E-Democracy

[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.

....  Glad we had this talk.

[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.   

I don't get it.

Charities are also their answer for making sure disadvantaged people don't get shot, stabbed, starved, or die off from treatable illnesses.

If you're suggesting that charities are good things, I'm with you.

If you suggest that charities should be relied on to make sure everyone gets the chance to vote, I'm gonna have to do the Andre Moreau dance.

[Captain Utopia]

I can really see the benefit of this system for smaller to midsized organizations. It's hard to say if it'll work on a large scale due to the unpredictable nature of persuasion and charisma. i tend to think this will spawn a second tier of non-elected politicians - People who are able to convincingly say, "You don't understand health care, I do, proxy your vote to me." And to some extent this is good! But this is also why we have a representative democracy, so you don't have to worry about every little bill item. You just elect the guy you trust to vote in a way which supports his constituency.

Yes, and I'm sure it'll be unpredictable to the extent that people will be competing and trying to game the system.  The feedback mechanism - the fact that people are held accountable by the record of their bad votes is intended to regulate that.

Will this tier of non-elected politicians be "sponsored" by corporations?  I'm sure they'll try.  But if you can change your proxy vote on a whim, then it's not like you're held hostage for a few years at a time.

One thing I'm still a little fuzzy on is the anonymity. I think making everybody's votes public would create a social mess. The secret ballot eliminates peer pressure, which is good because peer pressure favors majority issues.

Public ballots would create a NIGHTMARE, not a mess.

John Q Public votes against the choice of his employer.  He is later that month mysteriously laid off.

Yeah, this is definitely a problem I'd rather avoid.  If there was a way to have anonymous voting, which could not be tampered with and corrupted by the trusted authority tallying the votes, then I think it'd be a no-brainer.

I do think the peer-pressure issue would be reduced by the fact that individuals inhabit multiple contradictory groups, so it's a given that you'd quite often vote against the wishes of one of them.  What happens in a situation like that though?  Do the majority of groups become more partisan, or because it's a widespread phenomenon, do they become more tolerant?  The people in highly-partisan groups would find themselves somewhat alienated, and I think that'd be an inhibitory factor, but I don't know for sure.

Implicit in these calculations is the fact that this will change social mores, the question is how, what is more likely?

[Jasper]

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.

I dunno though.  Is the green party really that hysterical compared to dems or repubs?

[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.

Charities are also their answer for making sure disadvantaged people don't get shot, stabbed, starved, or die off from treatable illnesses.

If you're suggesting that charities are good things, I'm with you.

If you suggest that charities should be relied on to make sure everyone gets the chance to vote, I'm gonna have to do the Andre Moreau dance.

Oh god no.  For people who have no computer, there are public internet services such as in libraries.  For people with disabilities who need help doing everyday tasks, then of course they'll have to rely on their existing care-giver to participate in an E-Democracy system.

They may not be able to participate to the same extent the vast majority can, but there will many people or organisations who they can choose to proxy their vote to, who will support their main agenda.

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.

[Captain Utopia]

I think what Dok may be getting at (and if he isn't, then I certainly am) is that it doesn't really matter how you vote for something if a system is already in place to make certain that some candidates are more viable than others, based upon factors other than their ideas and competence.

That is to say, corporate money.

The nice thing about approval voting in our era is that, with the internet, this system would level the playing field with corporate shills and would-be dark horse candidates.  

I expect I'll live to see the day when we don't have political parties.

A fine sentiment, but it's not enough to say "the future will fix everything".  What we need are nuts-and-bolts solutions, not high-concept voting technology.

If you don't have shills and limit corporate interference, then political parties start to wither.  If you unbundle individual resolutions from mammoth pieces of legislation then 95% of the content can be agreed upon and the partisan bickering over the 5% becomes an irrelevant sideshow because it no longer stops anything from happening.

A system of E-Democracy, such as the one I describe in the OP, will consign parties to the pages of political history for these reasons.

Remember - to achieve this, we only need about 200 people who are working together and who believe in the goal.  Metagovernment has half that number already.

[Doktor Howl]

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.

[Doktor Howl]

If you don't have shills and limit corporate interference, then political parties start to wither. 

Balls.  Parties were doing just fine in the early USA, before corporations became prominent.

[Doktor Howl]

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.

I dunno though.  Is the green party really that hysterical compared to dems or repubs?

Yes, actually.  They couldn't get 5% for matching funds, so they threw a tantrum and attacked the dems nonstop.  They are in fact why George W Bush gained office in the first place, as Nader pulled enough of the liberal vote to tip the balance.

[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.

[Jasper]

That's dumb.

Oh, just thought of something.  Someone stop me if this has been tried.

Hold a vote like normal, and any party that gets more than 10% (or some reasonable number) of the vote gets a proportional showing in congress.

Interesting idea?

[Captain Utopia]

If you don't have shills and limit corporate interference, then political parties start to wither. 

Balls.  Parties were doing just fine in the early USA, before corporations became prominent.

I don't know this period of history - were they without benefactors or other sources of finance?

I can totally see a good reason for having a party to represent and nourish an ideology you favour, especially when that is the voters best way to influence direction.  In an E-Democracy system, that motivation is lessened.  You can have groups which support specific causes, and dole out your support as best to represent your wishes.

[Captain Utopia]

That's dumb.

Oh, just thought of something.  Someone stop me if this has been tried.

Hold a vote like normal, and any party that gets more than 10% (or some reasonable number) of the vote gets a proportional showing in congress.

Interesting idea?

Proportional representation?

[Jasper]

Oh, hm.

UK has it, and look how great they have it.

[Captain Utopia]

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.