Kill the Culture and Burn the Pulpit Part 1: An Analysis of a revolution

[Jasper]

You're saying you can change the way the system incentivizes without changing its behavior.  That can't be right.

If people can push a button and say "What he says goes", then the system will promote demagoguery, creating more and crazier demagogues.

Dok has a point.  A system like that would just empower the loudest assholes who work for the biggest networks...who work for the richest fucks.

How is this different from our current system of Governance which sways with the political winds anyway?

Here's how - idiotic policies can be passed quickly and repealed just as quickly when they fail because of their own stupidity.  You don't have to wait 4-5 years, while those in an echo chamber keep beating the dead horse, for the reckoning to come.

It's different than what we have now because what we have now is a functional plutonomy.  Most of our legislation is guided by, essentially, shares and ROIs.  What you're proposing takes the power away from the rich, and gives it to the noisy and self-assured.

[Doktor Howl]

It's different than what we have now because what we have now is a functional plutonomy.  Most of our legislation is guided by, essentially, shares and ROIs.  What you're proposing takes the power away from the rich, and gives it to the noisy and self-assured.

Okay, starting to buy into this, now.

I can't wait to see an America where Beck and Palin make policy from the Fox News studios.

Oh, fuck yeah.   

[Jasper]

:foreheadslap:

I was trying to show what a BAD IDEA IT WAS!    Stop liking BAD IDEAS!!

[Doktor Howl]

:foreheadslap:

I was trying to show what a BAD IDEA IT WAS!    Stop liking BAD IDEAS!!

This is an AMAZING idea.  I can't wait to see policy as dictated by Sean Hannity. 

[Jasper]

The country is schizophrenic enough without giving people the ability to change their mind as often as they want.

[Doktor Howl]

The country is schizophrenic enough without giving people the ability to change their mind as often as they want.

No, I want to see the same sort of decisiveness we currently put into our space program applied to EVERYTHING!  

[Jasper]

I wish I could actually test this stuff on a realistic scale without putting anything at stake.

Imagine: A world where you can rigorously determine if your idea works better than entrails-reading.

[Doktor Howl]

I wish I could actually test this stuff on a realistic scale without putting anything at stake.

Imagine: A world where you can rigorously determine if your idea works better than entrails-reading.

I'd die of boredom.

[Adios]

So it's almost like a tiered democracy.   Many will vote directly, but "leaders" would only have power insomuch as people support them at a given moment?

Yeah, it's as flexible as you want to make it.  These are open-source projects developing open api's - it's hard to imagine it really working any other way - so you get to choose how to place your vote, and you can place whatever software you wish in the decision making process.  E.g. Your friend Jane may be more into "Space Science" than you, so anything which is tagged under that area you can proxy your vote to her, and revoke it at a moments notice if you review her decisions and don't agree with them.

Wooooo...Rush Limbaucracy! 

Sure - but with dittoheads in particular, the situation won't change much under this new scheme.

Jesus Fucking Christ. What are you on? Please take a few to study the aftermath of ANY revolution. Until then please stay quiet.

[Captain Utopia]

I wish I could actually test this stuff on a realistic scale without putting anything at stake.

Imagine: A world where you can rigorously determine if your idea works better than entrails-reading.

Well the architecture will run in parallel to existing institutions while the bugs are being worked out, and will otherwise be functional except that no-one will be expected to implement all the solutions it generates.  Testing criteria will include how resilient it is to demagoguery, and whether hysteresis is an actual problem, or one which can be dealt with by requiring something like a 2/3rds cut-off -- i.e. a full third of voters would have to change their positions to repeal a particular decision.

So you will get that chance if you choose to participate.

Wooooo...Rush Limbaucracy! 

Sure - but with dittoheads in particular, the situation won't change much under this new scheme.

Jesus Fucking Christ. What are you on? Please take a few to study the aftermath of ANY revolution. Until then please stay quiet.

Um.  I was saying that dittoheads vote in-line with Rush right now, and those elected leaders defer to him on certain issues.  So I don't see how the scheme I describe, in the worst case, could be worse than what we currently have.  Right now it costs people like Rush absolutely nothing to be completely wrong on an issue, but if they actually had accountability for the awful decisions that they would come up with, then that equation would change.

I have studied the aftermath of a revolution, and I still don't understand what your concern is.  Could you elaborate?  Else if you have any links I'll be glad to read them.

[Adios]

So you have studied the aftermath of revolutions and you didn't discover that it either just changes names or gets worse? Try again.

[President Television]

The main problem with E-Democracy is that it is based on exactly the same fallacy as our current system of democracy- quality by popularity. This would work fine if people were well-informed and capable of sound judgment. Unfortunately for this and every system, people are people. They don't want the system to work, they just want to push their opinions and take out their frustration on everyone else. If people genuinely wanted democracy to function, it would function. It's like Dok's little bureaucracy experiment. If, as a voter, your top priority is to make sure that you consider the needs of everyone in your society, improve the aspects of your society that are lacking, and keep yourself well-informed about current events and facts, all while keeping a cool head, you will probably make the best possible vote. Most people aren't willing to go that far for politics. They'd rather die at the hands of the police in ill-concieved protests.

Of course, that only makes things entertaining for people like us.

[Captain Utopia]

So you have studied the aftermath of revolutions and you didn't discover that it either just changes names or gets worse? Try again.

Well, all this time I've been talking about a revolution in terms of changing institutional structures as defined earlier in the thread, so I think we're talking about different things.

[President Television]

Well, all this time I've been talking about a revolution in terms of changing institutional structures as defined earlier in the thread, so I think we're talking about different things.

When I mentioned protests, I was talking about teabaggers, silly.
Of course, they haven't been cracked down on. Yet. Neither did the National Socialist German Workers' party for a while. I maintain my stance on the Tea Party as presented on page 1 of this thread.

EDIT: Oops. Didn't know what you were replying to.

[Doktor Howl]

The country is schizophrenic enough without giving people the ability to change their mind as often as they want.

No, I want to see the same sort of decisiveness we currently put into our space program applied to EVERYTHING!  

Bump.

I love this plan.