E-Democracy

[Doktor Howl]

Huh.

That would actually be kind of cool, although I worry that too many wars would break out over who gets CA.

And who gets stuck with Texas.  But that would be all part of the fun.

In addition, you'd have hundreds of "reunification" movements all over the damn place, with yahoos trying to regain the "glory" we currently are mired in.

So, yeah, I kind of like this idea even more now.

[Jasper]

I'm starting to wonder if you're not in some vast conspiracy to help the Brits retake the colonies.

[Doktor Howl]

I'm starting to wonder if you're not in some vast conspiracy to help the Brits retake the colonies.

They never left.  This is all a horrible, horrible experiment.

And a way to get rid of their puritans.

[Adios]

No idea, in fairness.  I guess just the way you seem pretty sour about democracy in general.

I'm sour on direct democracy, for very sound historical (and not so historical) reasons.  The republic we have worked fine for 200 years or so, and is only now reaching its complexity limit.

I'm curious though; If you were interested in making things work better, what would you suggest?

IF I was interested in making things work better, I'd break the country into 5 pieces and let them sort it out as separate nations.  Seriously.

It wouldn't fix the problem, but it would delay the inevitable.

I like this idea. Seperate the country east to west, not north to south.

[Captain Utopia]

If, in fact, a majority of Californians decide they don't want gay marriage, then I'd still try to change their minds, but I'd accept that decision in the meantime.

No problem.  I don't like you having freedom of assembly, or speech for that matter.  If I can get enough people to agree with me, should I be able to keep you from meeting with associates or speaking your mind?

Yeah, why the hell not?  The only thing stopping you from doing that today, is the same thing which would stop you tomorrow - the difficulty in convincing a majority that it is a good thing.

The difference is that with an E-Democracy system, you need not wait years to correct a mistake once the error is made obvious.

[LMNO]

You could vote to approve of every candidate except the two mainstreamers.  You could vote for nobody BUT the outsider candidate you want.

I agree-- however, "could" is the tricky part.  If we are implementing this in the midst of our current crop of voting public, most wouldn't.  Especially when the two mainstreamers flood the airwaves with "whoever you want, but us too" messages.  And the GOP and DNC getting on every news channel warning about the dangers of not choosing the top Party Pick along with your Issues candidate, in case the other side gangs up on you.

[Captain Utopia]

I think what Dok may be getting at (and if he isn't, then I certainly am) is that it doesn't really matter how you vote for something if a system is already in place to make certain that some candidates are more viable than others, based upon factors other than their ideas and competence.

That is to say, corporate money.

The nice thing about approval voting in our era is that, with the internet, this system would level the playing field with corporate shills and would-be dark horse candidates. 

I expect I'll live to see the day when we don't have political parties.

[Jasper]

If, in fact, a majority of Californians decide they don't want gay marriage, then I'd still try to change their minds, but I'd accept that decision in the meantime.

No problem.  I don't like you having freedom of assembly, or speech for that matter.  If I can get enough people to agree with me, should I be able to keep you from meeting with associates or speaking your mind?

Yeah, why the hell not?  The only thing stopping you from doing that today, is the same thing which would stop you tomorrow - the difficulty in convincing a majority that it is a good thing.

The difference is that with an E-Democracy system, you need not wait years to correct a mistake once the error is made obvious.

Why not just streamline impeach and repeal processes?

You could vote to approve of every candidate except the two mainstreamers.  You could vote for nobody BUT the outsider candidate you want.

I agree-- however, "could" is the tricky part.  If we are implementing this in the midst of our current crop of voting public, most wouldn't.  Especially when the two mainstreamers flood the airwaves with "whoever you want, but us too" messages.  And the GOP and DNC getting on every news channel warning about the dangers of not choosing the top Party Pick along with your Issues candidate, in case the other side gangs up on you.

That will be the way of things when it first hits the shelves, but with time people would come to understand that the new system doesn't really help the two-party system in any way and that they'll be safe just voting how they want.

[Doktor Howl]

If, in fact, a majority of Californians decide they don't want gay marriage, then I'd still try to change their minds, but I'd accept that decision in the meantime.

No problem.  I don't like you having freedom of assembly, or speech for that matter.  If I can get enough people to agree with me, should I be able to keep you from meeting with associates or speaking your mind?

Yeah, why the hell not?  The only thing stopping you from doing that today, is the same thing which would stop you tomorrow - the difficulty in convincing a majority that it is a good thing.

So we toss out the rule of law.  

Oh, yeah.  That'll work.  The next cycle of conservativism that hits America would lead to more fun than you could shake a truncheon at.

[Jasper]

I think what Dok may be getting at (and if he isn't, then I certainly am) is that it doesn't really matter how you vote for something if a system is already in place to make certain that some candidates are more viable than others, based upon factors other than their ideas and competence.

That is to say, corporate money.

The nice thing about approval voting in our era is that, with the internet, this system would level the playing field with corporate shills and would-be dark horse candidates.  

I expect I'll live to see the day when we don't have political parties.

A fine sentiment, but it's not enough to say "the future will fix everything".  What we need are nuts-and-bolts solutions, not high-concept voting technology.

[Adios]

If, in fact, a majority of Californians decide they don't want gay marriage, then I'd still try to change their minds, but I'd accept that decision in the meantime.

No problem.  I don't like you having freedom of assembly, or speech for that matter.  If I can get enough people to agree with me, should I be able to keep you from meeting with associates or speaking your mind?

Yeah, why the hell not?  The only thing stopping you from doing that today, is the same thing which would stop you tomorrow - the difficulty in convincing a majority that it is a good thing.

So we toss out the rule of law.  

Oh, yeah.  That'll work.  The next cycle of conservativism that hits America would lead to more fun than you could shake a truncheon at.

Hells yeah. Who needs civil rights and the Constitution.

[Doktor Howl]

If, in fact, a majority of Californians decide they don't want gay marriage, then I'd still try to change their minds, but I'd accept that decision in the meantime.

No problem.  I don't like you having freedom of assembly, or speech for that matter.  If I can get enough people to agree with me, should I be able to keep you from meeting with associates or speaking your mind?

Yeah, why the hell not?  The only thing stopping you from doing that today, is the same thing which would stop you tomorrow - the difficulty in convincing a majority that it is a good thing.

So we toss out the rule of law.  

Oh, yeah.  That'll work.  The next cycle of conservativism that hits America would lead to more fun than you could shake a truncheon at.

Hells yeah. Who needs civil rights and the Constitution.

Because we all know, for example, that 70% of Arizonans would never agree to marginalize Hispanics.  Right now, we have a legal means of dealing with this, but since that would never happen, we should just toss the rule of law, and revert to the rule of men.

[Jasper]

Some laws should require near unanimity to change.

[Doktor Howl]

Some laws should require near unanimity to change.

Okay, so now we'd have two levels (or more) of requirements for laws.  More complexity.

[LMNO]

You could vote to approve of every candidate except the two mainstreamers.  You could vote for nobody BUT the outsider candidate you want.

I agree-- however, "could" is the tricky part.  If we are implementing this in the midst of our current crop of voting public, most wouldn't.  Especially when the two mainstreamers flood the airwaves with "whoever you want, but us too" messages.  And the GOP and DNC getting on every news channel warning about the dangers of not choosing the top Party Pick along with your Issues candidate, in case the other side gangs up on you.

That will be the way of things when it first hits the shelves, but with time people would come to understand that the new system doesn't really help the two-party system in any way and that they'll be safe just voting how they want.

Based upon what observations, exactly? Sorry if it sounds jaded, but I mean, really.