E-Democracy

[Jasper]

So, I read the OP again, and have a few thoughts.

1) is this e-dem for the election of representatives, or for deciding on the bills and resolutions that representatives usually vote on in congress?  The two ideas get conflated about 10 posts in.

2) proxy voting and approval voting have very little to do with the medium in which they're employed.  it is just as easy to do proxy and approval voting with paper ballots as it is with e-dem. So e-dem needs to offer something paper balloting doesn't.  So far, reversal of vote seems to be a main difference.

3) e-dem seems to offer the immedite proposal of ideas from citizens.  But is there a vetting process, or do people just vote, change their vote, and see what happens, like some massive Jennifer's Government/Nation States game, where there are a dozen or so new proposals every day, from "more money to schools" to "bring back segregation"?

4) if people have direct access to issues, who decides which issues they can vote on?  Something as large as Iran could get horrifically messy if people keep changing their votes on sanctions, invasions, nuke attack, etc.

I spent about a while nailing down #1 a few pages back, we're talking representative democracy.

[LMNO]

So, if we're using e-dem to elect representatives, then what are the benefits of using e-dem?

- Would "reversing your vote" mean that the elected rep would have to resign?  For tightly held races, would you get a weekly revolving door of representatives, where on week 1 Johnny has the most votes, but on week 2 Sarah wins, and then on week 3 Johnny is back in power?

[AFK]

That's the fluidity problem I'm seeing.  Essentially any public official could be recalled at any time.  But it would be just as bad for public policy as you are creating a lot of work for law enforcement entities to keep up with the constant churning, and also you would need the public to also keep up with all of the changes.  I think it is challenging enough for many in the citizenry to just keep up with the laws that go into effect once a year after elections.  If you introduce the ability to reverse votes, it will become even more confusing. 

There are some things that shouldn't necessarily happen fast.  I think lawmaking is one of those.  Granted, complete gridlock isn't admirable either, but I'm not sure this is the remedy to go to. 

[LMNO]

So, if we take away the reversal of votes, does e-dem offer any benefits that paper ballots do not?

[Doktor Howl]

That's the fluidity problem I'm seeing.  Essentially any public official could be recalled at any time. 

So nobody could ever make an unpopular, but necessary, decision...Not even at the cost of their career, because they'd be hauled out of office before they could impliment it.

[AFK]

I think the goal of e-democracy is well intentioned and well meaning.  But the reversal vote is an issue for me and I also think the proxy vote idea is an invitation for voter fraud.  Yes, I know voter fraud goes on now, but with poll monitors and officials at physical locations, there are more eyes on the process.  Given the tenacity and success of hackers, I feel like this e-system offers more opportunities for corruption and tampering.  Perhaps in 10 to 20 years technology will develop to the point where this isn't much of an issue, and maybe at that point an e-system for civic participation would work.

And I still think e-democracy puts up barriers to some people for participation.  I've focused on the poor and disadvantaged, but there are also people who aren't necessarily poor, but who have some kind of learning disability for which needing to use a computer system to vote would be daunting. 

I just can't really see anything in the write-up that I can latch onto, other than the general idea of having people more involved in the process.  I just think there are probably better approaches that don't involve such a drastic overhaul and shift of the voting and civic participation process. 

[LMNO]

Perhaps we can spend the rest of the thread identifying why people aren't more involved in the current process, and if there are any other solutions.

[Doktor Howl]

Perhaps we can spend the rest of the thread identifying why people aren't more involved in the current process, and if there are any other solutions.

More people = more dumb.

Like I said, we should make it physically painful to cast a vote.

[Freeky]

This thread reminds me of a panel in Transmet, where some chick is arguing with some dude about how elections should be held on paper ("Because that's the way we've always done it, it's an institution"*) vs moving on to technology to do it.


I think people are becoming more and more apathetic about voting because making decisions means knowing a situation, and also taking responsibility for your decisions by voting. People are becoming less and less likely to think if they don't have to, and most people, given the chance, won't take responsibility for anything if they can get away with it.



*Please to note, I don't actually see anyone that has this argument, but Captain Utopia is reminding me of the chick who was against paper ballots because they're inconvenient to go out somewhere and vote, or something.

[Jasper]

Perhaps we can spend the rest of the thread identifying why people aren't more involved in the current process, and if there are any other solutions.

More people = more dumb.

Like I said, we should make it physically painful to cast a vote.

How painful?  Like, maximum strength drop your ass to the ground pain laser, or what?

[Doktor Howl]

Perhaps we can spend the rest of the thread identifying why people aren't more involved in the current process, and if there are any other solutions.

More people = more dumb.

Like I said, we should make it physically painful to cast a vote.

How painful?  Like, maximum strength drop your ass to the ground pain laser, or what?

Maybe a short, sharp shock when you pull the lever.

[Jasper]

Okay, cause I was just thinking that if it was extremely painful, only really insane people would vote.

[Doktor Howl]

Okay, cause I was just thinking that if it was extremely painful, only really insane people would vote.

I can't see how that would make any significant difference.

[Jasper]

Exactly, so it would be a waste of money to make the pain stimulus too strong.  I think the key is to get it stronger than merely inconvenient, but weaker than fear/trauma inducing. 

[Doktor Howl]

Exactly, so it would be a waste of money to make the pain stimulus too strong. 

Well, that would depend on your motivation for doing it, right?