E-Democracy

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



Yes. One that was all inclusive and unbiased. Got one?

[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?

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.

Just teasing!  I only did it because I'm looking for concrete discussion, and glib/grumpy posts get in the way.  I may not have the benefit of your experiences, but I'm learning with the dialogues here.

At any rate, I'm not about to start arguing for CU's e-democracy.  It's not my cross to bear.  I'm just trying to help him clarify his points so that the discussion bears fruit.  Like so-

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.

Okay, that makes more sense than what it sounded like - and it sounded a lot like replacing the legislative branch with twitter.

[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.

Just teasing!  I only did it because I'm looking for concrete discussion, and glib/grumpy posts get in the way.  I may not have the benefit of your experiences, but I'm learning with the dialogues here.

At any rate, I'm not about to start arguing for CU's e-democracy.  It's not my cross to bear.  I'm just trying to help him clarify his points so that the discussion bears fruit.  Like so-

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.

Okay, that makes more sense than what it sounded like - and it sounded a lot like replacing the legislative branch with twitter.

It still sounds like a twitter response to me.

[Jasper]

At least it wouldn't be able to trash the country in a single afternoon.  That's an improvement, right?

[Adios]

At least it wouldn't be able to trash the country in a single afternoon.  That's an improvement, right?

Are you sure?

[Captain Utopia]

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?



Yes. One that was all inclusive and unbiased. Got one?

I can't think of a form of E-Democracy which is more inclusive, and is less biased - what would you suggest?

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



Yes. One that was all inclusive and unbiased. Got one?

I can't think of a form of E-Democracy which is more inclusive, and is less biased - what would you suggest?

Wow. You are willing to dismiss an entire part of the population with a stroke and this is your response?

[Jasper]

I'm more sure than I was a while ago.  That's not to say I'd set it loose on a voting district though.

I'd be interested to see how well it worked for a company or school though.  Something relatively trivial at first.  Smaller electorates.  If people are happy with it by then, I'll be impressed.

[Adios]

I'm more sure than I was a while ago.  That's not to say I'd set it loose on a voting district though.

I'd be interested to see how well it worked for a company or school though.  Something relatively trivial at first.  Smaller electorates.  If people are happy with it by then, I'll be impressed.

I will agree it would be interesting to see mock results.

[Jasper]

CU -

When do you think something like this will be available for testing?

[Captain Utopia]

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?



Yes. One that was all inclusive and unbiased. Got one?

I can't think of a form of E-Democracy which is more inclusive, and is less biased - what would you suggest?

Wow. You are willing to dismiss an entire part of the population with a stroke and this is your response?

How am I dismissing them?  The solution I've suggested gives them equal or better representation than they currently have.  E-Democracy requires access to the internet - you're dodging the challenge I gave you to suggest a form which is more inclusive and less biased than the one I've described.

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



Yes. One that was all inclusive and unbiased. Got one?

I can't think of a form of E-Democracy which is more inclusive, and is less biased - what would you suggest?

Wow. You are willing to dismiss an entire part of the population with a stroke and this is your response?

How am I dismissing them?  The solution I've suggested gives them equal or better representation than they currently have.  E-Democracy requires access to the internet - you're dodging the challenge I gave you to suggest a form which is more inclusive and less biased than the one I've described.

I am dodging nothing. You are the one ignoring the computer illiteracy of millions. The current system offers these people a better opportunity than your proposed system.

[Captain Utopia]

CU -

When do you think something like this will be available for testing?

Votorola seems furthest along.  But there are a whole bunch of projects in various stages of testing.  Mostly they differ in philosophy or design and are aimed at different scales of governance.

[Captain Utopia]

I am dodging nothing. You are the one ignoring the computer illiteracy of millions. The current system offers these people a better opportunity than your proposed system.

Sure you're dodging it.  You've got plenty of criticism, but repeatedly fail to come up with one suggestion with regards how an E-Democracy system could provide greater opportunities for participation to the computer illiterate, than the one I've described.

You say it's possible, you chastise me for it, yet when I ask you to describe how it could be improved upon - you've got nothing.

[Jasper]

The virtual paraliment seems like an interesting idea.  It reminds me of Ender's Game.  Remember the forums that Ender's siblings talked on to influence politics?  It seems like this is that thing.

But, like the book, I don't see a thing like that working directly with citizens.  It would be too noisy.