Smelling The Coffee: 2010

So you're saying that a faith-based system, where uneducated and uninformed people who get to vote and place trust in their elected officials, even though everyone agrees that we are blind to what is actually going on, is a better system?We're allowing the thieves to run the prisons, and we are placing faith in the thieves to have us, the stupid citizens, in mind when making legislation. How is this better?The reason a system run by the public would be better, IMO, is because ALL matters will have the public's interest in mind, before corporate interest.Currently, we are allowed to vote for an elected official, which then does whatever it is they do behind closed doors. We have faith in them, but as anyone can see, this has done us, the general public, no good.- Oni

Unions almost by definition are collections of people with a common purpose. That is what unites them in the first place. Fair enough. If the commonality of purpose is well enough defined and agreed upon. Which makes unions a case in point. But seems difficult to translate to society at large. Or even not so large. Well that is bit like advocating world peace surely? We can all as citizens pretty much agree on that. But it is all but a meaningless platitude unless backed up with a workable method of pursuing. And representative democracy (not of Leg's pure majority rule type either) is the best we have managed thus far. Imperfect as it is. Yeah I wasn't comfortable with what he was saying on that score either. Or at least how he was saying it.I guess this comes down to how much expertise is required to make a partricular decision. Can everything be reduced down to a yes/no vote that the general public can meaningfully comment on?
If not then how does the direct democracy method deal with that issue? Governments are armed with reams of researchers, advisors and experts and access to information in various fields in a way that every member of the public cannot be. And even if there is a president/minister with the ultimate decision these things are (or should be) collective decisions based on this pool of information to some extent.As a comparison relevant to EvC type topics - Would we advocate taking a popular vote as to whether ID met the requirements of being taught in science classrooms as genuine science? Should that not be put to majority vote?Are the general populace qualified to make that call? If not then why do we think that this method of decision making will be any better for areas where sociology, law, international diplomacy or whatever is the relevant field of expertise?What are the limits of direct democracy as being proposed here? On what basis are we applying those limits? If we think collective wisdom is somehow superior why not apply it to everything and anything? Let's decide the age of the Earth by popular vote - No?Why not?

Oh you know. World peace. Ideal form of governance. Meaning of life the universe and everything. Nothing heavy. On that I can agree. How to achieve democracy of a desirable sort. Maybe starting with what desirable form of democracy is. I don't think Legend's version of simplistic and unconsidered majority rule would result in anything but complete catastrophe that would make the present and far from perfect systems look like the glory days of democratic idealism. In other words I think his version would result in social hell. And when you have done that you can go on to win the nobel prize for literature and lead this new found world democracy we are about to invent.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Correct. And equally so, communities of citizens are also a collection of people with a common purpose (ie. jobs, healthcare, education, housing, safety, etc.).So it is in this sense that I used the union analogy.I believe the citizens can decide better how to spend and allocate the money for each of these necessities. Not so, IMO, if we really broke down what it is that the "society at large" considers it's specific interests.If we simply started with what is done with our tax dollars, as an example, you could (at least I could) see what the most benefitial areas would be to allocate this money. It would NOT be to re-build the government of Afghanistan, that's for sure.That's just an example. But I'm sure you could see how, just with giving citizens control of where their tax dollars are being spent, would make a huge difference in our everyday lives. Absolutely. But surely you and I can agree that - given that the citizens are educated and well informed, not blinded by the mainstream media - a citizen run spending system can be a system worth investing in? Even, like I suggested, in small increments of just allowing the citizens to spend thier tax dollars properly, and then evolve from there.The faith-based system we currently have is failing us because our interests are not considered. If we control the way money is spent, and only control that, then the systems will undoubtedly be working with the interest of the people first. I'm not saying the military should talk to us when making decisions; but they wouldn't be allowed the corruption of frivolous spending that currently is being done.We don't need yes/no votes on every issue - like Legend is suggesting - we just need control of how our tax dollars are spent, and that would place the governments balls in our hands - AND, take control away from lobbyist, special interest groups and corporate mobsters that are fucking us on a daily basis. We still should allow the experts their opinion, and in fact, I think we would do a better job with that. Did GW Bush listen to the experts? No! So how is this government controlled system any better?I'm not trying to take the deciding power from educated people, like scientist, etc., I'm just saying that decisions can consciously be made by the citizens with the same information that the government currently receives - since we would decide what's best for us, not what's best for corporate mobsters.- Oni

Personally...I don't think a representative Republic is a bad idea from teh start. Honestly, Joe on the street, whether intellectually capable of forming an opinion or not, simply cannot have the time to participate in a meaningful way to the legislative process and still go about his life. Sure, COngress takes plenty of vacations and isn't always in session. But really, even they don;t individually read through every bill - tghey have staff members summarize extremely complex legislation for them so that they can understand it all more quickly. How many days can every citizen take off from work to focus on the issues? There's a reason our news is filtered down to us in the form of soundbytes,with major stories taking less than 10 minutes. We just don;t have the time, or the attention spans. Participating in government is a full-time (or a LEAST a part-time) job in and of itself.Oni's issues seem to stem from the fact that a financial elite tend to retain full control, and the everyman is given only a token representation if that in exchange for votes. I think the problem stems from a few factors:1) term limits. Granted, we do sometimes have representatives that do a decent job, and are worth retaining. The experience in legislature that is gained by serving multiple terms is also valuable. But allowing representatives to become career politicians carries its own dangers.2) the two-party system. Even among those who identify themselves as Democrats or Republicans, how many can actually say that they are well-represented by their party? The fact is, American politics has become more about voting against the other guy (when we vote at all) than voting for a candidate you like. Obama is the closest I've seen to a politician that I like, and he's still a loooong way off. The two-party system means that minority parties and views typically get no representation at all in teh political process. I know some other countries (the Brits?) have something more percentage based - if party A get's 1/10 of the vote, B gets 3/10, and C gets 6/10, then party A gets 1 representative, B gets 3, and C gets 6. THis allows minority views to have a voice in the process, while still allowing representation based on the will of the majority.3) campaign financing. How much of our political process is dictated by campaigns? The fact is, you can't be a poor man and win the Presidency. More, you can't get elected without courting the wealthy elite and big business. Basically, the ability of a person to get elected is dependant entirely on money, to the detriment of message, and this makes our representatives far more beholden to financial benefactors than to the actual people. I think campaigns should be exclusively financed through a public pool (if you want to donate, it all goes in teh same pot and every candidate gets an equal share, no privatre spending allowed). I'd also support the FCC making rules that force media companies (TV, radio) to allow specific amounts of time at reasonable timeslots for political campaigns. No more getting bombarded with ads for candidate A while candidate B can't afford it.THis is a big one. Campaign donations are like the fuel that drive our politics, far more than public opinion.4) Lobbyists. Yes, it's important for our representatives to receive information from the industries and groups they're representing. We don't want members of the committee that regulates internet legislation comparing the web to a dump truck, when it's really like a series of tubes.But really, lobbyists are the way that wealthy special interests and businesses take the ears of our representatives while the actual citizenry writes letters that are never read. Why should the health care industry, who has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo or forcing silly things like mandatory self-paid health insurance, be listened to when almost everyone agrees that the health care industry as it is today is fundamentally broken and wrong?Omni Consumer Products doesn't deserve more direct access to the legislature than the citizenry. This is the most basic point at which we can say that the system is broken. OCP doesn't even have the ability to vote, but it has more influence on our representatives than we do. They can get Congress to approve the purchase of 1000 ED-209's, even if the military says they're useless and the public thinks they're dangerous, just because they can influence the politicians directly.Basically, I just don't think that direct democracy can feasibly work, even assuming the technical challenges of secure universal voting were solved tomorrow. I do, however, think that relatively small changes in the way we do business can have major effects, and that we can increase public representation while downplaying corporate/elite ownership of the country.

The rest of your post deserves a more thorough response, but I'd thought that I'd add my 0.02 regarding term limits.I immediately think of a joke that Jay Leno told a while back that about the whole notion that we always need to get "outsiders" and "mavericks" into government, people who haven't been "corrupted by the system" yet. (I paraphrase from my imperfect memory.)"Why is it that we value inexperience so much in government? We don't in other jobs. Do you think that you'd go to a doctor who was saying: 'You know, I've never done surgery before, but I've got some really good ideas!'"Fact is, we already term limits for every single elected official. They're called elections. If someone's in office, it's because people voted for her or him. No matter how entrenched someone becomes, they still have to get support every two or four or six years.

Hi onifre I'm an American (Texan to be more exact) who migrated to England 7 years ago, so I sorta think of myself as a British American, hence Briterican. In the words of Professor Dawkins, "I gratefuly accept your rebuke." Let me try to reply without this single-line at a time mess...I suffer from an unfortunate tendency to post more than I intend (possibly due to typing 100+ wpm), and inadequate patience when it comes to reviewing it prior to posting. This shows badly in my post which, though I'm not waffling and abandoning my comments completely, clearly doesn't account for some of the major points you and Legend have made in reply.I cannot disagree with the point about hacks: we have had and will continue to have them. My comment regarding the tendency to "weed" these out early was clearly not thought through. You make a very good point when you mention how a well-organised campaign can make it easy for unqualified people to get elected.You mention that the "uneducated, unqualified and uninformed peopole" (words I had initially used) are still responsible for voting someone in. I appreciate this, but I'm still inclined to think that there is some degree by which individuals who actually manage to take a serious run at public office are more qualified than the average joe blow, so I think that even if the general public voted in the worst of the candidates, that individual is still likely to be more qualified than a large chunk of those voters.As to the comment you made in which you said the priveleged elites see to it that the general public is uneducated: This is one of those things that I can't fully convince myself is false, and yet I intuitively feel that it is. I'm sure there is some degree of this, but I don't think it is really possible today to "control information" to such a great degree. Yes, I know you could provide me with a million examples of how this takes place, but the very fact that you could provide these examples shows that it isn't working.I think it's come up before in another thread that I am not convinced there are an elite few in control of the media either. Certain powerful elements of it, sure, like news networks and the deplorable Rupert Murdoch. As far as "the media" as a whole, I just don't see it, and frankly don't think it's possible in the internet age.I absolutely agree with a general thread of your reply calling for a better-informed public. The only way in which our opinions might diverge in this respect is my opinion that there's no excuse for not being more well-informed. There's an internet cafe down the road from here that costs 50 pence per hour (under a dollar). If someone really wants to get an idea about a political issue, or a politician, or an upcoming law, or creationism v evolution... there is no real reason that they can't.So I hope I don't sound like I'm waffling or backtracking - I'm taking what you've said onboard and rethinking what I said in light of it. One thing I do need to do in future is start proofreading my posts more for content than syntax.I sadly don't have time right now to reply to Legend, or watch that video you linked, or indulge in psilocybin magic mushrooms - but I shall watch the video in due course, and I thank you for your reply.

Noted and retracted. My wording was inappropriately arrogant. It's not that I distrust or disrespect "the general public" that much, I was just trying to make the point that I believe (possibly wrongly) that even the worst candidate for public office is still probably better qualified than a large chunk of the voters.As I said to onifre, thanks for calling me out on my inadequately expressed opinion. I sound like a dick sometimes lol.

Hi LegendThanks for actually answering the questions I asked as opposed to glossing over specifics.As I've said in replies to others, the wording of my post was somewhat ill-advised, and my failure to think some of it through is apparent.I've made the point in my other replies that (possibly wrongly) I feel that even the worst choice for a candidate for public office is likely to be better qualified than a large chunk of the voters. I welcome anyone's comments in this regard, and am still formulating my own opinions. Nonetheless, I chose unnecessarily negative words to describe "the general public" in my post, and will learn to take my time and be a bit more reasonable rather than posting for dramatic effect.Your responses are reasonable and I see very little that I want to specifically disagree with. At the risk of getting tomatos thrown at me, I would like to say that GW was a good governor of Texas (where I lived during his term). He sponsored badly needed tort and judicial reform, and better funding for education. Wiki also credits him with making Texas the leader in wind-powered electricity in the US. Now while dodging those tomatos, I'll point out that I consider his presidential administration to be a disgrace to put it mildly.I have to sum up as I'm running late - I think onifre's response to me made me realise that I don't sit at the end of the spectrum you might infer when reading my post. I think I fell victim to taking a polar opposite view to you that doesn't really match my own. I felt I was making sense at the time, but discovered later I had gone too far.The subject is fascinating - I'm still not convinced direct democracy is a viable alternative to representative democracy, but yours and others responses are informative and appreciated. Thanks.

And I agree with that - I even mentioned that the experience gained by serving multiple terms is definitely a benefit.But I'm looking at the reality of legislative representation. I don't like "mavericks." I like the representation of teh people. I think that a very good argument can be made for both sides of this sub-issue. My concern is the establishment of an ivory tower of sorts, where politicians become more and more isolated from their constituents. We know perfectly well that many elections are carried out by name recognition only. I also don't like the idea of career politicians - I want my representatives to serve because they want to serve, not because they want to build a position of power and wealth. I don't want money to be an incentive for politicians at all - I want them doing what they believe is best for the country, and I want us to elect the representatives whose idea of "best" is closest to ours.But I completely understand that experience carries a great cdeal of value. The workings of Congress aren't something you can pick up in a week. I'm jsut not certain where the best value lies.As an aside - I'd also like to see a harsh penalty for lying in Congress. There's already a legal penalty for lying to Congress - I'd really like our representatives to be held accountable for making statements that are objectively false (as opposed to differing matters of opinion).And I don;t mean just being booted from office. When dealing with a representative who repeatedly makes statements he/she knows or reasonably should have known are false, I mean jail time. Our elected representatives should be held to a very high standard for honestly debating the issues that we, as a nation, need them to make decisions on. The job is too important for anything less.Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.

I echo your words. But we already have laws and harsh penalties that our representatives routinely break . . .Bush Jr. and company have gotten away with mass murder, literally:
Site Not Configured | 404 Not Found
kucinich.us/impeachment/articles.pdfI know it is irrational and unfair, but in this case, I ALMOST want the penalties to extend to their immediate families. Almost.

The examples I provided are applications of certain technologies. For instance, Skype -> VoIP, Twitter/etc -> broadband, Google -> massive parallelism, mobile phones -> GSΜ/GPRS and so on and so forth.It shows that technologies that enable secure, mass interaction are already available and in use. You're just putting your fingers in your ears going "nah, nah I can't hear you!" Fine,Comms: HTTPS, TCP/IP, GPRS, VoIP, whatever the digital TV protocols areSecurity/Privacy: SSL, AES-Twofish-Serpent, hashing algorithms, GPG, Guttman method.Infrastructure: Mobile phones, PCs, digital TVs, customised voting pods, customised voting booths/buildings. Wrong! The drafting body would be mere administrators, they'd just be implementing the public will. Only if the people who draft the bill are the ones to get to vote for them. You propose an issue at an electronic Assembly Forum or you vote for an existing one. Issues with the most votes get put to the public vote. Simples. A conglomeration of companies with alloted public supervision actually. True, largely because they've been run by governmental project managers who fail to understand the problem domain, the proposed solution and the technologies involved. We now know not to make the same mistakes. It'd cost as much as the Iraq invasion. The end result would be much more worth it though. The public debate is, obviously, public. The votes will be encrypted in triple layer of AES-Twofish-Serpent, in a GPG envelope. Decryption keys will be available to separate and distinct decryption systems, audited by separate public alloted boards. Each citizen's digital id will be the result of a hash function based on a finger-print or retina scan. This is in effect their GPG private key. The voting system will hold the not-so-public key used to verify and decrypt the voting envelope. The same way we do now. Parallelism and redundancy. It's not when you ask, this is the first time you asked.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

The public, silly. We all propose and vote on issues on a digital Assembly and the ones most voted on get put up for further voting. Representation of opinions and point of views, not representation of people.
Accountability? Not really, collective responsiibility more like.
Democracy isn't about simple majority rule, it's about everyone having a direct say on issues affecting their lives. You're surely joking! You mean like how powerful lobbies dictate how our MPs vote?! At least in a democracy they'd be hard pressed to control millions of individuals instead of merely 646! No. What makes you think so? You're assuming the public to be stupid, ignorant peasants who don't know what's good for them.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Hi Briterican,Thanks for the info on your name. How do you like living in England? As opposed to the US (Texas). When you can, I strongly advise watching the 9-part series Manufacturing Consent that I linked for you. Its not about conspiracies, etc., it's about media control and the control of information to the general public.There is no mainstream media outlet that is not own and operated by big business. And as for taking the time to search for good information, the general public has enough distractions in their daily lives to see to it that they don't have the time to do this. And frankly, if you believe the news is telling you the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth (as do most people) there really is no reason to seek any other info. People usually get home, turn on the local news or CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and accept that was is being said is all the info there is. They never consider that these channels have special interest groups and advertisers that they must keep satisied. So they go along accepting what is said on these channels at face value, but this is a serious mistake on their part. But they can't be held responsible, they've been indoctrinated into this system - they've been indoctrinated into accpeting what the media says at face value, AND, those in control see to it that this system runs without a hitch.Again, watch the video and it may open your eyes to some truths you weren't aware of.- Oni

Part of the problem is that the American media refuses to challenge anything that's said. There's precious little fact checking, and almost never is anyone called out for making outright lies.CNN/Fox/MSNBC all draw our attention to the important issues of the day, but they don't equip the general public to understand them. The typical tactic is to invite two guests (one for each "side" of an issue, as if everything can be boiled down to a binary choice of who's right)and then let them both talk. This sounds well and good, except the guests are never held to any standard of debate. They aren;t required to tell the truth, and the host won't fact-check anything. They jsut bicker back and forth, and in the end the public is no more informed than they were at the start - and in fact their opinion is driven more by which guest they "liked" better, as opposed to making a judgment based on facts.It's not just about the media being the mouthpiece of big business. The media itself is big business. Their incentive is not only to keep their advertisers happy, but also to get ratings. This means that "news" is now simply one more form of entertainment.I rely far more on various internet fact-checking sites and the BBC for my news. The American media is little better than the Enquirer.