E-Democracy

[Captain Utopia]

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.

Implementing a new voting systems is not the subject of E-Democracy.

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.  

Did you read the OP?  I do address these issues there.

[LMNO]

The issue is voter education not the voting system.

This is the heart of my argument, as well.

If the problem is that most people 1) don't vote, and 2) pay more attention to style than substance.  Changing how they pick things isn't going to help, if what they pick isn't based upon rational, informed decisions.

[Doktor Howl]

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.

It isn't unique.  But your vision would destroy it completely.

[Captain Utopia]

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.

I did advertise the change.  I'm sorry if it's too long, but I did want to make sure that I wasn't accused of not providing any details.

[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.

It isn't unique.  But your vision would destroy it completely.

Precisely how?

[Doktor Howl]

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.

It isn't unique.  But your vision would destroy it completely.

Precisely how?

By removal of any safeguards to civil liberties other than the whim of the mob.

See:  Athens, history of.

[Jasper]

The issue is voter education not the voting system.

This is the heart of my argument, as well.

If the problem is that most people 1) don't vote, and 2) pay more attention to style than substance.  Changing how they pick things isn't going to help, if what they pick isn't based upon rational, informed decisions.

This thread isn't ABOUT fixing the problem of uninformed voters, it's about the problems of the voting system itself.  It's naive, or dishonest, to say that the problem lies solely with one or the other.

The biggest problem I'm having here is that everybody seems to think that voters actually LIKE being shunted into one of two vast, nebulous political umbrellas.  

Cynicism fail.

If we can't get past that basic premise, I can't really argue this point.

[Doktor Howl]

This thread isn't ABOUT fixing the problem of uninformed voters, it's about the problems of the voting system itself.  

There's nothing wrong with our voting system that wouldn't be just as bad or worse under any other system.

[Adios]

The issue is voter education not the voting system.

This is the heart of my argument, as well.

If the problem is that most people 1) don't vote, and 2) pay more attention to style than substance.  Changing how they pick things isn't going to help, if what they pick isn't based upon rational, informed decisions.

This thread isn't ABOUT fixing the problem of uninformed voters, it's about the problems of the voting system itself.  It's naive, or dishonest, to say that the problem lies solely with one or the other.

The biggest problem I'm having here is that everybody seems to think that voters actually LIKE being shunted into one of two vast, nebulous political umbrellas.  

Cynicism fail.

If we can't get past that basic premise, I can't really argue this point.

Simply changing the way uninformed votes are cast is fail. If you are going to rebuild the voting system then it requires a complete rebuild, not just part.

[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.

Implementing a new voting systems is not the subject of E-Democracy.

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.  

Did you read the OP?  I do address these issues there.

You're E-Democracy basically is looking to throw out the current system and replace it with some kind of computer-based civics utopia.  It's basically Legislation and Public Policy through Facebook.  

There is one huge issue with your vision.  It leaves out huge chunks of people.  Let's just start with people with low reading comprehension and without the faculties to navigate a computer, let alone a complex cyber-public policy forum.  

Your system would lead to MORE oppression of these types and only bring about more inequality.  

[Cramulus]

this thread is moving too fast! I keep hitting post and it's like "9 replies", "13 replies".... zang!

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.

I think I have to disagree here. I am politically independent, I've voted both R and D in the past, depending on the election. People tend to go with one party or the other because there's no way for a third party to win under the current system. I hate being strongarmed by people who say "YOU ARE THROWING YOUR VOTE AWAY UNLESS YOU VOTE FOR ONE OF THE TOP 2"... an instant-runoff or approval voting system is better equipped to capture and negate this. You get to make a lot more meaningful choice if your vote has some nuance coded into it.



ANYWAY


going back to the OP, which I see is nicely filled in now...

I can really see the benefit of this system for smaller to midsized organizations. It's hard to say if it'll work on a large scale due to the unpredictable nature of persuasion and charisma. i tend to think this will spawn a second tier of non-elected politicians - People who are able to convincingly say, "You don't understand health care, I do, proxy your vote to me." And to some extent this is good! But this is also why we have a representative democracy, so you don't have to worry about every little bill item. You just elect the guy you trust to vote in a way which supports his constituency.

One thing I'm still a little fuzzy on is the anonymity. I think making everybody's votes public would create a social mess. The secret ballot eliminates peer pressure, which is good because peer pressure favors majority issues.

[Doktor Howl]

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.

Implementing a new voting systems is not the subject of E-Democracy.

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.  

Did you read the OP?  I do address these issues there.

You're E-Democracy basically is looking to throw out the current system and replace it with some kind of computer-based civics utopia.  It's basically Legislation and Public Policy through Facebook.  

There is one huge issue with your vision.  It leaves out huge chunks of people.  Let's just start with people with low reading comprehension and without the faculties to navigate a computer, let alone a complex cyber-public policy forum.  

Your system would lead to MORE oppression of these types and only bring about more inequality.  

Add to that his willingness to allow basic rights to be legislated away, and you arrive at a place that's as dystopian as you could ever want.

[Captain Utopia]

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

It isn't unique.  But your vision would destroy it completely.

Precisely how?

By removal of any safeguards to civil liberties other than the whim of the mob.

See:  Athens, history of.

Okay - so we add a safeguard in the form of a category of constitutional laws, of which the modification of any of those must be deliberated over over a period of four years, with a suitable super-majority.  We place existing civil rights legislation in there, and now E-Democracy is just as safe as the existing system, right?

[Doktor Howl]

One thing I'm still a little fuzzy on is the anonymity. I think making everybody's votes public would create a social mess. The secret ballot eliminates peer pressure, which is good because peer pressure favors majority issues.

Public ballots would create a NIGHTMARE, not a mess.

John Q Public votes against the choice of his employer.  He is later that month mysteriously laid off.

[AFK]

The issue is voter education not the voting system.

This is the heart of my argument, as well.

If the problem is that most people 1) don't vote, and 2) pay more attention to style than substance.  Changing how they pick things isn't going to help, if what they pick isn't based upon rational, informed decisions.

This thread isn't ABOUT fixing the problem of uninformed voters, it's about the problems of the voting system itself.  It's naive, or dishonest, to say that the problem lies solely with one or the other.

The biggest problem I'm having here is that everybody seems to think that voters actually LIKE being shunted into one of two vast, nebulous political umbrellas.  

Cynicism fail.

If we can't get past that basic premise, I can't really argue this point.

If people didn't like being shunted they'd invest themselves more in the process.  With the internet it doesn't take anytime at all to find a website that lists the initiatives of a candidate running for office.  If you have three people running you have 3 websites to review.  You compare, find the planks that jive most with your personal world view, and then you check their box.  

It is THAT easy.

The proposed voting systems in the absence of voter education simply allows them to literally make more uninformed choices.