Wedecide in 9 slides


Wedecide
Wedecide in 9 slides

  1. 1. We decide. Wedecide.
    • We organize network-based collective decisions, i.e. decisions in which • you always decide whether to have direct influence (on the cost of forming an own opinion and being responsible) or if you want to be represented, and • all civil society actors may help you with representation and decision ease], • because we believe that good and legitimate decisions are necessary to have a good life and to save the world.
    • With initial clients, we build demonstration cases and grow the project to a worldwide social movement.
    • We develop and search first projects. Will YOU help us?
  2. 2. Collective decisions: Important yet nontrivial
    Good and legitimate collective decisions are necessary • Extreme opposite: Failed states. • Institutional quality predicts systemic success.
    Benevolent dictators do not work • Rich societies are too complex.
    Grass-roots decisions do not work • Too much effort to decide everything.
    Representative decisions cease to work • Depend on clear-cut group identifications. • Ceasing in Western societies. • Never-existing outside.
  3. 3. Solution: The Wedecide model
    Meta-decision freedom • Everyone decides which decisions to decide, which to be represented
    Actor-openness • Trust in every actor can be used for representation or decision ease
    Compromise and more • Many options for decisions • Both online/offline access • Many systemic options
    Trust deposit • Trust continuously stored, as base for representation and evaluation a.k.a. ‘Civil-society-based collective decision making’
  4. 4. Product
    Product • Offering decision-making for a fixed period • Hosting of evaluations, trust, counting process • Secure backup storage • Help with constitutional adjustments
    Price differentiation • By #users, #decisions • Non-profits vs. polities / for-profits
  5. 5. Markets
    Starting with accessible organizations • Universities • Cities addressing migrants • Parties
    Turning to large cases later • Public enterprises • NGO coalitions • Cities addressing citizens • Corporations
    Perspective applications • Nation states • Supranational level EU, global (climate!)
  6. 6. Competition and market strategy
    First-mover • Developer and first provider.
    Imitation? • Threat: Idea and technological development can be copied
    Counter-imitation strategy via network effects and public governance: Network effects • Especially for political actors. Legitimacy • Necessary for group motivation. • For-profit enterprises (e.g. FB) face conflicting goals.
    Going public • The enterprise will be turned into a public enterprise governed by elected board members in a fixed schedule.
  7. 7. Use Wedecide.ch for YOUR project!
    You are • an organization, group or coalition • interested in strong democracy for you and in general • open for new ways
    You want • to grow through good and legitimate decisions • to grow the responsibility of your individual members
    You have • more than about 300 individual members • internal trust relations and groups
    We offer you • a platform to decide about representatives and issues • the activation of your members and internal actors • consensus orientation, stability and transparency
  8. 8. More information? • http://wedecide.ch • Hanno Scholtz (Founder) hanno.scholtz@newinstitutions.org +41 79 755 3227 linkedin/hanno-scholtz • André Golliez (Network Co-Founder)

Trust storage

Trust storage is the base of new democratic institutions.

Currently, trust storage is a taboo. At every democratic election, we throw our ballot into the ballot box and take back our hand, deliberately destroying the link between our documented trust and ourselves. There have been good reasons to do so. But it is no longer justified that they suppress a progress to lift the taboo. It is necessary to secure trust storage with the best available mechanisms. Even with them, it will not be able to grant 100% security for the secrecy of the ballot, especially when actors who currently benefit from lesser-democratic institutions will aim to hack trust storage. But 99.99% are a good and attainable goal.

And trust storage has huge advantages.

Trust storage allows for a flexible direct democracy. The people bear the ultimate responsibility, so the people shall decide everything they want decide. With storing trust, everyone can decide for every political question whether to engage in an own decision or to keep being represented.

And trust storage allows for actor openness: Not only parties or individual politicians can serve as representative actors. Everyone who is willing to bear responsibility can engage in evaluating options and canvassing for trust.

Trust storage will have to be built up as a distributed electronical system, through a non-profit organization that is self-controlled by its citizen-voters as fast as possible. For reasons of legitimacy, this cannot be a Silicon valley startup to be funded by venture capitalists. Crowdfunding will start soon, and if you are willing to support the project, please send me a mail.

Update: In any case, please read the story of Hu to your kids to feel the energy, and subscribe to our mailing list to be kept posted.

A Déjà-vu – and What Comes Next? Two Steps to Modernity in Analysis, Explanation, and Solution

Head of state assassinations
Head of state assassinations: Comparable dynamics with a distance of 85 years in “West” and “non-West”

With the recurrence of terrorism, economic crises, rising inequality, and more: Why is the current decade so comparable to the 1930s?

I have recently finished, uploaded and submitted a paper that condenses the whole story of the “Two steps to modernity” book into only 16 text pages.

The paper proposes an explanatory model: Modern growth leads to four waves of institutional innovation. Rationality and deliberation are introduced first around and later within organizations, while related institutional changes occur first within organizations and only later on macro level. As in the book but much shorter, this model is confronted with evidence for households/intimacy, work/education, and politics. As macro-institutional changes parallel to those of the 1940s have not yet happened for the current transition, those changes are derived that can be predicted for the 2020s.

You may currently find the paper at Researchgate and at Academia.edu. Please comment and share!

How To Cope With Parallel Challenges: The Analytical Theory of Modernity and Second Modernity

Somewhat tired and perplexed – that was how in 2015 the Western world commemorated the end of World War II seventy years ago.

9-11 and Sarajevo
9-11 and Sarajevo: Just two incidents in a parallel history of terrorism

Challenges as terror, war, and migration, being complex and puzzling no less than those of the 1930s, shatter the former complacency of having built a sustainable world order on the ruins of 1945. Even commemoration has changed its face: Over decades, ever new groups of former victims have been included into remembrance. This year, the usual rituals suddenly reminded how many people currently die.

This parallel of challenges should be, however, more a stimulus than a hindrance. It opens the perspective towards changes necessary to cope with the current problems. Instead of seeing the current challenges as signs of an end of modernity, they can be read as signs for a current transition to a second step of modernity – far beyond what Ulrich Beck discussed thirty years ago. Continue reading “How To Cope With Parallel Challenges: The Analytical Theory of Modernity and Second Modernity”

About the book

2020s vs. 1940s: Two Global Crises in Analysis and Solution [Book cover]
Two Steps to Modernity: Two Global Crises in Analysis and Solution
Have you from time to time had the feeling of a dejà-vu? There are so many things now comparable to the early 20th century, from migration over terrorism to economic crises.

This book shows: this is no coincidence. Understanding that modernity has two steps is a key for understanding world history from the 19th to the 21st century, and shaping it to the better.

In the 2020s, institutional innovations bring a climax of crises as long as innovations in organizations are not yet matched on the macro level, and their solution when they finally do. In the current second transition of modernity, modern interaction principles have been introduced within organizations since 1968, but the general acceptance of individualized responsible linkages in democracy and career development as base for regained stability and prosperity still stands out. Read more!