Can there be a clear statement in a group whose members are different enough that it clearly doesn't have a common one?
Electronic democracy solves precisely nothing in practice because democracy is not about technology and mathematics, it's about the people.
What if you have a 50%+1 majority on your vote, and the other 50%-1 of the people are so actively against it and bitter that there is no way they will accept the result of the vote, let even cooperate? And by "50%+1" I don't mean 11 votes vs 10 votes in your library group, I mean like 100,000 votes for one side and 99,999 votes for the other. Can you seriously consider that the first side won the vote? Can you seriously do anything practical with 50%-1 members opposing you?
That is what was (and I think still is) happening in PP parties.
And on top of that there's all the usual issue of large-ish scale politics, with blocks forming, with small but screamingly loud minorities, etc. etc. which now, because of the digital medium each require attention. Do you wish to participate in a forum where you MUST, by the way of the forum's statutes, listen even to the most vitriolic, uneducated, screaming lunatic trolls, and be expected that you deal with those situations politely with "Thank you for your input. if 50% of the members agree with your idea to make tin-foil-hats mandatory, and declare war on Kazakhstan, we will."? Even if you are, a couple of years of that happening every single day will probably erode that attitude. Hence, no "sane" members, hence no votes.
Actually, to get something in german's pirate party program, there must be a 66% majority.
Hm. I never heard of blocks in the pirate party. Luckily, it seems that the core pirates are too liberal for that. Things could go wrong, but then we simply start a new party.
And yes, we must listen to everyone. Whatever troll it might be. You must listen them to tell them otherwise and to learn from them. It might be the only way a democracy can function well.
Electronic democracy solves precisely nothing in practice because democracy is not about technology and mathematics, it's about the people.
What if you have a 50%+1 majority on your vote, and the other 50%-1 of the people are so actively against it and bitter that there is no way they will accept the result of the vote, let even cooperate? And by "50%+1" I don't mean 11 votes vs 10 votes in your library group, I mean like 100,000 votes for one side and 99,999 votes for the other. Can you seriously consider that the first side won the vote? Can you seriously do anything practical with 50%-1 members opposing you?
That is what was (and I think still is) happening in PP parties.
And on top of that there's all the usual issue of large-ish scale politics, with blocks forming, with small but screamingly loud minorities, etc. etc. which now, because of the digital medium each require attention. Do you wish to participate in a forum where you MUST, by the way of the forum's statutes, listen even to the most vitriolic, uneducated, screaming lunatic trolls, and be expected that you deal with those situations politely with "Thank you for your input. if 50% of the members agree with your idea to make tin-foil-hats mandatory, and declare war on Kazakhstan, we will."? Even if you are, a couple of years of that happening every single day will probably erode that attitude. Hence, no "sane" members, hence no votes.