• Internet-age Democracy
    23 replies, posted
This thread mainly targets the US government, though I'm sure these principles can be applied to other governments, too. As I'm sure you're aware, the US government is a Representative Democracy. You don't vote on laws, your representative does. Similarly, you don't vote for your President, you vote for your political party, which would then (hopefully) vote for your president, if it wins your state. I'm sure I don't need to go into detail here; if you want a great example, look at the 2000 election. Now that everyone is connected to the Internet, through their work or school if not through their own personal computer, what if we moved away from a Representative Democracy and moved towards a true Democracy? It would work something like this: 1) Government creates national website for voting/legal issues/etc. 2) People submit ideas for laws, etc. 3) People submit votes for laws, etc. 4) Depending on votes submitted by a certain deadline, the law will either be passed, or not passed. This could work for county laws, state laws, and national laws - of course, deadlines might have to be longer for national laws than for country laws, for example. Election of the President could work similarly. Everyone could truly vote for who they want to become president. No confusion, no fragmented voting methods, no wait - cast your vote and wait to see the results when the deadline arrives. This is a vastly oversimplified description of how a system like this could work. There would be various security issues with it being web-based, of course. But those issues aside, most (if not all) conventional issues will be completely obsolete - no more corruption, greed, lobbying, undesired laws, restriction of freedoms, etc. What's your opinion on a true Democracy through use of the Internet? With the proper provisions, could it ever work?
There are [I]a lot[/I] of ignorant people out there...no matter how much access they have to the internet. Our system isn't great by any stretch of the imagination, but I think it would be worse if the people in general had that much power. How many people would vote for their favorite rap star or tv-show host to be President if they could? How many people would vote to legalize things that common sense says would be a bad idea (Meth, glue huffing, etc.) These are extreme examples I know...but it is really easy for a bunch of people to latch on to one really bad idea and run with it. Give these people direct power over other people and...well...I wouldn't want to live there. Our system, with all of its flaws, is preferable to me than what you're suggesting. If people in general were enlightened then your system would be awesome. But we don't live in that kind of country...or that kind of world. That's not to say I think our system should stay the way it is, but I don't think we're ready for true Direct Democracy yet.
I supposed you're right, dumb people (for a lack of better term) would ruin this concept.
[QUOTE=Drainwater;35056036]There are [I]a lot[/I] of ignorant people out there...no matter how much access they have to the internet. Our system isn't great by any stretch of the imagination, but I think it would be worse if the people in general had that much power. How many people would vote for their favorite rap star or tv-show host to be President if they could? How many people would vote to legalize things that common sense says would be a bad idea (Meth, glue huffing, etc.) These are extreme examples I know...but it is really easy for a bunch of people to latch on to one really bad idea and run with it. Give these people direct power over other people and...well...I wouldn't want to live there. Our system, with all of its flaws, is preferable to me than what you're suggesting. If people in general were enlightened then your system would be awesome. But we don't live in that kind of country...or that kind of world. That's not to say I think our system should stay the way it is, but I don't think we're ready for true Direct Democracy yet.[/QUOTE] I think it's unreasonable to expect people will ever become "enlightened" when there is a complete absence of any feedback mechanism to reinforce "enlightened behavior" as beneficial. I'd also posit creating an opportunity for idiots to vote for pop stars and legal meth would quickly create such a mechanism as people realized they were actively ruining their lives and had to think about how to fix the problems they had created. You're assuming the majority of those who would vote would not see a correlation between voting to legalize meth and seeing their best friend toothless in rehab. Obviously any transition to a direct democracy would have to be [I]extremely[/I] slow, but arguments against them based on people currently not being intelligent enough to handle it are disingenuous. It's been said direct democracy does not work since antiquity, it is still said now, and the one constant across that span is the limited attempt to implement it. Applied to anything else, you would immediately recognize this logic as absurd- axes should not be avoided because you are currently inexperienced with wielding them. You either believe direct democracy is feasible or not, saying "maybe, but not now" is not a valid position.
No, something like this in its purest form would not work. However, the representative system is extremely flawed, but I can see primary voting/candidate nomination doing very well with this. Due to the idiocy of the common man, we can't have something like this for directly voting on an issue/law/president, but candidate nomination, yes.
What if perhaps some sort of quiz system was introduced? Just straight facts that are easy to look up. For example: President Obama's views on ____________ are: (a) ______ (b) ______ (c) ______ After you answer a couple of questions relating to the topic at hand (whether it's the election, a specific law, etc.), you'll be able to vote on it.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35057605]I think it's unreasonable to expect people will ever become "enlightened" when there is a complete absence of any feedback mechanism to reinforce "enlightened behavior" as beneficial. I'd also posit creating an opportunity for idiots to vote for pop stars and legal meth would quickly create such a mechanism as people realized they were actively ruining their lives and had to think about how to fix the problems they had created. You're assuming the majority of those who would vote would not see a correlation between voting to legalize meth and seeing their best friend toothless in rehab. Obviously any transition to a direct democracy would have to be [I]extremely[/I] slow, but arguments against them based on people currently not being intelligent enough to handle it are disingenuous. It's been said direct democracy does not work since antiquity, it is still said now, and the one constant across that span is the limited attempt to implement it. Applied to anything else, you would immediately recognize this logic as absurd- axes should not be avoided because you are currently inexperienced with wielding them. You either believe direct democracy is feasible or not, saying "maybe, but not now" is not a valid position.[/QUOTE] You're right. I guess I'm just too cynical to believe in the common sense of the general public. My position, since "maybe, but not now" isn't valid, is that I don't ever see full direct democracy being a good idea. Maybe something between that and what we have now, but I wouldn't know where to draw the line. And to borrow (sort of) your example of axes...it's always a bad idea to give a child a sharp object. I just don't see the world's population ever "growing up" to the point where they could be expected to handle a sharp object, such as direct democracy. Some children could handle the responsibility...but definitely not all of them. Or even most of them.
As some of you have said, your average Joe may not be capable of coherent political thought. In fact, many of us even here probably can't do so either. This is of course the basis of representative democracy, where you vote for someone who you can generally agree with to represent you and fight for or against legislation while holding the proper train of thought needed in politics. We certainly aren't at a stage yet to implement true democracy, if it could even be implemented at all with humanity. An idea I have been holding in my head for a while though was to retain representative democracy for local representatives, but also introduce a new level of government based on proportional voting on a national scale, such as a chamber of a 100 seats that everyone in the nation can vote for representation from the numerous political parties. That way there is still representation at a local scale, but it may also allow people to vote for parties they generally agree with, rather than voting for candidates you agree with (if you had a choice between a smart Republican and an idiotic Democrat for being your representative, who would you pick?)
[QUOTE=icantread49;35057699]What if perhaps some sort of quiz system was introduced? Just straight facts that are easy to look up. For example: President Obama's views on ____________ are: (a) ______ (b) ______ (c) ______ After you answer a couple of questions relating to the topic at hand (whether it's the election, a specific law, etc.), you'll be able to vote on it.[/QUOTE] No because having to answer questions in order to vote is extremely undemocratic.
[QUOTE=icantread49;35057699]What if perhaps some sort of quiz system was introduced? Just straight facts that are easy to look up. For example: President Obama's views on ____________ are: (a) ______ (b) ______ (c) ______ After you answer a couple of questions relating to the topic at hand (whether it's the election, a specific law, etc.), you'll be able to vote on it.[/QUOTE] These were called literacy tests. The [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act]Voting Rights Act of 1965[/url] made them illegal.
Now that the majority can read and such, I think it's a bit outdated.
[QUOTE=Mr. Bleak;35060453]Now that the majority can read and such, I think it's a bit outdated.[/QUOTE] It would still leave a percentage unable to exercise their democratic rights
[QUOTE=Captain Lawlrus;35060705]It would still leave a percentage unable to exercise their democratic rights[/QUOTE] If put in place, it would force everybody in the country to learn to read if they wanted to take part in said process. At the least it helps maintain a basic level of literacy, especially if the goal is reachable by the entire population.
300 million people submitting their ideas for laws. It's a great way to give everyone the power to actually participate, but to think that would be anywhere near efficient is naive. This isn't Athens, where only the men voted on things. Representative democracy is better for large populations. Towns have meetings where people can bring issues forward because it's a much smaller scale, federal and even state governments rely on the representative system because of the sheer number of people. It's a flawed system, but actually relying on every single person to vote would be far, far more taxing upon the country. It would take so long to make a final decision, not to mention the server load the website would get from millions of people connecting at once. No, I like the government style that is currently in position. You vote for the candidate who most fits your beliefs, and if you don't vote you don't truly have a right to bitch about the outcome.
I know reddit isn't really popular here but a similar system might work for voting ideas to the top of the stack so that politicians can easily see the most popular ideas.
A direct democracy would create a certain tyranny of the majority anyway. There is a very good reason for having a representative democracy. A direct democracy isn't some kind of goal that we're supposed to be striving towards.
[QUOTE=Snuffy;35060137]These were called literacy tests. The [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act]Voting Rights Act of 1965[/url] made them illegal.[/QUOTE] The only reason they were outlawed was because white people didn't have to take them and blacks did.
[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;35063554]The only reason they were outlawed was because white people didn't have to take them and blacks did.[/QUOTE] It's the same principle, really- not all districts are equal in terms of education or political interest. Such quizzes would lead to the under-representation of such districts and the over-representation of others, leaving many unable to practice their Constitutionally-granted rights because they don't know about an issue that isn't pertinent to them. It's still the tyranny of the majority, but in a different context.
I think just the opposite. Illiterate people on the internet who have no idea what they're talking about, should stay at home on the internet and let people who actually know what they're talking about vote for things that will actually help us.
[QUOTE=Mobon1;35100426]I think just the opposite. Illiterate people on the internet who have no idea what they're talking about, should stay at home on the internet and let people who actually know what they're talking about vote for things that will actually help us.[/QUOTE] The problem is that educated people are more likely to come from wealthy backgrounds. Blacks were also historically poor and uneducated, which is a major reason why the tests were adopted in the first place. Literacy tests, if anything, are the antithesis to direct democracy- all they would do is further the disenfranchisement of the lower classes.
Why is a direct democracy some end-all be-all goal to you people? Direct democracies are shit. They ensure a tyranny of the majority and put things such as peoples civil rights up to a vote.
Here's my idea. I'm an American, and I'm absolutely appalled by the ignorance of most people. I'm a Conservative Christian (rage all you want I dont give a fuck) And most people today are just plain stupid. Anyone ever seen Starship Troopers? People should have to prove that they are informed enough about their own views to be able to vote. They should have to EARN the right to decide what happens to the few people, democrat and republican, who cares what happens to this country.
[QUOTE=maximizer39;35110989]Here's my idea. I'm an American, and I'm absolutely appalled by the ignorance of most people. I'm a Conservative Christian (rage all you want I dont give a fuck) And most people today are just plain stupid. Anyone ever seen Starship Troopers? People should have to prove that they are informed enough about their own views to be able to vote. They should have to EARN the right to decide what happens to the few people, democrat and republican, who cares what happens to this country.[/QUOTE] informed enough about their own views? what, they take a quiz on their views, and if their views don't match up, they can't fail?
[QUOTE=maximizer39;35110989]Here's my idea. I'm an American, and I'm absolutely appalled by the ignorance of most people. I'm a Conservative Christian (rage all you want I dont give a fuck) And most people today are just plain stupid. Anyone ever seen Starship Troopers? People should have to prove that they are informed enough about their own views to be able to vote. They should have to EARN the right to decide what happens to the few people, democrat and republican, who cares what happens to this country.[/QUOTE] Who are you to tell them what qualifies as "earning" the right to vote? Who gets to decide? How I about [B]I[/B] get to decide and then you have to fill out the test.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.