Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Smelling The Coffee: 2010
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 202 of 270 (543609)
01-19-2010 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Briterican
01-18-2010 7:22 PM


Re: Underpants Gnomes on Skype
Hi Briterican,
In a representative democracy, my one vote goes towards the person I feel is most qualified to make the important decisions they will be called upon to make during their term. Through the political process, hacks that clearly have no experience are (usually, apart from Sarah Palin) eliminated in the early going.
Surely, you are jesting! Sarah Palin is but the tip of the iceberg. GW Bush, Reagan, R.Nixon to name but a few at the very top. In a representative democracy, idiotic hacks can gain power as long as they have the money and connections to advertise and market themselves.
In direct democracy, the laws of the land rest in the hands of everyone equally, no matter how educated, qualified, informed, or cognizant they are.
Aboslutely. In a representative democracy the laws of the land rest in the hands of the few, whose motivation and intents are not always benign or even obvious.
Do you really want major decisions made by the general public in the fashion of direct democracy?
Yes. Just make sure you don't confuse (direct) democracy with ochlocracy.
Do you really think it would matter if we each (all 300+ million in the case of the USA for example) got our 1 minute to comment?
Matter to whom? To the 299.9 million who never get a chance to have a say, then yes it would definitely matter.
Do you really think that anyone (let alone everyone, and it is everyone who decides after all) could read and absorb all those comments, and be able to fairly take on-board the viewpoints across the continuum and come to a conclusion from such?
No, nobody could absorb all of them. But many would be absorbed (as opposed to practically none currently) and trends among popular opinion would be easily discerned and they would have to be considered (as everybody votes, remember?). It would be a huge improvevent on the current situation.
Do you really think enough people would vote for a tax increase to pay for something "on the other side of town"? (especially when things on their side of town need work)
Many civic-minded people would. But even if they didn't, people "on the other side of the town" would. In any case, I don't see a task such as local tax allocation and funding being done by national popular vote, it's an administartive task rather than an executive one and -at best- would merit a local referendum.
Do you really think a majority could ever be achieved on important issues? What would you do with the likely 51/49 result on abortion? Would you declare the 51% side the winner, thus forcing this ruling on 49% of your population, all based on a vote that could go 51/49 the other way the very next day?
Naturally, majority thresholds should be set sufficiently high in order to avoid such dilemmas. Now, have a guess as to how the decision for where to set the majority threshold should be taken.
Do you really think that it would be wise to implement a system in which the many people who are uneducated on particular matters get votes equivalent to those who are informed and in a position to make wiser choices? (by using representatives we try to take this problem out of the formula).
You seem to be under the illusion that:
A) people who stand for election are educated, skilled or knowledgeable in fields related to their area of government.
B) that voters vote for representatives who they think are educated, skilled or knowledgeable in fields related to their area of government.
Alas, if that was the case GW Bush would have never made it even as a Governor, let alone President.
Do you really think it would be wise to implement a system in which there is no-one to hold accountable after the fact, no-one to vote out of office in the next term
Holding someone accountable adds no value to society other than removing one single potential source of incompetence and/or finding a scapegoat. In the latter case it's actually counter-productive as it ensures that we don't learn from mistakes, which we have now atoned for with the scapegoat. If, on the other hand, the public make the wrong decision then there's no-one to blame but the public itself, it's collective responsibility and this is how society learns, improves and matures rather than some sanctimonious finger-pointing and blame-storming.
I think not sir. I think the prospect of direct democracy, if applied to decisions on anything more important than the American Idol or X-Factor winner, would be disastrous.
American Idol and X-Factor are *NOT* examples of democracy, they are examples of ochlocracy! Democracy is allowing the totality of citizens to make collective decisions after careful debate, NOT about who's going to shout the loudest or ring most times!

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Briterican, posted 01-18-2010 7:22 PM Briterican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by bluescat48, posted 01-19-2010 8:23 PM Legend has not replied
 Message 234 by Briterican, posted 01-20-2010 2:19 PM Legend has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 211 of 270 (543690)
01-20-2010 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by bluescat48
01-18-2010 6:07 PM


Re: It's a Republic Stupid
Then it would not be direct democracy. Each comment must be hea4rd by all not a mismash of a number of comments that no one could listen to at the same time
First off, democracy is rule by the people (the "demos"). That's the main thing. There is no rule that says that all comments must be heard by all people, or vice versa. If someone chooses to ignore certain comments or certain people that's their prerogative and their right. What matters is that people have a chance to hear and be heard. In the republic you live in most people don't even get a chance to comment, let alone ensure they're heard and you don't seem to mind, so why are you objecting in the first place?
In a direct democracy the bills are formulated, encoded, debated and voted on by all citizens.
Says who? In a democracy any citizen must :
a) have a chance to be heard
b) have a chance to vote on any issues that's going to affect his/her life.
Who formulates and encodes the bill is not that important as long as the forumation and encoding is done to the request of and in the manner specified by the public.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by bluescat48, posted 01-18-2010 6:07 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by ZenMonkey, posted 01-20-2010 12:01 PM Legend has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 212 of 270 (543692)
01-20-2010 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Asgara
01-18-2010 8:59 PM


That's not democracy!
If a majority of people in your district thought it was a good idea to stone you you would be ok with that? That would be direct democracy and an example of "mob rule."
No it wouldn't! That would be Ochlocracy, (rule by mob, government by intimidation) or Anarchy (lack of any rule). What makes you think that (direct) democracy has no judicial, no law enforcement, no constitution ?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Asgara, posted 01-18-2010 8:59 PM Asgara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Straggler, posted 01-20-2010 9:28 AM Legend has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 237 of 270 (543790)
01-20-2010 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Granny Magda
01-19-2010 4:04 AM


Re: Underpants Gnomes
Granny Magda writes:
However, if the examples you provided are not what you are actually suggesting we use, then you have effectively provided absolutely nothing.
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!"
Granny Magda writes:
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.
Fine,
Comms: HTTPS, TCP/IP, GPRS, VoIP, whatever the digital TV protocols are
Security/Privacy: SSL, AES-Twofish-Serpent, hashing algorithms, GPG, Guttman method.
Infrastructure: Mobile phones, PCs, digital TVs, customised voting pods, customised voting booths/buildings.
Legend writes:
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.
Granny Magda writes:
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.
Wrong! The drafting body would be mere administrators, they'd just be implementing the public will.
Granny Magda writes:
Drafting bills places people in a very powerful position.
Only if the people who draft the bill are the ones to get to vote for them.
Granny Magda writes:
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 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.
Granny Magda writes:
A project on that scale could only be carried out by a large company or government.
A conglomeration of companies with alloted public supervision actually.
Granny Magda writes:
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.
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.
Granny Magda writes:
The cost of this project would be frickin' astronomical.
It'd cost as much as the Iraq invasion. The end result would be much more worth it though.
Granny Magda writes:
How are these networks to be secured?
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.
Granny Magda writes:
how are we to know that each vote is coming from its rightful voter?
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.
Granny Magda writes:
Hoe do we prevent fraud?
The same way we do now.
Granny Magda writes:
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!)?
Parallelism and redundancy.
Granny Magda writes:
When I ask these kinds of serious question, you ignore them or simply refuse to answer.
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"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Granny Magda, posted 01-19-2010 4:04 AM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 238 of 270 (543797)
01-20-2010 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Straggler
01-19-2010 6:07 AM


Re: Direct Democracy
Straggler writes:
Who decides what gets voted on?
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.
Straggler writes:
You do understand that true democracy is at least as much about representation and accountability as it is about simple majority rule don't you?
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.
Straggler writes:
How do you ensure 'one person one vote' rather than powerful employers or whatever dictating the votes of others en masse?
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!
Straggler writes:
Is the fickle, emotional and unconsidered rule of the X Factor/Big Brother/Britains Got Talent/American Idol/whatever voting mob the best way to make decisions pertaining to complex social and diplomatic issues in your opinion?
No.
Straggler writes:
Is there never a need for unpopular decisions to be made? Your system doesn't seem to cope with this need very well at all.
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"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Straggler, posted 01-19-2010 6:07 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Straggler, posted 01-21-2010 8:44 AM Legend has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 245 of 270 (543861)
01-21-2010 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Straggler
01-20-2010 9:28 AM


Re: That's not democracy!
In your setup can the majority vote to overrule the constitution by simply voting to do so?
Yes, the majority would have to agree that (i) the Constitution needs reforming and (ii) to the exact parts that need changing and the actual changes. In addition, for constitutional changes the majority threshold should be raised and repeated voting over a period of time would be needed.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Straggler, posted 01-20-2010 9:28 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Straggler, posted 01-21-2010 2:40 PM Legend has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 246 of 270 (543865)
01-21-2010 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Huntard
01-20-2010 9:30 AM


Re: That's not democracy!
Also, who would determine what was in this constitution in the first place?
The public of course, silly. That should be the first thing a new democracy should do: vote for its constitution. Citizens can propose a constitutional principle or vote for someone else's proposal. The principles with most votes get drafted for inclusion in the constitution.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Huntard, posted 01-20-2010 9:30 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 251 of 270 (543893)
01-21-2010 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Straggler
01-21-2010 2:40 PM


Re: That's not democracy!
It is still desperately unclear how it is ever decided what gets voted on in your proposed system.
I've already explained it in a couple of posts: we do. The Assembly. Anyone can put a proposition through to the Assembly and everyone's free to vote on it. Example: you want more severe sentences for hate-motivated crimes. You go to the Assembly (electronically speaking) and put your proposal forward, or vote for it if someone else has already proposed it. At the end of the month, the top X suggestions which have been most voted get put forward for further discussion and drafting of bills.
It is also desperately unclear how your constitution is protected from simply being overridden if it gets in the way of the immediate wishes of the tyrannical majority.
Like I said I'd expect a huge majority needed for constitutional changes, say 80% OFTOMH, and repeated voting over a period of time in order to avoid 'immediate' wishes.
How can they agree unless asked by majority vote? Are we not back in the realm of infinite regress?
Please see my first paragraph. You want to see e.g. separation of religion from state in our country so you put it forward during the Constitutional debate at the Assembly. If 80% vote for it, then it gets passsed to the next stage: If after six months there's still 80% of the populace who want this then it gets to the next stage and if, finally still 80% of the public want this after, say, 18 months then it's part of the Constitution. Simples.
Who proposes the changes to be voted on?
You do, I do. We all do.
Who writes the questions? Who decides the threshold? And who decides how much time is needed to make a proposed change an actual change?
Have a guess! These are rules that the nascent democracy will have to agree on at its inception.
And are all of these restrictions on amending the constitution able to be overruled by simple majority decree?
Yes, subject to checks and balances, as outlined above.
If the majority decide that they want to change the constitution AND that they want to change the restrictions on changing the constitution to get their changes through quickly and easily can they do this by popular vote?
Yes, although doing so should be neither quick nor easy.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Straggler, posted 01-21-2010 2:40 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Straggler, posted 01-22-2010 8:10 PM Legend has not replied
 Message 258 by Rrhain, posted 01-22-2010 9:44 PM Legend has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 254 of 270 (543965)
01-22-2010 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Briterican
01-20-2010 2:19 PM


Re: Underpants Gnomes on Skype
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.
That's perfectly alright, Straggler does it all the time and it's never really bothered me.
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.
Better qualified than most voters? Perhaps. But that doesn't necessarily means that he/she has the interest of the voters or the general public or country at heart. This is where a people representative system fails IMO: it is a faith-based system, the voter assumes/trusts that the votees will act the way they say/imply they will and the way the voters expect them to. This is rarely the case as we are constantly being reminded. In a direct voting system the faith element is removed and the voters are solely responsible for the decisions made. Which is a good thing.
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).
Start ducking!
I'll point out that I consider his presidential administration to be a disgrace to put it mildly.
You might have just redeemed yourself
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.
that's fine, it happens to the best of us
I'm still not convinced direct democracy is a viable alternative to representative democracy, but yours and others responses are informative and appreciated.
Allow me to reciprocate, after all if people agreed with me all the time I'd never get a chance to think things through and challenge myself. As for direct democracy I think this is the first time in two millenia when our technoogical advances make it a plausible alternative. The biggest challenge I anticipate -and you can see in this forum- is convincing others that it is a good idea, despite its self-evident value. Some people are just conditioned to reject change, even if it's in their benefit!

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Briterican, posted 01-20-2010 2:19 PM Briterican has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Rahvin, posted 01-22-2010 2:04 PM Legend has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 268 of 270 (544203)
01-24-2010 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Rrhain
01-22-2010 9:44 PM


The California system of "government by referendum" is what led to things like Prop 13, Prop 8, Prop 22, Prop 209, etc. It is why California had to vote *twice* against propositions that would have rounded up all gay men in the state and quarantined them.
I'm not familiar with what you're talking about, but it seems that you're suggesting that the majority of Californian voters wanted to round up and quarantine gay men. Which I find hard to believe.
The problem with this continual pinging of the people for everything is that it takes the current problem we have regarding voter apathy and amplifies it to no end.
Voter apathy is a direct result of a system of governance where the average voter has no influence in decision-making that affects his day-to-day life and has lost trust in the people who are supposed to represent him. Direct governance can only empower people, make them have a say in their future and therefore eliminate apathy.
You'd be turning over the government to a tiny fraction of people with no accountability to anyone.
Newsflash: you are already governed by a tiny fraction of people with very little accountability to anyone, certainly no accountability to you as a voter. And you will continue to do so as long as you are limited to personal representation instead of direct participation in the affairs of your state.
I already have the government you propose. It sucks.
If you did have and it did suck then you'd be able to do something about it. The fact that you're unable to, suggests to me that you have nothing like what I'm proposing. You're just stuck in an endless loop of swapping representatives in blind faith that the next one will be better than their predecessor.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Rrhain, posted 01-22-2010 9:44 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Rrhain, posted 01-24-2010 11:08 PM Legend has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024