Legend,
...err...no....I just mentioned Skype as aone of many technology applications that currently make mass-interaction available.
Right. Fine. However, if the examples you provided are not what you are actually suggesting we use, then you have effectively provided absolutely nothing.
You have no argument.
I have a very clear idea of how it should work I just haven't got the time and energy to write all down in full technical glory on this forum. The point -which you keep ignoring- is that the technology already exists. Now we can start arguing about what would be the best way to implement the system but the fact remains: *the enabling technology for direct democracy is right here, right now!*
So you keep saying, but you are reticent about telling us what it actually is. If you are not advocating using "things like chat, social networks, mobile phones, tele-conferencing, SMS, IM, Twitter, Skype, GPS, etc." (none of which are currently secure enough to be used for voting) and you refuse to tell us what you would use, you are wasting your time.
You have no argument.
No, the public wouldn't decide on the wording of bills, the public would decide on which issues need to be voted on, the wording would be crafted by people with appropriate skills and the public woud then vote to approve/reject the fully-worded proposal.
So in actual fact, you would be creating another oligarchy, an elite group with enhanced powers above the ordinary citizen,
just like you have objected to in previous messages.
Drafting bills places people in a very powerful position. The opportunity exists to bury controversial or self-serving details inside unrelated bills (much more easily done with your avalanche of direct votes).
Your idea of public vote deciding what goes to public vote is also pretty bizarre. Who gets to decide which issues go into the public vote that decides what goes into the public vote? You have created an infinite regression, where nothing will ever get done. You have created Wiki-government.
I don't work for, nor represent, the government.
Don't take the piss Legend. A project on that scale could only be carried out by a large company or government. You are not going to do it on your days off. The fact remains that IT projects of this scale (in fact, of much more modest scale) have routinely been disastrous and have run into the billions. Your pipe dream would dwarf these projects and yet you won't even explain how it works.
You have no argument.
No, I want to link every person in Britain. Broadband isn't the only available communications medium. Think of the cross-coverage between broadband, GPRS (mobile phone) and digital TV.
All of which have been around a long time now and are not even close to saturation. The cost of this project would be frickin' astronomical.
You could at the very least bring up specific technolgical areas that you think would be an obstacle but instead you choose to talk about "t'internets" and accuse me of 'hand-waving'?! That's rich.
I have done but you ignore it. Security. How are these networks to be secured? how are we to know that each vote is coming from its rightful voter? Hoe do we prevent fraud? Make records transparent? How do we protect this system from terrorism (it seems to me that if your mysterious tech system was attacked and even temporarily disabled,
there would be no government of any kind!)? When I ask these kinds of serious question, you ignore them or simply refuse to answer.
You have no argument.
Mutate and Survive
"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
™ Version 4.2
