E-Democracy

[Doktor Howl]

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?

Sure, until the majority decides to defund schools in Black districts (Blacks making up 13% of the population).

[Adios]

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?

Why are you so anxious to undercut civil liberties?

[Doktor Howl]

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.  

Oh, they'll be informed all right.  By people like Glenn Beck, Richard Warren, or Randi Rhodes.

[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.

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.

Don't get me wrong, civics is undertaught these days and we don't teach people how to vote with their brains.  That's wrong, and I acknowledge that to actually set things right requires more of an overhaul than simple electoral revamp.  But even that small part of the solution - the election method - will require a great deal of thought, which is why I'm discussing it.  I'm not a visionary world fixer, I just want to see this little change made, because I've given it a lot of thought, and I like it.

[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.

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.

What nuance?  All it does is solidify that the R or D who lost the election won second place, and still loses.  It doesn't change the mindframe of the voter to consider 3rd party candidates as viable.  For that you would need to couple with voter education, and, a dramatic downsizing in the DNC and RNC money machines.  

[Jasper]

As stated, IRV strengthens two-party voting when there are more than 3 candidates.

[AFK]

Wouldn't that kind of voting system encourage more people to run? 

[LMNO]

Let's look at it this way:

Current Voting System (CVS)
New Voting System (NVS)
Uneducated Electorate (UE)
Educated Electorate (EE)

CVS + EE = Success.
CVS + UE = Failure.
NVS + EE = Success.
NVS + UE = Failure.

In both cases, an educated electorate is much more important than a new way of voting.

[Adios]

Let's look at it this way:

Current Voting System (CVS)
New Voting System (NVS)
Uneducated Electorate (UE)
Educated Electorate (EE)

CVS + EE = Success.
CVS + UE = Failure.
NVS + EE = Success.
NVS + UE = Failure.

In both cases, an educated electorate is much more important than a new way of voting.

This.

[Captain Utopia]

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.  

Facebook, Opensocial, basically as many forms as possible to maximise participation.

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.  

This was addressed in the OP.  There are organisations with support staff to help such people already.  I do not think it is reasonable to limit the potential of a technology just because unfortunately not everyone can interface with it to the same degree.

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

 I don't see how that follows.  The design philosophy is to maximise accessibility and participation.  That's fundamental to any form of E-Democracy.

[Doktor Howl]

Let's look at it this way:

Current Voting System (CVS)
New Voting System (NVS)
Uneducated Electorate (UE)
Educated Electorate (EE)

CVS + EE = Success.
CVS + UE = Failure.
NVS + EE = Success.
NVS + UE = Failure.

In both cases, an educated electorate is much more important than a new way of voting.

Your logic makes Plato cry. 

[Adios]

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.  

Facebook, Opensocial, basically as many forms as possible to maximise participation.

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.  

This was addressed in the OP.  There are organisations with support staff to help such people already.  I do not think it is reasonable to limit the potential of a technology just because unfortunately not everyone can interface with it to the same degree.

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

 I don't see how that follows.  The design philosophy is to maximise accessibility and participation.  That's fundamental to any form of E-Democracy.

All I need to know. Anarchist.

[Captain Utopia]

Let's look at it this way:

Current Voting System (CVS)
New Voting System (NVS)
Uneducated Electorate (UE)
Educated Electorate (EE)

CVS + EE = Success.
CVS + UE = Failure.
NVS + EE = Success.
NVS + UE = Failure.

In both cases, an educated electorate is much more important than a new way of voting.

What if the NVS educates the electorate in the process of interacting with it?

[LMNO]

Let's look at it this way:

Current Voting System (CVS)
New Voting System (NVS)
Uneducated Electorate (UE)
Educated Electorate (EE)

CVS + EE = Success.
CVS + UE = Failure.
NVS + EE = Success.
NVS + UE = Failure.

In both cases, an educated electorate is much more important than a new way of voting.

Your logic makes Plato cry. 

SHUT UP AND GET BACK IN THE CAVE.

[LMNO]

Let's look at it this way:

Current Voting System (CVS)
New Voting System (NVS)
Uneducated Electorate (UE)
Educated Electorate (EE)

CVS + EE = Success.
CVS + UE = Failure.
NVS + EE = Success.
NVS + UE = Failure.

In both cases, an educated electorate is much more important than a new way of voting.

What if the NVS educates the electorate in the process of interacting with it?

Go on.  I'm interested, because this would address both issues.