E-Democracy

[Doktor Howl]

1.  People are stupid, generally speaking.

2.  Some not-quite-as-stupid people set up a functioning republic so well that it functioned for 220 years despite the stupid people.

3.  Eventually there were so many stupid people that the system began to fail.

4.  The obvious solution is to make it easier for stupid people to directly affect the republic, with no buffers or filters.

For a given value of function.  We've had quite a lot more war than is strictly necessary, we've still got a great deal of poverty, despite being one of the wealthiest nations.  I'm not saying we've failed as a country, but I am saying that "continuing to exist" can't count as unmitigated success.

See #4.  Giving stupid people direct democracy will get you stupid results, faster and cheaper than the old way.  I think I can get behind this.

You keep bringing up direct democracy, when I've never given any indication that that is what I'm proposing.  I almost didn't notice you doing that.  I'd rather you not contrive my positions to be ones you can disprove more easily, thanks.  When did I say that representative democracy is not the answer?

Because I thought I was talking about a way to elect candidates, otherwise known as representative democracy.

My bad, there's been a lot of conflation between the two concepts.  I was mostly referring to CU's ideas on legislating rights away.

[Captain Utopia]

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.

All I need to know. Anarchist.

LET'S THROW OUT KEYBOARDS BECAUSE PEOPLE WITH NO HANDS CAN'T USE THEM AS EASILY!!

LET'S GET RID OF RUNNING SHOES BECAUSE PEOPLE IN WHEELCHAIRS HAVE NO USE FOR AIR-SOLES!!

Can we keep this respectful?

Sure, as soon as you gain some respect for the Constitution and civil liberties.

I respect them just fine, thank you, where did I say I didn't?

Your strike remark are so far off target and context I think I will label them.......STRAWMEN!

I could say the same about the "anarchist" insult.  I have no idea where you got that from.

Certain people who are disadvantaged will be unable to use an E-Democracy system, until the time that such a system is able to put in facilities in place to ensure that they are able to maximise their participation.  So thinking that this is not a sufficient reason to abandon the idea altogether somehow makes me an anarchist?!

[Doktor Howl]

Certain people who are disadvantaged will be unable to use an E-Democracy system, until the time that such a system is able to put in facilities in place to ensure that they are able to maximise their participation. 

Which means those facilities will never, ever be put in place.

[AFK]

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.

Then maybe you should be doing something about it, instead of criticizing the efforts of people who are trying to make the situation better.

And I disagree with your "logic".  With the current system, an educated electorate would not be effective because being educated doesn't mean they'd all join together and overcome the power elite.  No, they'd keep being forced to choose one person at a time and getting nowhere because that person will always get co-opted.

The only way is to change the system so that people who will resist being co-opted stand a chance of getting into office.

Hmm, what guarantees do you have that these 3rd party types will not get co-opted?  

People making more informed choices is the best situation.  Ultimately, it could be that as people are informed, they still make the same choices.  You may still disagree with the ultimate outcome if you naturally occupy the minority voice in the populace.  

[AFK]

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.

All I need to know. Anarchist.

LET'S THROW OUT KEYBOARDS BECAUSE PEOPLE WITH NO HANDS CAN'T USE THEM AS EASILY!!

LET'S GET RID OF RUNNING SHOES BECAUSE PEOPLE IN WHEELCHAIRS HAVE NO USE FOR AIR-SOLES!!

Can we keep this respectful?

Sure, as soon as you gain some respect for the Constitution and civil liberties.

I respect them just fine, thank you, where did I say I didn't?

Your strike remark are so far off target and context I think I will label them.......STRAWMEN!

I could say the same about the "anarchist" insult.  I have no idea where you got that from.

Certain people who are disadvantaged will be unable to use an E-Democracy system, until the time that such a system is able to put in facilities in place to ensure that they are able to maximise their participation.  So thinking that this is not a sufficient reason to abandon the idea altogether somehow makes me an anarchist?!

No.  But I think it shows your inexperience with the disadvantaged.  That's not meant as an insult but as an honest commentary and critique of your idea. 

[Jasper]

What I'm referring to is that, with Approval voting, it would be possible for an uncompromisingly principled candidate to have a chance at office, thereby dodging the failures of most presidents to stick with what they said they'd do because of back-room deals.

[Doktor Howl]

What I'm referring to is that, with Approval voting, it would be possible for an uncompromisingly principled candidate to have a chance at office, thereby dodging the failures of most presidents to stick with what they said they'd do because of back-room deals.

What a hideous notion.

[Jasper]

If a candidate says "I'll work to fix X Y and Z" in his campaign, the hope is that he actually exerts his influence to do it.  Mainstream candidates don't really have a lot of incentive to do so.

Incidentally, congress needs a fucking reorg too.  Why do Dems and Reps get the whole thing?

[Doktor Howl]

If a candidate says "I'll work to fix X Y and Z" in his campaign, the hope is that he actually exerts his influence to do it.  Mainstream candidates don't really have a lot of incentive to do so.

Incidentally, congress needs a fucking reorg too.  Why do Dems and Reps get the whole thing?

Uncompromising isn't actually a good quality in a candidate.

And they get the whole thing because that's how people voted.  There are plenty of libertarian candidates for congress, for example, among the other parties out there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States

But nobody elects them.  Why?  Possibly because of brainwashing, but another possibility is that just because the 3rd parties are funnier, doesn't mean they're better.

Duverger's Law.  No exceptions.

[Jasper]

All Duverger said was that plurality votes favor two party systems.  And I agree. 

I hate two party systems.   They make it really easy for rich people to stay in control.  MONKEY INNA MIDDLE!

[Doktor Howl]

All Duverger said was that plurality votes favor two party systems.  And I agree. 

I hate two party systems.   They make it really easy for rich people to stay in control.  MONKEY INNA MIDDLE!

Well, there's always the ANP.

[Captain Utopia]

I was mostly referring to CU's ideas on legislating rights away.

Certain people who are disadvantaged will be unable to use an E-Democracy system, until the time that such a system is able to put in facilities in place to ensure that they are able to maximise their participation. 

Which means those facilities will never, ever be put in place.

So charities and organisations who currently enable such people to vote and participate in democracy will suddenly throw in the towel and give up?

Besides all they need to do is proxy their vote once to a charity or organisation which best supports their goals, and if they want to increase their participation, they'll improve their facilities in that way by choosing a proxy which is committed to that goal.

[Doktor Howl]

So charities and organisations who currently enable such people to vote and participate in democracy will suddenly throw in the towel and give up?

Annnnnd we wander off into libertarianism.   

[Jasper]

All Duverger said was that plurality votes favor two party systems.  And I agree. 

I hate two party systems.   They make it really easy for rich people to stay in control.  MONKEY INNA MIDDLE!

Well, there's always the ANP.

....  Glad we had this talk.

[Captain Utopia]

So charities and organisations who currently enable such people to vote and participate in democracy will suddenly throw in the towel and give up?

Annnnnd we wander off into libertarianism.   

I don't get it.