Sebastian Jabbusch in his master's thesis . EIDG , summoned on March 4, by the the German Federal Parliament Deutscher Bundestag , got amongst other things the assignment to evaluate possibilities of electronic civic participation. Liquid Democracy then also became an issue, as well as the question regarding linking user accounts with persons.
In order to get trustworthy results, an accreditation method was proposed as well. Every interested person should get a letter with a personalized activation code after their registration, and the name of every participating citizen should be displayed in the user profile. Fischer member of the German Bundestag, CDU , picked up the reasoning for linking user accounts with persons in a press release.
5 years of Liquid Democracy in Germany
Surely by now, it got clear that it was impossible due to the heated atmosphere to discuss recorded votes and the linkage of political points of views with persons in a factual way. The administration of the German Federal Parliament Bundestag let the two solutions be compared.
Representatives of both projects answered a number of questions regarding the software and a concrete system operation. The administration of the Federal Parliament created a comparison out of it. Based on this, the EIDG decided on September 30, that they want to operate their own platform based on Adhocracy . The Chaos Computer Club didn't want to accept that situation. This made things hum. The experts in the EIDG pressed for starting up the system in either case — in case of need even outside of the Federal Parliament.
Despite an intervention by Axel E. Fischer  , this system went online in February  at enquetebeteiligung. The operation of the system was carried out by the Liquid Democracy e. Fischer, as chairman of the commission, appreciated  that after legal consideration and decision by the Council of Elders, there was legal security from now on and the next steps could be made. However, she insists on going further and that an authoritative citizen participation shall be established . Wawzyniak notes with good cause that expertise and opinion will only be contributed to such a system if the system's results have a real impact and there is thus an incentive to participate.
There will be only a few citizens willing to do time-consuming text work if the results are completely non-binding. But Wawzyniak misjudges the state of the launched system. An accreditation of the citizens as initially contemplated was not arranged for. Thus, the Adhocracy instance comes with an open user registration, like a testing environment. This means it is possible without technical knowledge to practically create as much user accounts as one wants to, and to use these user accounts for voting. Thereby it is easy to give a higher weight to one's own opinion. The basic principles of democracy are glaringly violated here, making binding decisions completely unfeasible.
This problem was also noticed by the experts of the commission. Freude, expert member of the commission denominated by the SPD, noted in a comment to the blog of the EIDG  that multiple registrations per person can either be technically prevented by no means at all or by a proper accreditation e. Furthermore, Freude carried on that an increased voting weight of members could be ruled out by disabling the delegation function.
- Das Verhältnis von Papst und Kaiser in Dantes Monarchia (German Edition).
- Methods of Persuasion: How to Use Psychology to Influence Human Behavior.
- Quick & Easy Meal for Kids,Quick & easy meal ideas for kid.
- Sea Change (Orca Soundings)?
- Star Trek: Creative Couplings, Book 1 (Star Trek: Starfleet Corps of Engineers)?
This approach, however, is not suitable to solve the problem. A direct increase of their own voting weight by delegations can be prohibited indeed, but casting multiple votes for the same issue per person by using different user accounts is still possible. Notwithstanding, it was decided to deactivate delegations. Thereby, after surrendering the verifiability, the core element of Liquid Democracy to pass one's own vote transitively to other persons was also given up. Therefore, as previously discussed in regard of the EIDG, democratic principles are glaringly violated because it is easy to give one's own opinion a greater weight by registering multiple times.
A serious test is impossible under these conditions. After an excursion to federal politics, we shall return to the Pirate Party Berlin, as the party wants to be elected member of the city-state's parliament and the district councils of Berlin. Liquid Democracy is also an issue of the election campaign which the pirates want to score with. Members could promptly present their own positions using the software LiquidFeedback. Christopher Lauer, also candidate of the Berlin Pirates for the city-state's parliament, announces at the short message service Twitter more clearly that Liquid Democracy only gains who votes for Pirates:.
Let's examine what's behind this. The operation mode of the Liquid Democracy system of the Berlin Pirates has hardly changed since beginning of operation with the first prototype of LiquidFeedback on January 4, with the ability to participate in a limited pseudonymous fashion. Deutschen Bundestages war die Agenda , die weitreichende Reformen des Sozialsystems und Arbeitsmarktes vornahm und deutliche Kritik nach sich zog.
Mai nahm der Bundestag in der Das Gesetz regelt die Einwanderung in die Bundesrepublik Deutschland neu. Durch das GKV-Modernisierungsgesetz vom Januar nicht mehr existiert. Insgesamt tagten diese in Sitzungen, davon waren Ausschusssitzungen und Unterausschusssitzungen.
Deutscher Bundestag – Wikipedia
Dezember wurde der 1. Dezember und dem 3. Vorsitzender war Klaus Uwe Benneter. Der Abschlussbericht des Untersuchungsausschusses ist Seiten lang und wurde am Untersuchungsausschuss wurde am Dezember und dem August fanden 32 Sitzungen statt. Vorsitzender war Hans-Peter Uhl. Eckart von Klaeden ersetzte ab Juli wurde Monika Heubaum durch Barbara Wittig ersetzt. Deutscher Bundestag — 2. Deutscher Bundestag — 3.
- Grammaticalization and Parametric Variation.
- Capricci del destino (Italian Edition);
- ITIL CSI - Kontinuierliche Serviceverbesserung.
- ITIL CSI - Kontinuierliche Serviceverbesserung | IT Process Wiki?
Deutscher Bundestag — 4. Deutscher Bundestag — 5. Deutscher Bundestag — 6.