E-Democracy

[LMNO]

Regarding proxies:

From what I understand, the proposal is that people who cannot gain access to the direct e-voting methods pool their votes with a group or charity to represent them.

How many charities would they have access to, and where would they find the charities?  Which groups would have the resources and the willingness to canvas the poorest and most remote parts of the country, looking for disenfranchised voters? 

Chances are good that only the best-funded groups (GOP, DNC) would be able to make a comprehensive push for proxy votes.  So again, the big money status quo wins.

[AFK]

I'm also fairly certain you would have to rewrite an assload of elections law and non-profit law to allow an entity like the United Way to not only cast votes, but to also cast the votes of other individuals.  Based upon my dealings with the United Way, I think there would be some considerable conflicts of interest at play. 

[Captain Utopia]

Again, the very idea of the proxy vote is, pardon my bluntness, completely awful.  It does the opposite of empowering people to voice their opinion and to have their say.  It becomes ceded to an organization.  So now, not only do you have powerful corporations influencing elections, you've just given a truckload of power to non-profits and charitable organizations to influence elections.  Especially when the people they are receiving permission to be their proxy vote are desperate for basic needs.  Those people, because of education an literacy issues, can very easily be taken advantage of.  At least when they walk into a voting booth, they know they are casting their vote for their interest. 

If only 5% are voting, we need more mobilization, more empowerment.  Your solution doesn't do that.  It invites more apathy as people can just give their vote away and let someone else do it. 

There's two issues here - proxy voting for the 6% of people in poverty, which is my benchmark of incremental success, and proxy voting for everyone else.  There may be people who try to scam - I've already debunked that though - so I won't repeat my argument here.  But there will be trusted organisations for whom giving them your proxy will be more effective than voting D or R in an election every four years.

For that 6% of people in poverty, the proxy vote is not ideal, but at a bare minimum it gives them something better than they have today -- do you disagree on that point?

Forget the proxy vote.  Focus on ways to get people to express their vote for themselves.  Don't add layers and barriers, look to take layers and barriers away.  Get more poor people hooked up with absentee ballots. 

This is a thread about whether or not E-Democracy is feasible, not whether it is better or worse than some other utopian ideal.

If you have an implementation idea for E-Democracy which improves upon proxy voting, then I'll be all ears.

Another point, even if you exclude lawmakers from the construct where people can change their vote at any time, you still have the issue of totally fluid laws.  That kind of fluidity is going to be just as bad for laws as it is for lawmakers.  Changes in laws should be measured and considered.  While the current system is bulky and cumbersome, it does protect against knee-jerk reactions.  While less gridlock is certainly welcome, I'm not sure the body of local law turning on a dime is something we want either.  Especially if those turns are really close together. 

Please consider the point whereby the majority of issues would not be monolithic thousand-page reforms but minor informed tweaks.

Yes there may be a period of chaos.  But consider this as a process, it's not like we're stuck with a single idea for a decade, unable to modify our course - if things get too chaotic - and a majority of people decide to continue, then who are we to say what is best for them? 

If things really get chaotic though, doesn't it seem likely that we'd all just start talking about that problem and come up with a way to solve it by making things less fluid for a while?

How many charities would they have access to, and where would they find the charities?  Which groups would have the resources and the willingness to canvas the poorest and most remote parts of the country, looking for disenfranchised voters? 

Chances are good that only the best-funded groups (GOP, DNC) would be able to make a comprehensive push for proxy votes.  So again, the big money status quo wins.

If they actually improve the lot of the impoverished - great.  If they are a scam, it'll be common knowledge just by looking at their voting record, and since it's not exactly hard to change your proxy-vote, and since poor people aren't automatically stupid or unable to talk to each other, I don't see this as a looming concern.

[LMNO]

If they actually improve the lot of the impoverished - great.  If they are a scam, it'll be common knowledge just by looking at their voting record, and since it's not exactly hard to change your proxy-vote, and since poor people aren't automatically stupid or unable to talk to each other, I don't see this as a looming concern.

I see a flaw in your theory.

Also, if the proxy group gets your vote and then leaves town, how are you supposed to change your vote?

[Captain Utopia]

If things really get chaotic though, doesn't it seem likely that we'd all just start talking about that problem and come up with a way to solve it by making things less fluid for a while?

...

If they actually improve the lot of the impoverished - great.  If they are a scam, it'll be common knowledge just by looking at their voting record, and since it's not exactly hard to change your proxy-vote, and since poor people aren't automatically stupid or unable to talk to each other, I don't see this as a looming concern.

If anyone answers in terms of monkeys or doom-and-gloom human stupidity, I give up.

[LMNO]

Ok, so maybe we should leave pragmatics aside.  I know, I know.  Bear with me.


Perhaps the question is, "would e-democracy be better or worse than our current system?"

Let us compare and contrast the ballot method versus e-dem.

[Captain Utopia]

If they actually improve the lot of the impoverished - great.  If they are a scam, it'll be common knowledge just by looking at their voting record, and since it's not exactly hard to change your proxy-vote, and since poor people aren't automatically stupid or unable to talk to each other, I don't see this as a looming concern.

I see a flaw in your theory.

Votes are not anonymous, as per the OP.

I'm not convinced that this is a good thing.  Again - see the arguments for/against in the OP.

Potentially individual votes may be anonymous, but proxy-carriers would publicly publish their tallies - that might work.. I'll think a bit more on how that could be hi-jacked.

Also, if the proxy group gets your vote and then leaves town, how are you supposed to change your vote?

By logging on with your username and password, and changing your proxy vote.  In the case of the computer illiterate, it would be the charity case-worker logging on and setting the proxy vote in the first place.

[Adios]

If they actually improve the lot of the impoverished - great.  If they are a scam, it'll be common knowledge just by looking at their voting record, and since it's not exactly hard to change your proxy-vote, and since poor people aren't automatically stupid or unable to talk to each other, I don't see this as a looming concern.

I see a flaw in your theory.

Votes are not anonymous, as per the OP.

I'm not convinced that this is a good thing.  Again - see the arguments for/against in the OP.

Potentially individual votes may be anonymous, but proxy-carriers would publicly publish their tallies - that might work.. I'll think a bit more on how that could be hi-jacked.

Also, if the proxy group gets your vote and then leaves town, how are you supposed to change your vote?

By logging on with your username and password, and changing your proxy vote.  In the case of the computer illiterate, it would be the charity case-worker logging on and setting the proxy vote in the first place.

Then I am against this entire concept.

[Captain Utopia]

Did you even read the OP, or just come onto this thread to snipe and bicker?

[Adios]

Did you even read the OP, or just come onto this thread to snipe and bicker?

Oh, excuse me please. I guess under YOUR system I am not allowed to have my personal vote if it goes against your feelings.

[Captain Utopia]

WTF dude, you didn't even bother to read two sentences more than the one you highlighted:

"Potentially individual votes may be anonymous, but proxy-carriers would publicly publish their tallies - that might work.. I'll think a bit more on how that could be hi-jacked."

fuck this noise

[Adios]

WTF dude, you didn't even bother to read two sentences more than the one you highlighted:

"Potentially individual votes may be anonymous, but proxy-carriers would publicly publish their tallies - that might work.. I'll think a bit more on how that could be hi-jacked."

fuck this noise

You simply refuse to hear differing thoughts. You say you have addressed the issues brought up concerning proxy voting but you haven't, you have tried to gloss them over. Votes HAVE to be anonymous to guarantee free elections. It was mentioned earlier that you are in love with this idea and are now married to it. I honestly believe this to be the case. I will not post anymore in this thread since disagreeing with you isn't allowed.

kthksbai

[LMNO]

If they actually improve the lot of the impoverished - great.  If they are a scam, it'll be common knowledge just by looking at their voting record, and since it's not exactly hard to change your proxy-vote, and since poor people aren't automatically stupid or unable to talk to each other, I don't see this as a looming concern.

I see a flaw in your theory.

Votes are not anonymous, as per the OP.

I'm not convinced that this is a good thing.  Again - see the arguments for/against in the OP.

Potentially individual votes may be anonymous, but proxy-carriers would publicly publish their tallies - that might work.. I'll think a bit more on how that could be hi-jacked.

Also, if the proxy group gets your vote and then leaves town, how are you supposed to change your vote?

By logging on with your username and password, and changing your proxy vote.  In the case of the computer illiterate, it would be the charity case-worker logging on and setting the proxy vote in the first place.

But the proxy group has left town. 

Or are you proposing that every proxy group have an infrastructure of charity case-workers in permanent residence and offices in impoverished areas? 

[AFK]

There's two issues here - proxy voting for the 6% of people in poverty, which is my benchmark of incremental success, and proxy voting for everyone else.  There may be people who try to scam - I've already debunked that though

You offered a rebuttal, but you have not provided anything that I can see that would actually adequately protect against corruption.  I think you need to research that more and do some more thinking on that.  

- so I won't repeat my argument here.  But there will be trusted organisations for whom giving them your proxy will be more effective than voting D or R in an election every four years.

But I thought this was about local government not federal?  Which is it?  

For that 6% of people in poverty, the proxy vote is not ideal, but at a bare minimum it gives them something better than they have today -- do you disagree on that point?

Yes I do for all the reasons I've laid out from capacity to education.  You are adding a barrier which is the navigation of a new voting system and use of a new technology.  If you are looking to go from 5% to 6% introducing a new barrier will be counter productive.  You are better off starting a non-profit that has funding to educate and transport people to polling places.  I'd dare say you could get to 8 or 9% with that kind of initiative.  

This is a thread about whether or not E-Democracy is feasible, not whether it is better or worse than some other utopian ideal.

If you have an implementation idea for E-Democracy which improves upon proxy voting, then I'll be all ears.

Define feasible.  Feasible from who's perspective?  

Please consider the point whereby the majority of issues would not be monolithic thousand-page reforms but minor informed tweaks.

Yes there may be a period of chaos.  But consider this as a process, it's not like we're stuck with a single idea for a decade, unable to modify our course - if things get too chaotic - and a majority of people decide to continue, then who are we to say what is best for them? 

If things really get chaotic though, doesn't it seem likely that we'd all just start talking about that problem and come up with a way to solve it by making things less fluid for a while?

Okay, so Town X passes a law to require your headlights must be on when you use your windshield wipers.  Two months later,there is a movement to overturn this because people find it inconvenient to have to remember that, so the law is overturned.  3 days later, there is a horrific pile-up because someone didn't see another car coming because it was drizzly and they didn't have headlights on.  A new movement reinstates that headlight law.  So, within a few months you've had the law change 3 times.  

Do you think the citizenry is going to be able to keep up with all of this.  What about law enforcement officials who need to keep track of all these changes and adjust training curriculum and enforcement activities with each change?  

[LMNO]

So, I read the OP again, and have a few thoughts.

1) is this e-dem for the election of representatives, or for deciding on the bills and resolutions that representatives usually vote on in congress?  The two ideas get conflated about 10 posts in.

2) proxy voting and approval voting have very little to do with the medium in which they're employed.  it is just as easy to do proxy and approval voting with paper ballots as it is with e-dem. So e-dem needs to offer something paper balloting doesn't.  So far, reversal of vote seems to be a main difference.

3) e-dem seems to offer the immedite proposal of ideas from citizens.  But is there a vetting process, or do people just vote, change their vote, and see what happens, like some massive Jennifer's Government/Nation States game, where there are a dozen or so new proposals every day, from "more money to schools" to "bring back segregation"?

4) if people have direct access to issues, who decides which issues they can vote on?  Something as large as Iran could get horrifically messy if people keep changing their votes on sanctions, invasions, nuke attack, etc.