website feature idea: democratic ruled groups

Feature idea for planet.infowars.com: there are many groups consisting of just 1 or a few members. This could represent a loss of organizational strength, of a fractured front. One reason may be power: not necessarily that they want the power, but perhaps more because they don't want to be serfs under someone else's power. This could theoretically be dealt with by creating democratic groups, where the power is not in one person but by some form of group voting or elections. Even if this is not the reason to create democratic groups is a good idea in its own right (which probably doesn't need to be argued here; it is a human need and right to have a say, it cuts down unpleasant dictators, infiltrators, incompetent bosses, the group will possibly be closer to what the group wants it to be, etc.) The bigger question may be how to do it (and who has the time & money to implement it.) Below is an initial scetch of how such a system might operate on a social media website.  

initial scetch of website-group democracy

Smart groups may organize ahead of time several groups that are already published within the original group, so that if the group becomes large and valuable and a power struggle comes about, that the group can then split apart and for example the smallest split (who is outvoted then) can be given one of these dormant but known secondary groups. That can matter because if a group splits and one half needs to start from scratch, they may not be able to get in touch with the pre-existing mother group members to ask them to join them (or join both). The old group may be well known but the new group has a right to also patch into that. Both groups could then list the other group somewhere on their pages (where it can actually be found fairly easily) and say something like "these are our offspring" or this group was where we originally where and they can of course give their side of the story. This gives members a chance to know what is going on. Splitting is not necessarily a sad event because by splitting the enemy suddenly has 2 enemies rather then just one. Splitting may occur for reasons other then infighting,for example divergent interests or living places, etc.

It may be better to let this date be fixed, so that those in the group who are paranoid will be faced with the option of putting someone to observer status (which by the way could just mean they are inactive or just dont want to be involved in group decisions), or see the date pass by passively and see how it goes with someone they don't trust. The person they don't trust may be even a better person then they are, and maybe the distrust was the wrong on their part because they where seeking power and psycho games. When this date is a fixture, the person is likely to push through a little resistance and can then proof him/her-self as a voter. If all goes well then all is well; if not then the majority could still remove someone from the voter status through mentioned status-vote. There are a few power struggle games that can be played, but every system has their problems, and at the end of this people may be wiser and simply off in a new group with those that they ended up trusting afterwards. It is not necessarily a big deal to loose a group from power games.

Smart groups may organize ahead of time several groups that are already published within the original group, so that if the group becomes large and valuable and a power struggle comes about, that the group can then split apart and for example the smallest split (who is outvoted then) can be given one of these dormant but known secondary groups. That can matter because if a group splits and one half needs to start from scratch, they may not be able to get in touch with the pre-existing mother group members to ask them to join them (or join both). The old group may be well known but the new group has a right to also patch into that. Both groups could then list the other group somewhere on their pages (where it can actually be found fairly easily) and say something like these are our offspring or this group was where we originally where and they can of course give their side of the story. This gives members a chance to know what is going on. Splitting is not necessarily a sad event because by splitting the enemy suddenly has 2 enemies rather then just one. Splitting may occur for reasons other then infighting,for example divergent interests or living places, etc.

Example:

option X yes/no for example there is some option in the planet.infowars.com group control, option X.with a single owner that option can be activated or deactivated by that owner. but in a democratic system you could list all the voters under an option and ask them to vote. the majority will then rule the option.

option X yes/no 
yes [x] no [_] acrista 
yes [_] no [x] bertolisia 
yes [x] no [_] cinderella 
yes [_] no [x] dude d.  
yes [_] no [_] englipsia 
yes [x] no [_] fungtampetitia 
yes [_] no [_] grisolde 
yes [x] no [_] hermanos$ hermenius 
yes [x] no [_] introperdatoli$ perdatolis perditius
 ----------------------- 
yes 5 no 2$ undecided 1
option x = yes

Now of course there is potential to make this more interesting, because a system like this also allows representation. Grisolde chooses Dude D. to be her representative and all Dude D. votes get copied as being Grisolde's votes as well; which causes its own set of problems though because what if Grisolde is inactive or even a fake account. Why should some people end up with more power then others and hence create a society again with power differences. Why should person X have 10 votes because all his 10 family members give him their vote, and another person have only one vote, meaning that a debate about anything could end up always going to this person who has so many votes because he rules just about everything. There is a beauty in that a person always votes only his own vote, and because these infowars-groups are not that big a job to rule (not a full time job) there is no practical need for representation (unlike is the case with the State, which is a full time job at larger scales.)

dictatorship or democracy starts in your own life.

regards jos

p.s.

P.S. A tie can be broken by computing the combined length of time that all the voters for one option have compared to the other option (seniority of group membership rule). This rule is particularly handy for small groups. Example: Bob is in a group for 6 weeks, Estria for 3 weeks, Kurk for 4 weeks and Sastralama for 1 day. If the vote is Bob + Estria = yes, Kurk + Sastralama = no, then the result is yes because 6 weeks + 3 weeks = 9 weeks, while 4 weeks + 1 day = 4 weeks and 1 day. If this still doesn't resolve a stalemate then you could let the vote go to that option who has the single longest member on its side. Example: Joe member 2 weeks, Johanna 4 weeks, Mark 3 weeks and Ximpal 3 weeks, Joe+Johanna = 2 + 4 = 6 weeks, Mark + Ximpal = 3 + 3 = 6 weeks, but Johanna is the longest membership of all and therefore it goes to that side. If this still doesn't resolve it you could need a coin-flipper of some kind but it should be rare enough. Easier even is to leave the option unchanged from what it was before. Most websites have options that start at a given default.

You can ignore this paragraph, but I'll leave it to show to the technophobes that it's thought through to a degree. A coin flipper could be a little application that requires every member to click it, and after all have it will use those inputs into a random-generator and run for a while and then give a decision. An idea is that because an option may need to be either yes or no and can not be undecided until voted upon, therefore an option immediately goes to the majority vote (including mentioned seniority rules). Hence an option can always be in a state that the website can deal with. If a random coin flip is necessary the system needs to first give the option to one side for example by running a quick call to urandom(); (a random generator in C at least), after which more fair and complicated random generator might run to potentially change it (because people are perhaps not going to like it when someone says but the random generator gave it to us and having had no contact/input into such a system. [[Eehhh ok splitting hairs now sorry lol. While I'm at it: there is a threat that someone will change their vote and then quickly change it back to get another random-generator result until they have what they want. For that problem it would work that the system remembers every distribution of votes and the random-result that was attached to it, and then first reverts to that before flipping another coin. A new coin will need to be flipped only when there is a new distribution of votes. This is now about such a small percentage of votes, something like 1:10 000, that the design is probably robust enough to work. Another miniscule threat is that in this coin-flip design ppl who already have what they want - the initial flip was in their favor - will henceforth 'forget' to click the secondary coin-flipper. To deal with that you could have it work with only those who lost the vote, and have an interest in a second coin flip. By the way this whole second-coin-flipper is probably unnecessary bloat, I'd not even bother with it and instead only use a quick call to a random function and be done with it. It will never happen anyway.]])

Then there is the problem of options that are not multiple choice, I'll leave that problem hanging for the moment. Note that every vote can be reduced to a multiple-choice by allowing every member to submit one choice ?

p.p.s. maybe infowars already has this, in that case i missed it.