E-Democracy

[Doktor Howl]

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.

Order comes spontaneously through the will of the people, not through oppressive laws that hold them down.






keepastraightfacekeepastraightfacekeepastraightfacekeepastraightfacekeepastraightface

[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.

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

So the system influences the election?

[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. 

SHUT UP AND GET BACK IN THE CAVE.

Oh, now you've done it.  I'll just be translating "utopia" out of the Greek, now.

"The word comes from the Greek: οὐ, "not", and τόπος, "place", indicating that More was utilizing the concept as allegory and did not consider such an ideal place to be realistically possible."

[AFK]

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.

I suggest you work in the social services field for a few year and then you will understand.  I live and work in two cities in Maine that have huge poverty issues.  I guarantee you that if you were able to install your e-democracy, that a huge majority of these people would be left out.  Oh sure, we have a non-profit or two that does some work around literacy.  There's really nothing for computer literacy.  There simply is not any capacity for hooking these people up with what would be necessary to participate in your e-democracy.  They would be left out, left behind, and left without.  

Certainly, the current system is already doing that.  But what you are proposing would put it further out of reach, not closer.  

If you really want to empower people to participate in public policy, raise capital and establish nation-wide programs to engage youth in civics.  Work to make public service as a mandatory part of public school curriculums.  Fuck,  if you could do that, just that, it would be HUGE.  

[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.

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?

[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.

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.

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

[Jasper]

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.

[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.

[Doktor Howl]

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

10 yard penalty for unnecessary bitchiness.

[Doktor Howl]

And I disagree with your "logic".  

Yeah, simple math is full of fail.  What the hell was he thinking?

[Jasper]

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.

[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.

[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?

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

The concept of proxy-voting means that say you have two acquaintances with differing opinions on environmental issues, then you'll be exposed to the competing arguments - if you want to proxy your vote to one of them and make the best decision, then that's a motivating force to learn a little more about the subject matter.  Most of the time I just glance over many issues because I have no way, however small, of making a meaningful difference, so there is no reason to learn any more of the details, right?

Humans are competitive, if we could harness just a fraction of the cognitive energy that goes into Farmville, then there is huge potential there to educate ourselves.

In addition, I remain uneducated about a host of issues because I make no actions in relation to them which have any measurable consequences.  I fully believe that with a system of E-Democracy as described, there would be some horrific resolutions passed.  This would not be without consequences for the individuals who were in support.  With a streamlined process of repeal, I think the actual damage caused would be minimal, but it would cause people to think twice next time.

That's education the hard way, but I can't think of any way which is more feasible.

[Doktor Howl]

I can.  Make it physically painful to vote.  Maybe the lever shocks you or something.

[Jasper]

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.