E-Democracy

[Adios]

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.

My observations that sheep will follow the catchiest soundbite.

[Cramulus]

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.

I think you're putting words in CU's mouth. He didn't say he wants to toss out rule of law. He's pointing out that if a majority of Americans wanted to change a law (ie repeal freedom of speech), they can do it under both the current and proposed systems.

Some laws should require near unanimity to change.

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

this already exists under the current system

it's harder to change the constitution, for example, than any other laws.

[Jasper]

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.

Early election results would demonstrate (not explicate) the way the new system had changed the election dynamic.   There would (highly likely) be a dramatically smaller gap between mainstreamers and 3rd party candidates, and as a result of seeing that, chances are people would stop clinging to their parties for security.

[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.

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.

I think you're putting words in CU's mouth. He didn't say he wants to toss out rule of law. He's pointing out that if a majority of Americans wanted to change a law (ie repeal freedom of speech), they can do it under both the current and proposed systems.

Some laws should require near unanimity to change.

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

this already exists under the current system

it's harder to change the constitution, for example, than any other laws.

The bolded parts are the issue. The correct answer to what would stop hi is the Constitution and rule of law and civil rights.

[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.

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.

Huh?

If you can get a clear majority of people to support tossing out the rule of law today, then you can find a party which will be willing to support that agenda.  If enough people want it, it'll happen.

Now please explain how E-Democracy changes that.

[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.

Huh?

If you can get a clear majority of people to support tossing out the rule of law today, then you can find a party which will be willing to support that agenda.  If enough people want it, it'll happen.

Now please explain how E-Democracy changes that.

Are you serious?

[Captain Utopia]

I'm perfectly serious.

[Adios]

I'm perfectly serious.

Ever hear of The Constitution of the Unites States? Google it, it's a pretty good read.

[LMNO]

Early election results would demonstrate (not explicate) the way the new system had changed the election dynamic.   There would (highly likely) be a dramatically smaller gap between mainstreamers and 3rd party candidates, and as a result of seeing that, chances are people would stop clinging to their parties for security.

I don't follow.  Both the Democratic and Republican parties are "umbrellas" that contain many different opinions.  If the Party Pick wins, they will win with a scattered assortment of Issues Candidates.  Early results will show a vast minority of issue candidates, and a strong majority of Party Picks.  This doesn't show any change to the election dynamic.

[AFK]

None of this changes the mindset of the voter.  And THAT is the problem.  People can already check a box next to a 3rd party candidate instead of a D or an R.  But people go with the D or the R.  using a ranking system or a runoff system, or approval voting isn't going to change that.  The issue is voter education not the voting system.

And I honestly think the e-democracy idea is rife with issues, starting with the technology.  Voting irregularities are bad enough as it is with people manning polling places.  Make it impersonal, put it on the internet, I think voting fraud goes way up.  

Overhauling the voting system isn't addressing the actual problems, IMO.  

[Captain Utopia]

I'm perfectly serious.

Ever hear of The Constitution of the Unites States? Google it, it's a pretty good read.

You didn't explain how threats to the US Constitution is a problem unique to E-Democracy.

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

If it goes on "ranking" it would only be a matter of time before they decided to just use the gallup polls!

I think this would leave a lot of room for people to bitch moan and complain and stir the shit even more than they do now.

And an added note, changing a 3-4 line opening post into a fucking book is not the way to do it.  I only went back to the first page on accident.  Otherwise I never would have known you did that.

[AFK]

Another issue I would point out with any kind of ranking or approval system is that there is a lot of faith put into people making thoughtful decisions as they assign ranks.  Let's say on a ballot of 7 candidates someone picks/ranks 5 of them.  After they've picked #1 or #2, how do we know they are putting the same effort of thought into picking the other 3 and not just randomly assigning numbers?  

[Adios]

I'm perfectly serious.

Ever hear of The Constitution of the Unites States? Google it, it's a pretty good read.

You didn't explain how threats to the US Constitution is a problem unique to E-Democracy.

WTF? Try to stay on topic. The current topic between you and I is throwing out the rule of law.

[Doktor Howl]

I think you're putting words in CU's mouth. He didn't say he wants to toss out rule of law. He's pointing out that if a majority of Americans wanted to change a law (ie repeal freedom of speech), they can do it under both the current and proposed systems.

it's harder to change the constitution, for example, than any other laws.

So we should make it easier to strip people of their rights?

This brings me back to my comment the other day that under every utopia, there is something vile.  In this case, the tyranny of the majority.

He proposes to replace a broken system with hell on Earth.