E-Democracy

[Jasper]

There's still the issue of people getting shafted for believing the wrong things, though.  How do you propose to deal with that?

[Doktor Howl]

They could form a powerful bloc in this way.  To screw them over though, the majority will have to make a conscious choice to do so.  The majority will have to vote against the issues raised requesting more support and services than below the bare minimum they have now.  I really don't see that happening.

I bet you don't see people voting against, say, school funding, either.

Well it's one benefit over anonymous voting at least - there is more motivation to do what you know is the right thing and less to line your own pockets.

There are a bunch of game-theory based psychological tests on this subject - give players the option to screw each other over anonymously for $10 at a time and they'll jump on it.  But as soon as you tell them that their choices won't be anonymous, they'll switch to cooperative mutually-beneficial choices, even if it means they get less money.

And then they get laid off by their childless boss.  

[Captain Utopia]

There's still the issue of people getting shafted for believing the wrong things, though.  How do you propose to deal with that?

Do the majority of groups become more partisan, or because it's a widespread phenomenon, do they become more tolerant? 

You don't need a majority of groups to become more partisan, to have a huge fucking mess.

Starting back from here do you mind if we work through the details on this one?

I'm not sure what to think of this issue - I'm not fully convinced by my arguments, but if you could address them I might be more inclined to reach your conclusion.

[Doktor Howl]

There's still the issue of people getting shafted for believing the wrong things, though.  How do you propose to deal with that?

Do the majority of groups become more partisan, or because it's a widespread phenomenon, do they become more tolerant? 

You don't need a majority of groups to become more partisan, to have a huge fucking mess.

Starting back from here do you mind if we work through the details on this one?

I'm not sure what to think of this issue - I'm not fully convinced by my arguments, but if you could address them I might be more inclined to reach your conclusion.

Okay, let's just look at it from a numbers game.  There are 1 billion Muslims in the world, and less than a million Muslim terrorists.  So there's less than .001 pissed off Muslims, and they're causing no end of trouble.

A minority can cause all manner of shit.

[Jasper]

Well, you could just keep the voting records secret, and give people the option to make their votes public.  I can't see anything going horribly wrong with that.

[Adios]

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?!

You have constantly showed a lack of respect for existing by wanting to bring up throwing rule of law, like that could actually be voted away. This also indicates a total lack of knowledge as to exactly how our system works.

By eliminating a large segment of the population from the process because it doesn't fit your ideal of E-Democracy does indeed make you an anarchist by simple definition.

[Doktor Howl]

Actually, it makes him an oligarchist.

[Jasper]

I don't think that's his position.  CU mentioned that people who didn't have access to the technology would be able to access it with libraries and other free services.  As for voting away the rule of law, I think he was just ceding that, if enough people banded together to change the law, they could make any change they liked.  And, as far as I am aware that is, in theory, true - although unlikely since it's obviously not smart to abandon rule of law.

[Doktor Howl]

As for voting away the rule of law, I think he was just ceding that, if enough people banded together to change the law, they could make any change they liked. 

Not under the current system.  No popular vote can affect the constitution.

[Adios]

Actually, it makes him an oligarchist.

Point taken.

[Adios]

I don't think that's his position.  CU mentioned that people who didn't have access to the technology would be able to access it with libraries and other free services.  As for voting away the rule of law, I think he was just ceding that, if enough people banded together to change the law, they could make any change they liked.  And, as far as I am aware that is, in theory, true - although unlikely since it's obviously not smart to abandon rule of law.

That gave me a hairball.

[Jasper]

As for voting away the rule of law, I think he was just ceding that, if enough people banded together to change the law, they could make any change they liked.

Not under the current system.  No popular vote can affect the constitution.

Ah.   That's probably for the best, then.

CU:  Would your system change that?

[Jasper]

I don't think that's his position.  CU mentioned that people who didn't have access to the technology would be able to access it with libraries and other free services. As for voting away the rule of law, I think he was just ceding that, if enough people banded together to change the law, they could make any change they liked.  And, as far as I am aware that is, in theory, true - although unlikely since it's obviously not smart to abandon rule of law.

That gave me a hairball.

Okay, we get it.  You're like 400 YEARS OLD and I should get off your lawn and turn off my rock music.  Can we have a political discussion now?

[Adios]

I don't think that's his position.  CU mentioned that people who didn't have access to the technology would be able to access it with libraries and other free services. As for voting away the rule of law, I think he was just ceding that, if enough people banded together to change the law, they could make any change they liked.  And, as far as I am aware that is, in theory, true - although unlikely since it's obviously not smart to abandon rule of law.

That gave me a hairball.

Okay, we get it.  You're like 400 YEARS OLD and I should get off your lawn and turn off my rock music.  Can we have a political discussion now?

I'll break it down for you kid.
These people will never get those services you tend to tout. Why? Because not enough people are willing to give of themselves to make it happen. They are already the Lost Tribe of America™. What? Did you actually think for a second we take care of our own?  Surely you are not that naive. The attitude among the younger crowd here who grew up with technology is that if you don't have it then that is your fault. You want to overlook those who never had it and are unable to learn to deal with it.

As far as the rest of your response, come over to my lawn. We will imbibe and talk. Bring your rock music and we can play mine as well. But, on the other hand nice way to dismiss me because I am old.

[Captain Utopia]

Well, you could just keep the voting records secret, and give people the option to make their votes public.  I can't see anything going horribly wrong with that.

Say a popular vote runs A=45%, B=55% as tallied by my central computer.  I switch that to A=51%, B=49%, well within polling error, and I return your true vote if you request to make it public.  How would you prove that I've been fabricating results without requiring everyone to make their votes public?

I don't think that's his position.  CU mentioned that people who didn't have access to the technology would be able to access it with libraries and other free services. As for voting away the rule of law, I think he was just ceding that, if enough people banded together to change the law, they could make any change they liked.  And, as far as I am aware that is, in theory, true - although unlikely since it's obviously not smart to abandon rule of law.

That gave me a hairball.

Okay - is there any form of E-Democracy that wouldn't give you a hairball?

As for voting away the rule of law, I think he was just ceding that, if enough people banded together to change the law, they could make any change they liked.

Not under the current system.  No popular vote can affect the constitution.

Ah.   That's probably for the best, then.

CU:  Would your system change that?

No - the system I describe would be used initially to elect leaders into existing institutions and feed them the will of the public.  Only once the public had proved itself to act responsibly (i.e. not irrational mob rule), would any serious discussions take place about dismantling existing safeguards.