Public Net-work

Steven Clift writes "I've written up an article titled E-Democracy, E-Governance, and Public Net-work. It illustrates how governments can do more with the Internet to meet public challenges. While the big bad government should be viewed skeptically in terms of censorship and regulation, it also does a million good things related to the non-techie parts of our lives. The question is not whether the government should use the Internet to involve people in meeting their public mission, but how to apply technology in the most effective way."

Comments

Woah, woah, woah

[Anonymous Coward]

People... getting together... to solve problems. This sounds like it might end up in a bloody revolution! Better put a stop to it now before it's too late. Don't want this democracy thing to get out of hand.

Re:Woah, woah, woah

[the web]

Don't want this democracy thing to get out of hand.

Patriot Bill III? uhyeah.

The real problem with "E-Democracy"

[Soulfader]

...is not communication between the public and the governing bodies; it is meaningful communication. The greatest advantage of the Internet age--I can talk to anyone and anyone can talk to me without filters or gatekeepers--is also the greatest flaw. Ever try to have a meaningful conversation with a crowd of people?

Envision government running like "The Price is Right," with the audience screaming out the policy decisions. =)

I haven't finished the article yet, but I don't have much hope that there is a proffered reasonable solution.

Re:The real problem with "E-Democracy"

[adamruck]

so what your saying is that people are not capable of governing themselfs and that we need a ruling class???

Re:The real problem with "E-Democracy"

[kfg]

"Ever try to have a meaningful conversation with a crowd of people?"

Yeah, I've posted on Slashdot too.

KFG

Re:The real problem with "E-Democracy"

[Mr_Matt]

was gonna mod, decided to post instead...

so what your saying is that people are not capable of governing themselfs and that we need a ruling class???

No...what they're saying is "e-democracy" falls short of real democracy insofar as real democracy contains a measure of order, brought about by the inherent limitations of communication IRL. (Notice how parliamentary rules have evolved to address this very issue in our various forms of government.) Grandparent poster's point is that 'e-democracy' removes these communication limitations, thereby removing orderly dissemination of the democratic process, leading to mob-dominated chaos. Thus does 'e-democracy' fall short of real democracy. Kindly remove the aluminum beanie. :)

Re:The real problem with "E-Democracy"

[stratjakt]

Imagine if any lunatic fringe zealot could filibuster any given issue. How would anything get done?

The issue is emergency action to be taken due to a hurricaine coming ashore, and some old crank is bitching about the pothole in his back alley.

Re:The real problem with "E-Democracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

Security is a problem, too. The internet was designed only for external security (i.e. the often quoted urban legend about it capable of surviving nuclear war) but never designed for internal security. DoS attacks are one type of problem that can never be fully averted. You can bet if democracy was developed around the Internet, we'd be hacked by chinese.

Re:The real problem with "E-Democracy"

[tankdilla]

...is that despite an ongoing war on terrorism (which has yet to capture the prime suspect for 9/11/01, and a bad guy that was on a list of bad guys we had not bombed yet, so we did since we couldn't find the first guy), a dismal economy, the deficit, and various other major problems around the country, Congress feels that they deserve a raise for a 5th consecutive year.

Re:The real problem with "E-Democracy"

[schussat]

Pippa Norris has been doing work in this field for some time, and has amassed a great deal of research. Her book Digital Divide elaborates quite a bit on the problem of "anyone talking, nobody listening" by trying to articulate very specifically what kinds of efforts have been made by governments to incorporate online visibility in decision-making, and what kinds of further institutional changes are needed to make governments accessible to an online polity.

-schussat

Re:The real problem with "E-Democracy"

[smagruder]

Grandparent poster's point is that 'e-democracy' removes these communication limitations, thereby removing orderly dissemination of the democratic process

This of course, presumes that e-democracy mechanisms cannot evolve to put the Internet-equivalent of parliamentary rules into place. I strongly feel that this evolution is inevitable.

Re:The real problem with "E-Democracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

I can think of one good way to have our government work for us, and I am sure alot of you feel the same when it comes to protecting children. I have started an application which can be viewed here. http://www.angelfire.com/theforce/isareligion that would empower citizens to effecively "blow the whistle", and help protect our children. I myself am not a parent but I do have alot of siblings, so you get the point.
Jas

Re:The real problem with "E-Democracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

A real (pure) democracy is mob-dominated chaos. What you are calling real democracy is normally called representitive democracy.

Re:The real problem with "E-Democracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

Only in the house. I expect a battle in the Senate. My favorate senater is sharping his steel.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., who has contested congressional pay raises in the past, intends to oppose it again when it reaches the Senate floor, his office said.

The article

[bigman2003]

I went to the article...I saw a lot of neat little graphs.

The conclusion was: To be involved in defining the future of democracy, governance and public work at the dawn of the information-age is an incredible opportunity and responsibility. With the intelligent and effective application of ICTs, combined with democratic intent, we can make governments more responsive, we can connect citizens to effectively meet public challenges, and ultimately, we can build a more sustainable future for the benefit of the whole of society and world in which we live.

It sounds eerily reminiscent of many dotcoms who tried to get into the government services market. There's a good documentary about one of them.

Re:The article

[psxndc]

The movie i assume the parent is refering to is Startup.com.

Strange to watch because I used to work with one of the guys (Tom Herman), but a good documentary nonetheless.

psxndc

Re:The article

[Anonymous Coward]

Strange to watch for me too. I used to work for the competitor :)

why not direct democracy

[adamruck]

Part of the orginal justification of representitive democracy was that it was logisticly impossible to have everyone vote on every topic. But now that electronic voting is an option why do we still need representatives?

Re:why not direct democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

E-voting still isn't quite there... and do you realize how many issues there would be to vote on?

Re:why not direct democracy

[goldspider]

"But now that electronic voting is an option why do we still need representatives?"

1. Because mob-rule (pure democracy) is a bad idea.

2. Because most people don't even give a shit about who's PRESIDENT, let alone every minor issue our representatives get paid (well) to address.

Re:why not direct democracy

[adamruck]

right.. there are alot of issues.. but I only have a handfull that I would care enough to vote on so it really wouldn't be that hard.

Re:why not direct democracy

[sapped]

1. Because mob-rule (pure democracy) is a bad idea.

Why? When the majority of people want a certain action to be taken then that is what will be voted for. How is this bad? Why is that when the general populace votes for a president then it's democracy and it's a good thing, but when the general populace votes on an issue then suddenly it's mob rule and it's a bad thing.

2. Because most people don't even give a shit about who's PRESIDENT, let alone every minor issue our representatives get paid (well) to address.

Re:why not direct democracy

[tuba_dude]

Exactly. It'd be like a general-purpose slashdot poll. Everyone can vote on five or six choices per topic (only one or two of which are relevant), then when their votes goes through, they can post innane comments at random.

Re:why not direct democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

The President is not elected using direct democracy. The electoral college voters can choose to elect someone else if they decide too!

What if a majority of people dislike you, and make it a crime to be you?

Re:why not direct democracy

[MenTaLguY]

Because a president, legislator, or other elected official (good or bad) is much less fickle (and potentially more compassionate) than a mob.

Re:why not direct democracy

[bladernr]

Representatives are still necessary, but for different reasons than "we can't all vote." The major decisions our government make require careful thought, research and consideration. Most voters do not give careful thought, research, and consideration to voting decisions (hell, some of my family vote "party ticket" in every election).

Ideally, we will elect representatives most capable of the due dilegence required in those important decisions. Think of it as the same reason why you hire a lawyer or a doctor, but on a much larger scale. You are hiring experts to work on your behalf.

The Internet-voting could be useful to express public opinion to guide leaders. As a simple example, we all vote "What is most important, 1) Economy, 2) Social Programs, or 3) Prosecuting the war on Terrorism." While the vote isn't binding, it gives our leaders some direction in what the public at large wants them working on.

Now, the flaw is that, in my opinion, we don't always pick the most qualified among us as our duly appointed representatives. Too often choose because of a single issue, or which party a person is in, or because of the way they look, or because they don't like the other guy. I don't know how to solve that problem.

Re:why not direct democracy

[Obfuscant]

Why? When the majority of people want a certain action to be taken then that is what will be voted for. How is this bad?

It's called "the tyranny of the majority".

Once upon a time, a majority of people thought that owning slaves was ok. I'm not sure that it still isn't that way, at least in some parts of the country. Is it ok to pass laws making slavery ok, or would that be bad?

In some parts of the country, a majority of people think that killing fags is a fun thing to do on a Saturday night. Would you allow them to vote in a law making it legal?

At one point, a majority of people thought it was quite acceptable to round up all the citizens of Oriental descent and pack them into concentration camps.

On Sept. 12, 2001, I bet you would have found a clear majority of people that would have voted "yes" on a law that deported every person with a middle eastern heritage. (My God! Who'd serve us the Slurpees?) And before you say "that's unconstitutional", remember that it takes only a 2/3 majority to change that.

Yes, those are gross examples, but it's not hard to find more realistic ones. Here in Oregon we have citizen initiatives. Get enough people to sign a petition and you can get just about anything on a ballot and voted on. Sometimes this is good. Sometimes it is good in the short term but bad in the long.

For example, several years ago we voted a rollback and limit on property taxes. Instead of this resulting in an actual limitation in taxes, it resulted in:

• Dramatic increases in assesed value for property, thus putting the actual dollar amount for taxes back to what they used to be.
• Weasly politicians who sneak new taxes into anything they can, so they don't have to think about cutting budgets. (We pay a 5% tax on water, not to fund water related things, but for the city general fund. It's called a 'franchise fee', so it isn't a tax. Really. It isn't.)
• A legislature that sits on its ass letting the problem of funding things get out of hand, hoping that the next initiative will fix things for them.

Most of the majority doesn't understand things well enough to know which way to vote on them. They vote with their emotions. (Politicians count on this -- Our Veritable Senator Wyden tried defeating our Veritable Senator Smith with a commercial that claimed that Smith had killed a kid, because a teenage worker had died in an accident at one of Smith's companies. How this relates to Smith's abilities as a Senator, nobody really knows.)

Hell, one of the initiatives we had on a recent ballot, where there were about 'leventy-dozen things, was whether we should allow non-dentists to fit false teeth. Sheesh, who the hell knows if this is good or bad?

Why is that when the general populace votes for a president ...

This is a myth. There is no popular vote for the President. There is no country-wide vote that the people participate in. There are state-by-state votes which are used, in most cases, to select a handful of Electors, who then cast the actual votes for the President. They don't even have to vote for the candidate they were elected to vote for!

As I recall, it wasn't too long ago that one state, NM I believe, didn't have a statewide vote for Electors, they were appointed by the Senate. The Constitution does not mandate how the Electors are elected.

You should read the Constitution sometime. All of it. It's a real eye-opener when you then compare it to what is going on now.

Re:why not direct democracy

[smagruder]

Because mob-rule (pure democracy) is a bad idea.

Direct democracy does not have to mean "mobocracy" or pure majoritarian rule. Individual freedoms and minority rights can indeed be respected and protected in reconciliation with community interests. Beware the hobgoblins of mob rule, for their existence can be entirely attributed to the deep-seated fears of an arrogant ruling class, their devotees and back-door power brokers.

Re:why not direct democracy

[ad0gg]

Here's one example.

Women wouldn't be able to vote. Women's suffrage was not a popular idea in the general's public eye. It would have never became an admendment if it was voted on(including if women voted).

And if the general public voted on taxes, the social and economical majority would be the least taxed with all minority social and economic groups being taxed the highest.

Mob rule doesn't work. Its too easily influenced, and our founding fathers knew this.

Re:why not direct democracy

[Craig Davison]

What if a majority of people dislike you, and make it a crime to be you?

That kind of thing would never be put to a vote.

Re:why not direct democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Who decides what is put to a vote? The majority? A representative group selected by voters?

Re:why not direct democracy

[jdfox]

I don't like e-voting any more than you do, as most of the e-voting that's around today is dangerously badly implemented, and ultimately anti-democratic. However, you argue instead that we need representative democracy because...

1. Because mob-rule (pure democracy) is a bad idea.
Mob rule is a bad idea, agreed, but please explain how is mob rule "pure democracy"? Do mobs hold votes on which person to lynch or which building to burn? Mob rule is pure feudalism, not pure democracy.

2. Because most people don't even give a shit about who's PRESIDENT, let alone every minor issue our representatives get paid (well) to address.

Most people in Zimbabwe, Iraq, Palestine, Venezuela etc. care very deeply about who's president. You must be talking about "most people in the USA", right? The evidence certainly supports you there, but there is the matter of the other 6 billion people on the planet.

Re:why not direct democracy

[jdfox]

Women were forbidden to vote for as long as they were precisely because of representative democracy.

On what grounds do you assert that women's suffrage would never have been granted had it been voted on by all men and women? Do you have any numbers to back that up?

You go on to state that direct voting by the whole electorate is "mob rule", without offering any argument to defend the assertion. Please explain: how is direct democracy "mob rule"?

Re:why not direct democracy

[sapped]

Because a president, legislator, or other elected official (good or bad) is much less fickle (and potentially more compassionate) than a mob.

I am still looking for the mob here. You have failed to answer my original question as to why direct democracy will result in this so-called "mob".

How do you figure that 1 person - who as we have seen first hand can be "bought" with campaign contributions will be more compassionate? In that instance we only have to sway 1 person and bam we can ram something down people's throats. With direct democracy, we would have to sway the majority of the peoples opinions to do the same.

Now, remember with direct democracy there are no politicians as we know them today, so less incentive for campaigns.

Sure, nobody denies the fact that people will vote for stupid things the first time around.

e.g. we will have no speed limits on freeways, virtually non-existent taxes, etc.

However, 2nd time round once the consequences of their direct actions become evident, then I believe the vote will start changing.

Re:why not direct democracy

[sapped]

On Sept. 12, 2001, I bet you would have found a clear majority of people that would have voted "yes" on a law that deported every person with a middle eastern heritage. (My God! Who'd serve us the Slurpees?)

I don't doubt that for a second. However, as you point out the lack of Slurpee servers would result in a vote of "let's bring them back in again" next time around. Either that, or locals would have to fill those positions. Either way it's a win-win situation.

And just before you go flying off the handle telling me I don't care about people - I would have been 1 of those voted out of the country.

For example, several years ago we voted a rollback and limit on property taxes. Instead of this resulting in an actual limitation in taxes, it resulted in: * Dramatic increases in assesed value for property, thus putting the actual dollar amount for taxes back to what they used to be. * Weasly politicians who sneak new taxes into anything they can, so they don't have to think about cutting budgets. (We pay a 5% tax on water, not to fund water related things, but for the city general fund. It's called a 'franchise fee', so it isn't a tax. Really. It isn't.)

Ha-ha! Thank you for pointing out my side of the argument. With direct democracy you would not have ended up in this situation. Here's why;
With direct democracy we wouldn't have politicians as we have today. They would not have decision making powers. Instead we would have civil servants who would be paid a fixed salary to carry out the direct wishes of their constituents. Note, the constituents - not the corporations, because they wouldn't get a vote in the issues affecting the real live humans.

Re:why not direct democracy

[cayenne8]

Mob Rules?

Great Sabbath album.....

Re:why not direct democracy

[swillden]

Women wouldn't be able to vote. Women's suffrage was not a popular idea in the general's public eye. It would have never became an admendment if it was voted on(including if women voted).

Umm, if it weren't for representative democracy, women would have had the vote 50 years earlier, at least in the western United States. In 1869, Wyoming Territory gaven women the vote. In 1870, Utah Territory gave women the vote, only to have the U.S. Congress take it away from them in 1887. Wyoming nearly lost its bid for statehood because Congress was determined not to allow women to vote.

If it hadn't been for opposition from the U.S. legislature, more states would have adopted universal suffrage much earlier, and the nation as a whole probably would have had universal suffrage a good 20 years earlier.

Re:why not direct democracy

[Stiletto]

Democracy (representative or otherwise) is two wolves and a hen voting on what to have for lunch.

Re:why not direct democracy

[Soulfader]

I don't doubt that for a second. However, as you point out the lack of Slurpee servers would result in a vote of "let's bring them back in again" next time around. Either that, or locals would have to fill those positions. Either way it's a win-win situation.

Either way, you've just demonstrated the inherent instability of direct democracy. Vast overreactions to just about every stimulus, based entirely on the general public perception of reality. Imagine foreign policy--who would want to negotiate any kind of treaty with such a government?

With direct democracy we wouldn't have politicians as we have today. They would not have decision making powers. Instead we would have civil servants who would be paid a fixed salary to carry out the direct wishes of their constituents. Note, the constituents - not the corporations, because they wouldn't get a vote in the issues affecting the real live humans.

I think the opinions of people are easier to buy than senators, honestly. They call it marketing. The solution here isn't to throw out the representative system of government, I'm afraid; rather, we should concentrate on making the representatives truly accountable and representative.

Re:why not direct democracy

[Obfuscant]

With direct democracy we wouldn't have politicians as we have today.

Sadly, even with "direct democracy", we'd still have politicians just like we have today. They'ed be called "administrators", and their laws would be called "administrative rules", and it would be even harder to get rid of them than the current style of politician.

In fact, we've already got administrators making administrative rules.

... not the corporations, because they wouldn't get a vote in the issues affecting the real live humans.

Corporations currently do not get to vote in the issues affecting anything, and yet I assume you are trying to say that they would no longer have any power in the process because they would no longer have such a vote.

They would still have employees, and they's still have access to advertising, and with a populace that is being expected to vote intelligently on anything that comes up (but not having a clue about most of the stuff), they'd have a lot more sheep to influence with those ads.

Right now, a Senator who sees an ad by some corporation trying to forward some law is more likely to follow the counsel of his staff than that ad. That's why he hires them. Sheeple won't have a staff.

Re:why not direct democracy

[Obfuscant]

Vast overreactions to just about every stimulus, based entirely on the general public perception of reality.

That is exactly right. And that is exactly why the founders of this country were explicit in having a bicameral legislature that would not be driven to (over)react quickly to every twist in the road. Sadly, the folks elected to those august bodies don't seem to recognize this feature of their position and try to knee-jerk to everything that the media is reporting.

Re:why not direct democracy

[Alaska Jack]

Whoa whoa whoa pardner. I hope this reply gets modded up, because your take on history is very common, and very wrong. (Is that Karma whoring? I'm fairly new around here and haven't mastered all the protocols.) Anyway, I'm not slamming you for this, because like I said, it's a very common misconception. But the reason Madison, Jay, Jefferson et. al. chose representative democracy over direct democracy was *not* logistical necessity (though it may very well have been a logistical necessity). The reason they picked representative democracy was that they thought (in theory) it might be *better* than direct democracy. What limited experience the human race had with democracy, up to that point, had been mostly bad. Most notable were the Italian city-states, which were chaotic and unstable, and ancient Greece, which was pretty much an unfiltered mobocracy with all that implies. (Fun fact: Pretty much every contempory account of Greek democracy is harshly critical of it. See, for example, Xenophon's *History of Greece*, or Plato's *Republic*, in which Socrates decides that a philosopher king would be a much better solution than democracy). Of course, tyranny and oligarchy had been tried ad nauseum, and the American upstarts didn't like those either. So here is the key: What the founders were trying was to come up with a system that *blended* elements of populism and elitism, attempting to devise a political structure that combined the strengths of each while minimizing their respective faults. Did they succeed? Hey, you be the judge. Just remember that what they were trying had never really been done before. (In fact, the conventional wisdom was that democracy didn't "scale up" very well, and wouldn't be practical past the level of a city-state. The Federalist Papers [Madison, Hamilton and Jay] take this argument and turn it on it's head.) PS: Yes, I realized I simplified a lot of this, particularly the part about Plato. Sue me. PPS: Just kidding. Please don't sue me.

Re:why not direct democracy

[jdfox]

That's a funny aphorism, but it only describes a minority of situations where democracy is being built, developed or considered.

Look at what's happening in Chiapas: radical democracy, empowering lives for the first time in generations. In many other places, democracy is a tremendous blessing, and is being implemented to great benefit by an enthusiastic electorate. But here in the jaded industrialised west, we make jokes about how only "wolves" benefit from democracy, because most "hens" can't be bothered to get off their fat arses and participate.

Re:why not direct democracy

[Stiletto]

When a multi-national corporation contributes hundreds of millions of dollars to a senator in order to "communicate" its interests, which happen to oppose mine, and the corporation's interests become law, would you attribute this to my laziness?

Re:why not direct democracy

[jdfox]

ISTM you're thinking in terms of individual political action. I'm talking about collective action.

When the corporation bribes the senator to further its interests, which happen to oppose yours, chances are excellent that they also oppose that of the majority of people like you.

The problem is not *your* individual action or inaction alone, it's the inaction (and/or apathy) of your fellow electors. Single-issue campaigns are a good example of how many individual voters can together persuade a Senator that he should forego the bribe in order hold onto his job. Buying a Senator out 100%, with a bribe so huge that he's willing to fall on his career-sword, is a very expensive business. It does happen, but it's rare.

This brings us back to the original thread: low participation makes bad democracy. More people voting, more frequent elections and referendums, extension of power downwards through decentralization of govt, better-educated electorates, more pluralistic and decentralized media, etc. etc., all these things are needed to make democracy work.

Here are a few measures which could help in the US:

- Make voting a civic duty, like jury service, for which you must apply to be allowed to opt out
- Adopt the Swiss system of frequent referendums on major issues
- Pass strict controls on media ownership and cross-ownership: a small number of corporations run most of the media in the west (especially in the US), and they must be forced to divest.

But until these difficulties are fixed, electors will need to work very hard to make politicians accountable. That means reading more widely, getting active politically, and casting informed votes every chance we get.

Re:Eh?

[edalytical]

Your right it's a Federal Republic.

Just imagine

[QuantumRiff]

If your local governments started putting public information online in a searchable format. Do a simple search on your local govt web site to get minutes of committe meetings, forclosures, law changes, heck, just put all the local laws and requlations in a database that is easily searchable. That would make it much easier for people to find laws and regulations. In my town at least, you either read about the town meetings in the local, and very crappy newspaper, or you have to trudge down to city hall and ask to see it. Not to mention putting on these websites who these elected and appointed leaders are, and what they have voted for and against. Nationwide, any state, county or city.. Would make it much easier to decide who to vote for, and what they have stood for in the past..

Re:Just imagine

[bs_02_06_02]

My county and city already have this. In fact, the data goes back to '97. I can see the votes on the city council, the school board, etc. Every variance, project, expenditure, etc. I can also find the value (including current taxes) of any piece of property in the city. If the property has been sold in the last 10 years, I can see what it sold for. Court records are next. I've looked up statutes (what is a legal U-Turn) online. It's all there. In fact, I compared the local law with laws across the nation. How big is your town? The gov't might need to donate their Apple II+ to the Salvation Army and step into a late '90s PC. Teach them to use a wordprocessor. Help them put up a website. Hopefully, the gov't won't want to raise taxes, issue bonds, or hire a contractor to perform a "study".

Re:Just imagine

[jason0000042]

Memphis, or TN, (I'm not sure if it's city, county or state) has a website where you can get the names and current addresses of everyone on probation.

I'm not sure if that's a good thing.

Re:Just imagine

[pjt48108]

I think you will find that most officials want their vote to be as anonymous as possible for a public official. In my last job (public library administrator/netadmin), I was THE force behind getting our library policy manual and board meeting minutes online. To my credit, it is a habit they continue to this day (although it may be because they lack even an ounce of creativity there, which would be required to conceive of doing things differently and removing the documents).

On another note, I truly believe that technology has brought us to a point where we could effectively replace the current governmental structure without changing the Constitution: let each US Representative serve from INSIDE their home district. This would cause a cascading cost savings and increase each person's share of the Democratic process:

1.: No Georgetown condo needed, so you can reduce the pay of the Congressman (additionally, travel costs to and from DC would be marginalized).

2.: Working from home, Congressmen will be under the eye of constituents ALL THE TIME.

3.: With the per-Congressman costs reduced, one could afford to create smaller, more easily represented districts, each with a new, lower-paid Congressman.

3.: With smaller districts, candidates would require less cash to market themselves in a campaign. Less cash needed=less special interest involvement. Additionally, lower campaign costs would open up the process to those of us without piles of cash to bathe in.

4.: By sending Congress home to work, special interests would be eliminated from the equation (by following Ronald Reagan's anti-Soviet stratagem: spend them into oblivion). Rather than maintaining one central office, special interests would have to maintain hundreds, if not thousands, of district offices (and operate under the watchful eye and on the home turf of wary citizens).

Finally, with Congress de-centralized, there would be FAR less anxiety about how to protect the government in case of a catastrophe.

It is only by force of habit and playing up to personal egos that we continue to employ horse-and-buggy government in an age of silicon chips and carbon nanotubes.

Obviously, I have given this subject much thought. And, just as obviously, very little of that thought went into the improvised composition of this little tract of mine. ;-)

Hmm

[B3ryllium]

Where I work, we just did a test-run with the "VClass" software. My boss is big on the idea that such all-in-one software (voice conferencing, whiteboard, app sharing, etc) could be useful for making "Virtual Townhall" meetings, where community members can participate without having to physically show up.

It would make sense to start this government information technology (GIT) revolution on a small scale and work slowly up, ironing out bugs along the way. Who knows, eventually countries might even use the Internet to host referendums for government policies?

Re:Hmm

[2toise]

I hope not, referendums are a hugely bad idea for all but the most fundamental of constitutional issues. They are more easily bought than elections for the most part, for example, the OS software ballot measures in Oregon that MS bought.

Re:Hmm

[ColeNielsen]

Not so long as m$ is a dominant platform -> no one can afford it... and since it's so stable and incredibly error-free ;)

They couldn't use LINUX because the $$$ to SCO would be greater than the price of m$

I suppose it'd be worth it to pay more for a better OS - but not when it should have been free...

Re:Hmm

[B3ryllium]

VClass is java-based. This means that it works in Linux, FreeBSD, and OS X as well.

The organization I work for also sells extremely low-cost Linux (Libranet) machines for users to play with; we're funded by the federal government of Canada to provide no-cost public internet access, as well.

The "Virtual Townhall" concept is well within the bounds of the organization's goals, and we are working towards making it a possibility.

How about no, Scott.

[og_sh0x]

What the government already does online is good enough. You can renew your tabs online, file your taxes, and download forms, and probably a few more things. Anything beyond that will involve national ID cards, electronic voting, and everything else that you could possibly not want. Do you really want to trust the government to put your life online? Haven't you looked at the laws that have been passed lately? Does it make you think they have a clue yet? How about in 50 years? Somehow I don't think I'd even trust them then. But then again, by then it will be inevitable. They will be too tempted to use this power to ignore it. So I guess it's a good thing then, being that it's inevitable and all.

Re:How about no, Scott.

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anything in the article suggest national ID cards or electronic voting?

It's about an web enabled suggestion box, more than anything else.

More annoying than the MS and SCO bashing idiots are the 'oh no not da gumment' conspiracy whiners.

Re:How about no, Scott.

[og_sh0x]

And how exactly do you think something of this scale is possible without national ID cards or electronic voting? Without these two things in the scheme, the box gets filled with anonymous trolls, or the suggestions fall on deaf ears.

Re:How about no, Scott.

[dpille]

What the government already does online is good enough.

Not that I'm in favor of "national ID cards, electronic voting, and everything else that you could possibly not want," but you're clearly overstating the government's internet presence if you think it shouldn't grow. I can think of several things:

1. Free access to U.S. District Court filings. You're a shareholder, a class action member, an interested member of the public, whatever- why should you wait for a press release and then take the media's word for how a case is progressing?

2. Local government legislation/rules/activity. I had an opportunity to research local sign ordinances recently, and it's almost unbelievable how hard it was to get a current copy of the actual laws that apply to me. Such information inefficiency has economic ramifications, too.

3. Delaware. Those guys have a huge amount of corporate information that could be critical to citizen-crusaders (or simply an informed electorate) hidden behind a telephone number and fees.

I think there's a ton more examples out there, but that'll do for now.

Decentralized Democracy

[rhakka]

Obviously there are a boatload of issues with security that, hopefully, could be addressed someday. However I have a dream.

That dream is for the day where I, as a voter, get to make my voice heard directly on as much or as little of the government's operation as possible, without one catch-all representative doing it for me. Issues come up for voting, and there would be a place where I could go and see the most popular arguements on both sides and the views of critics and pundits and politicos of my choosing regarding the issues in question if I like, and vote directly on the issues. Or, if I am busy, perhaps I could earmark my representatives by expertise. Perhaps I want to earmark a respected doctor as my representative for medical issues, greenspan as my economic representative, nader as my consumer rights representative... and have their votes count for mine as default unless I actively change my rep for a particular issue or earmark an issue as "manual".

We'd still need a president to handle emergency decisions, diplomacy, and sometimes to override popular views that just are plain bad. But congress and the house of reps could go away completely. The "house of reps" would simply be whoever the people respect enough, either overall or within their area of expertise, at any particular time, to trust with their own vote. No terms or limits or re elections or smear campaigns. Just issues and discussion and participation, directly, on a one person one vote basis.

Maybe someday..

Re:Decentralized Democracy

[__aailob1448]

Mod Parent Up. This sounds a lot like what I envision direct democracy to be. Though I was thinking about "earmarking" parties and not individuals. Well said!

Re:Decentralized Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

And this couldn't lead to any Vote Buying now could it?

Whole classes of people that live off the fact that they are selling their votes to their earmarked representative. Yeah, that would be good.

Re:Decentralized Democracy

[sharekk]

The "house of reps" would simply be whoever the people respect enough, either overall or within their area of expertise, at any particular time, to trust with their own vote

I think it's more likely the house of reps would be brittney spears and arnold schwartzeneger I like the idea of people I respecting getting influence with key issues but honestly I think it would more turn the government into more of a popularity contest than it already is.

Re:Decentralized Democracy

[smagruder]

Rhakka, methinks you just did a mind-meld on me. :) What you just expressed are several of the ideas behind Democracy 2.0 and a few similar efforts around the world.

On the other hand, I do have to shrug when I envision having a President handling diplomacy. Yikes! In terms of how it's handled now, I'd have to ask, "What diplomacy!?". ;)

Re:Decentralized Democracy

[rhakka]

I don't see how it's any different than it is now, except for the fact that you could change them instantly if you didn't like how they were voting, and those of us who DO want to be active in a direct manner could do so.

As it stands now, we have the popularity contest between, usually, two individuals most people don't want anyway and they pick the one they hate least. Then we're stuck with them until the next term, when we get to choose between tweedledee from the last election and the new smiling tweedledum. Or vote third party, which I do, but which in our current binary-type, simple-majority system really is tantamount to throwing your vote away simply as a protest and a hope.

I'd be willing for idiots to earmark other idiots as their reps if I could earmark who I wanted. Idiots are already earmarking idiots as their reps now and I have very little voice towards changing it in the current system, as once they win nothing I say matters anymore.

In short, it really couldn't be much worse than it already is as far as vacuous voting and reps go.

Re:Decentralized Democracy

[rhakka]

At least thousands of people would have to be bought instead of just one politician, eh? More expensive for the buyers and more people benefit, even if you want to be absolutely cynical and pessimistic it's an improvement in that respect. This would make vote buying harder, now wouldn't it. Considering it's been happening, above the board, for decades now I don't see the objection here either. Oh wait. Those bribes in the millions of dollars never swayed any votes, they were just "campaign donations" that were of course ignored for the integrity of the party/candidate they were given to. Of course.

Personally I'd much rather see the check myself, thank you. At least then I'd know my vote was bought and paid for instead of wondering all the time.

Re:Decentralized Democracy

[swillden]

And this couldn't lead to any Vote Buying now could it? Whole classes of people that live off the fact that they are selling their votes to their earmarked representative. Yeah, that would be good.

I don't think this would be a problem. Obviously, in such a direct democracy, vote buying would be illegal, and probably criminal -- with severe punishments. It would be impossible to buy votes on a large scale without getting caught, and buying votes on a small scale is pointless unless the issue is extremely closely contested. Further, if voting were sufficiently anonymous that it was impossible for "representatives" to know who has selected them or for voters to prove who they selected for a particular vote, it would be possible for a voter to take the money and vote his conscience anyway.

The best disincentive to vote buying is not being able to know if you're getting what you paid for.

direct democracy not necessarily better

[*weasel]

precisely because it is not feasible for everyone with a vote to be informed on every decision.

your representative has a team of highly specialized and highly dedicated aides whose job it is to know the entire issue.

they have the training and the time to do so. you or i, do not. not reliably, and not for every subject. are you going to pretend that having citizens directly vote on every contract extension for every union is a good idea? or how about directly voting on the budget, or social spending plans?

the collective doesn't have the same burden of responsibility. yes, representative democracy has a flaw (susceptible to corruption) but it also has enough benefits that it's a worthwhile system. it also has a large check (term limits, reelection) to ensure that the citizens have a measure of control over the graft.

Re:direct democracy not necessarily better

[Telastyn]

Then why can't the aide inform citizens about the entire issue, just like they inform the representative?

While I mostly agree that having slashdot polls for laws are a bad idea, I'm not so sure that informing the populace is one of the major problems. Having an educated populace in the first place would be a good start...

Re:direct democracy not necessarily better

[VEGx]

your representative has a team of highly specialized and highly dedicated aides

True, but then again, do we really want the specialized and dedicated aides from Disney to decide what the law will be? Or Mirco$oft?

While you are right, you can also be wrong...

Re:direct democracy not necessarily better

[Kaa]

...your representative has a team of highly specialized and highly dedicated aides whose job it is to know the entire issue.

We call them "lobbyists" for short :-) Yep, highly specialized and highly dedicated.

Re:direct democracy not necessarily better

[fizban]

Buddy, I have little time enough for my own personal issues, much less the issues of my country. I'd rather vote by proxy by choosing someone to represent me in Congress who follows my general line of thinking and can make more informed decisions than I could, not because I'm not smart enough, but because I don't have the time to invest in becoming informed about every damn little issue that comes up.

I can personally filter my own mail for spam, but I'd rather delegate that to my automated filter, cause I just don't have the desire or time to do it myself. I trust my spam filter will make the correct decisions and if it doesn't, well then I'll get a new spam filter.

Re:direct democracy not necessarily better

[Anonymous Coward]

cuz people is stoopid...

seriously - I wouldn't want the general populace to be able to make a lot of decisions because they won't take the time to understand an issue and it's future implications fully.

Re:direct democracy not necessarily better

[jez9999]

Oh, come on. We all know that if laws were decided by Slashdot polls, the relevant country would be a logical, sensible, fair, equitious fun place to be right now. With plenty of rights! :-)

E-Democracy, E-Governance, E-tc.

[veg_all]

This ""E-Citizen says "E-Nough!"

Re:E-Democracy, E-Governance, E-tc.

[Anonymous Coward]

STUPID! Just plain DUMB!! Good FUCKING lord! Holy shit!

Re:E-Democracy, E-Governance, E-tc.

[revividus]

If we run it all on Mac OS X, does it become iDemocracy and iGovernment?

Government thinks you're stupid

[John Jorsett]

While the big bad government should be viewed skeptically in terms of censorship and regulation, it also does a million good things related to the non-techie parts of our lives.

Unfortunately, one goes with the other. You let government do "a million good things" for you and its natural instinct is to do even more. For your own good of course. That includes censorship and regulation. Government thinks you can't handle your own affairs, so it'll just have to do it for you, you stupid clod.

Re:Government thinks you're stupid

[stratjakt]

If you want the government to quit thinking you're stupid, quit proving them right.

There's always some dimwit to prove them right on any issue.

Re:Government thinks you're stupid

[John Jorsett]

Just 'cuz some dipstick shoves a pencil up his nose shouldn't mean we outlaw pencils, which is the usual government approach to problems. We're better off abolishing the Ministry of Pencil Shovers, and let the few idiots continue damaging themselves. Think of it as evolution in action.

Well though out...but is this a pipedream?

[venom600]

I like the *ideas* presented in this guys article, but at this point in time I think its still a bit of a pipe dream. Mostly due to the lack of familiarity with the technology by non-technical people and the paranoia of those technical enough to understand what is going on behind the scenes.

Also, trying to communicate anything meaningful in a public electronic forum is next to impossible any more. There is just too much noise. The only good way to reduce the noise is to make people accountable for their comments and suggestions. But, as we all are well aware, the only good way to make people accountable is to take away their anonymity....which kinda defeats the purpose in the first place.

E-democracy *should mean* direct voting

[__aailob1448]

EXTRACT FROM THE ARTICLE: E-democracy is a term that elicits a wide range of reactions[...]Will it bring about direct voting on every issue under the sun via the Internet? [...](The answers ? no, no, and no.) Direct voting is democracy at its purest form. All the corruption going on, the lobbys, the exchanges of favors between politicians and pretty much everything that makes people like you and me desillusionned by politics and politicians would *DISAPPEAR* if direct e-voting was implemented. It cuts the middlemen (politicians) out and that is always a good things. Of course, I'll be dead before this happens but a man can dream.

Re:E-democracy *should mean* direct voting

[stratjakt]

Sure, democracy is great, isn't it?

Imagine if we had direct voting all along. Blacks would still be slaves, women wouldnt be able to vote, children would still legally be property. Maybe you'd enjoy a society where you have to think, act, and live like everyone else, after all, you are here on slashdot.

My point is, the right decision isn't always the most popular one. That's why the USA is a Republic.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Re:E-democracy *should mean* direct voting

[__aailob1448]

Your premise is that people are inherently evil. I do not believe that. Ignorant, maybe. Stupid, maybe. Remember that the declaration of independance and the constitution already define basic human and civil rights. IF e-voting was available, there would be no DMCA, no infinite extension of copyrights, no patriot act and god knows how many laws that benefit corporations and small special interest groups instead of the majority of u.s citizens.

Re:E-democracy *should mean* direct voting

[stratjakt]

The constitution sure did define basic human rights. It defines a black man as worth 2/3rds of a white man. This wasn't considered "evil", it was completely natural and normal.

If e-voting on every issue, how do you figure there'd be no DMCA or PATRIOT act? I'd wager there'd be a much stricter PATRIOT act, if you weren't paying attention, the general populous was pretty blinded with rage after 9/11. I'd be the majority of americans would have passed the "make the middle east a nuclear wasteland" act if it were put on the table on 9/12.

The majority of citizens think copyright infringement is theft, Napster was a criminal enterprise, and that it should be illegal to modify your xbox. I remember a poll that showed a majority who thinks the speed limits on public roads should be LOWERED.

Your premise is everyone feels about everything the same way that you do. They dont. The majority of the voting populous is much older than you and fairly conservative in their views.

Re:E-democracy *should mean* direct voting

[stratjakt]

Just to add to my other post, take a look at Nazi germany and see how easily the majority can be persuaded into "evil" decisions.

Re:E-democracy *should mean* direct voting

[Anonymous Coward]

Your premise is that people are inherently evil.

Today I got chewed down by my sister when I said that I believe that people are inherently evil. I still believe it. Why do women, in general, tend to get really mad when someone expresses honest opinions they feel are Wrong?

Re:E-democracy *should mean* direct voting

[ad0gg]

Umm the constitution gave us, the citzens, very little rights. Notice how most of our constitutional rights are defined in admendments and not in it's original articles.

Re:E-democracy *should mean* direct voting

[Anonymous Coward]

Because women are inherently evil, of course.

Re:E-democracy *should mean* direct voting

[0111 1110]

A representative democracy is still a democracy. Just not a direct/pure one. I don't think those of us who favor e-voting and firing the representatives for decision making are in favor of a democracy without the protection of individual rights that the constitution and bill of rights are supposed to provide.

From my POV there is no good system for making these decisions. Everyone has their own views of what the government should be doing. Majority rule is no worse or better than any other method. I do agree that, as a rule, whatever the majority believes is usually wrong. The whole "lowest common denominator" rule.

The wolves should not be able to vote away the rights of the sheep. Unfortunately, the men who founded the US devised a flawed system which, despite their best efforts, was vulnerable to the very snowballing growth they so feared. Supreme court judges, and the members of the senate and congress are all very imperfect and are products of the culture they grow up in. If a belief is popular, they will probably believe it too, and this group has the power to take away the rights of the sheep. They can "amend" the very constitution that was supposed keep the wolves in check.

Re:E-democracy *should mean* direct voting

[StewedSquirrel]

"children would still legally be property"

They are as much property to you as your pets are.

Personally, I think it's really sad when they can take a kid away from his parents for something THEY deem inappropriate (but which family, friends and the kid himself says is just fine), but when it comes to the kid (and we're mostly talking teengers here) making simple decisions or even travelling or representing himself legally, they most definately ARE the property of the parents.

Ever read a subpoena for a juvinile witness? It subpoenas the parents and mandates that they bring specific property with them. Then on the "property" listing, they name the children.

Ironic when you can be charged as an adult for comitting a crime at the age of 12, but you have to be 18 before you can be asked to bear witness to a crime.

Ironic you can die for your country at the age of 18, but you can't drink until the age of 21.

Ironic that you can be arrested for "consentual" sexual assault at the age of 13 AND be charged as an adult for it (and with all of the pre-meditation and awareness that is mandated for an assault convictin) , but regardless of your willingness, cannot consent to sex until the age of 18.

Ironic that your parents can coerce you to work at the age of 14, but you cannot work on your own volition without their permission until the age of 18.

Sorry, you touched a nerve.

Stewey

The problem with the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

is that any half-baked nonsense can be published to the world. fortunately, most people ignore it.

The problem with slashdot is that half baked nonsense gets posted on the front page, and people think that since it made it past the janitors, it is useful substance.

Usually it isn't.

Omission

[akaina]

The structure is layed out very well, but I have some additions to recommend. Along with citizens should be "special interests", "big corporations". Included with government should be "alterier motives", "barred entrance via campaign costs". These X factors cannot be ignored, granted the scope of this paper isn't a digression on flaws in government, I do believe that flaws are big enough that they cannot be ignored.

I really like the E-Democracy conceptual model. It shows the cyclical role of citizens as they are applied to various facets of leadership.

All in all though I believe that a lack of communication is not the core of the problem in the government. Infact in a democracy a great majority of people don't care to give feedback (vote). Are you suggesting that if voting goes online more people will vote? If this is the case, the government may or may not be ready to embrace it for that reason alone. That's an interesting question.

Direct democracy--no thanks.

[Soulfader]

It cuts the middlemen (politicians) out and that is always a good things.

Do you have time, expertise, and desire to research and legislate every issue that affects you? I don't.

For all of the flaws in our particular system, it provides a decent compromise. If the majority of the citizenry could be bothered to research and pick out their representatives with a bit more care, I might believe that they could responsibly legislate. But if they did that, they wouldn't really need to, would they?

Other sectors feel the same way

[192939495969798999]

In the tech group, it's easy to say that the Gov't does the "regular daily stuff" ok. However, ask a PETA person, or a Greenpeace person, or any other focus group that is as knowledgable about their topic as we are about tech, and they'll say, "oh the gov't handles tech fine, but as far as MY topic, they're crappy".

Online vs. Person-to-person

[bs_02_06_02]

Many people are not terribly considerate when online. People are quick to judge, are too sensitive, anger too quickly, they resort to flamewars or trolling, etc. when online. It's easy to do. There's very little accountability online. The reason? Anonymity. Put your picture and a name/address/phone number alongside online behavior, and the 'Net will become a very polite place very quickly. Occasionally, in a large group of people, you will run into a fearless troll, but they can quickly be shunned by the majority and rendered mostly ineffective. Online, trolls can be more effective at disrupting communications. Slashdot works for those that read regularly. Moderation dies off after several hours of posts to a piece of news. For the readers that catch up occasionally, their chance to be heard and moderated up are slim.

Re:Online vs. Person-to-person

[stratjakt]

People are quick to judge, are too sensitive, anger too quickly, they resort to flamewars or trolling, etc. when online.

Sez you, you lunix hippie teabagger!

Re:What did the romans do for us?

[Gramie2]

I think you mean "These people called Romans, they go the 'house." Romanes eunt domus

Just a Million Good things?

[Googol]

Why not billions and billions of good things? How about Trillions? The Government should only do one thing well, you know, like good Unix design philosophy. This was known in the 19th century: Bastiat pans Socialism

Net-work

[dark&stormynight]

Steven,
Why did you use a hyphen in the word "Net-work"?
It is annoy-ing when peo-ple use hyphens in-corr-ect-ly. Thank-you for your atten-tion.

Re:Net-work

[Anonymous Coward]

bitch-slap-ped! your UID is low e-nough that you should know by now not to ques-tion mi-key's punc-tu-a-tion, but i too, wonder, why the hy-phen?

So, what's wrong with that?

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, welcome our ruling-class overlords.

You're talking about the worst possible scenario!

[__aailob1448]

Read this comment to understand *what* I think of when I think of direct e-democracy: Decentralized Democracy (Score:3, Interesting) by rhakka (224319) on Friday September 05, @02:08PM (#6881407)

But there *are* things we cant do for ourselves

[Anonymous Coward]

National security being the obvious, but far from only one.

Market economies work a lot better if there are mechanisms for maintaining transparency, and individuals dont have enough influence over markets to make it happen. Even aggregated individuals working through market means (such as through market funds with analysts and so on) cant do it; there is too much power (and profit) to be gained by inside players willing to obfuscate the market. This is inevitably a government task, or markets end up breaking down.

Individual playeers in a market economy have strong incentives to externalize costs. Now, we all carry each others external costs to an extent, but an effective market economy (and its accompanying society) MUST have effective mechanisms for equitably distributing external costs whenever possible(hopefully onto those who benefit from externalizing those costs in the first place).

Just these two imperatives account for a lot ("a million?") of good things government does for us, that we can NOT do for ourselves.

There are others that might be less agreed upon... countering the tendency of capital (and its accompanying power) to accumulate through generations, providing an effective political balance to the power inherent in capital, and so on.

And these are just the economic issues.

Yes, government can (and sometimes does) go too far. Thats why we need good citizen checks on our government. But what's the alternative?

Re:But there *are* things we cant do for ourselves

[Brandybuck]

This is inevitably a government task, or markets end up breaking down.

The proof of which can be seen in every anarchist and minarchist free market society available for study.

The good and the bad.

[magoolsu]

Good:
It would allow the goverment to quickly pass information to the public and give them a almost instant response to that new information. This could save money, speed up goverment projects, and make goverment more democratic and better for the people.

Bad:
It would leave a disproportionate percentage of the poor out of the picture. Its is much harder for a poor person to buy a computer and surf the net, and there are not always computers avaible at public labs and librarys. It might increase the divide between the well off and the not so weel off.

I love my wife!

Re:The good and the bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad: It would leave a disproportionate percentage of the poor out of the picture. Its is much harder for a poor person to buy a computer and surf the net, and there are not always computers avaible at public labs and librarys. It might increase the divide between the well off and the not so weel off.

I disagee. Take a look at the inner city projects that offer free internet access to libaries, and other non-profit centers. While I've got an excellent network at home, I can walk into any library in Atlanta and use a system with net access. The issue isn't the cost involved, but rather the time required to learn to use the system.

Anyone interested in meeting up for this topic?

[smagruder]

Meetup has a topic for E-democracy. From the description, it reads "Meetup with other local citizens to discuss how technology can enhance the democratic process." Who better than Slashdotters to thoroughly engage their fellow citizens on this very important topic?

Electronic Networks are Persistent SociRe:Omission

[leoaugust]

I agree with you. Electronic networks are mostly the persistent forms of social or logical networks. The things that happen quite often in reality are the best candidates for us trying to duplicate them in the electronic world.

Thus, broadly I do believe, that the utlimately the real world, with its physical and logical flaws, and goedelian contradictions, will be recreated in the electronic world.

But there is a wild element, and that is something could be created during this process that shall be influential enough to change the patterns of current reality. And thus, there shall be the persistent networks in electronic space that will have have no analogue in the real world.

This "something" was what the dot-coms were all about. And notice that though the dot-coms are gone because they could not make enough money, the ideas that they were chasing are still being pursued. The validity of the ideas is not in doubt - their commercial value was and is in doubt.

So, I guess what I am trying to say is that yes you may be right that all the "X factors" cannot be ignored. But, then, it is possible too, that they can be ignored. Nothing in our collective experience can discount that.

the government has done some great things

[Richthofen80]

with the net. I can pay my income tax, parking tickets, speeding tickets, postal bills, toll collections, and a myriad of other fees, fines and charges all online.

Props

[gregarican]

Much props to Michael for posting another article that has lukewarm response and next-to-no reader interest. Maybe I can pull out some old Decartes book and submit a spin on it...

Not enough dashes

[SpamJunkie]

E-Democracy, E-Governance, and Public Net-work

I dunno, think you could have fit more dahes in there. What about Pub-lic? E-Demo-cracy? a-nd? I mean Net-work isn't a real word so why con-fine your-self to the ru-les of pro-per english else-wh-ere? You haven't even be-gun to ex-plore all th-e poss-ibili-ties!

Mod the parent up!

[DanEsparza]

This is an awesome, insightful reply. (How often does that happen on Slashdot?!) Mod the parent up! (Please)

Wow, what a SCARY idea

[StewedSquirrel]

Wow, that is perhaps the most scary thing I've ever heard.

As much as I would like to believe in the esoteric thought of "educated masses", at least here in America, if you put the choice to the masses, you end up with rediculous results.

If things were put to popular vote all the time, issues that were somewhat extremest could easily be quietly proposed and pumped up in fairly extremest circles without reaching the mainstream. Because voter turnout would be very low, you could expect extreme viewpoints to end up becoming law fairly frequently.

In addition, I have a feeling that your idea of "favorable representation" would basically turn into what we have now. National platforms would emerge with people campaigning to be "your voter" and would gather together a huge cluster of votes with which they could sway national opinion.

Can you imagine how many votes someone like Rush Limbaugh would get in such a circumstance? One of the reasons representation in the house/senate is setup how it is, is to be sure that all areas of the country are represented and representatives are over a reasonable size of the population.

Too bad it doesn't work how it is now. Maybe it'd be worth a try, but I think we'd have to watch it carefully to see how it was going. I think people would pretty quickly get sick of it and vote to have their representatives back. Maybe if they were gotten rid of, they might be more REPRESENTATIVE of the people next time around.

hehe

Stewey

Re:Wow, what a SCARY idea

[rhakka]

I hear what you're saying, but for every rush limbaugh there is a michael moore, and for each of them, there are 2 or 3 moderate voters. You could get around voter participation (say, someone sets their preferences and never pays attention again) a bit by requiring regular re-registration. At least you'd know their choices were concious. I agree that most people would probably still give their vote to one representative, in affect emulating the current system, but that wouldn't break the new system either.

The big key point you are missing is the instant feedback mechanism this would allow. Sure, someone could get on TV and campaign to be "your voter", but as soon as they do *anything* that pisses you off, plink, they are gone, end of story. That seems like a hell of an improvement over:

Dude gets elected.
Dude does some ok stuff and some really crappy stuff.
Next election cycle, decide if Dude A is better or worse than you think Dude B will be.
Repeat.

Chances of getting stuck with a rep that doesn't represent you seems a bit higher than way, doesn't it?

the answer is money

[kaseyH]

....now what was your question?

Community networks

[Anonymous Coward]

Community networks such as this could be a great thing. Meaning, if implemented properly, a virtual town hall type server storing information about community events, problems, ideas, etc. as well as a controlled way to get in touch with community officials and representitives, would be an excellent thing for nearly every community. The main problem however is immediatly evident: How to get every member of the community access to it, even if they do not choose to utilize it. One could argue that the solution is quite simple, at least in my mind. Setup wireless accesspoints in key positions throughout a town, creating a wireless mesh network connecting to a central gateway which would host most of the information. In theory, this is great idea, give everyone a cheap terminal-style computer, at a cost of about $100 per station per home. The terminals could be specialized in such a way that they could only be used to send and get information at the central server, make voting work through this, I bet it'd drive voter "turnout" up if people wouldn't have to leave their homes to vote in a referendum or whatever. People could be more adequatly informed of all the issues, the wireless connection could be used to broadcast informational radio as well, meaning people who do not wish to read up on what's going on around them, can still get that info if they want. This is purely an idealist scenario, and I'm sure it would never happen, but I can imagine the pros and cons of such a setup. Security would be an issue, but just don't give the network access to the Internet. Allow other machines to operate on the network, but filter mac addresses at the server end to only accept data from the terminals. Password authenticate, or some other form of authentication, but don't go so far as thumbprinting or cameras. If such a device could be as readily, and affordably, available to so many people it could really take off. But, alas, it'll never happen, only a utopian society could get it to happen, and no such society exists as of yet.

Online fee and fine collection

[serutan]

That would be nice. I saw a pretty cool indie documentary called Startup.com about a a real startup trying to get into that business. Unfortunately this type of service is a long way from becoming universal.

That's not direct democracy, sorry.

[Soulfader]

That's not direct democracy. Read again.

Issues come up for voting, and there would be a place where I could go and see the most popular arguements on both sides and the views of critics and pundits and politicos of my choosing regarding the issues in question if I like, and vote directly on the issues. Or, if I am busy, perhaps I could earmark my representatives by expertise. Perhaps I want to earmark a respected doctor as my representative for medical issues, greenspan as my economic representative, nader as my consumer rights representative... and have their votes count for mine as default unless I actively change my rep for a particular issue or earmark an issue as "manual".

You don't vote on issues; you vote on bills. And notice that almost immediately he assigns responsibility for his vote on a wide range of things to a representative. Only the method for choosing the representative is different. Please note, I'm not saying this is a bad idea. It's intriguing, really, and maybe even workable, but it isn't direct democracy, where every citizen is voting (or able to vote) on every issue.

At one end of the scale, we have everyone voting on everything--total participation. At the other end, we have zero participation--no one cares. By assigning the task of governance to full time employees whose job it is to represent the interest of a block of voters, we can hopefully find a happy medium in there, where everyone is adequately represented without having to be a full time voter.

Once the novelty of direct democracy wore off, I think we would find that the only people who voted on any given issue were the ones who felt that they had a direct stake in it; everyone else would default to their judgment: tyranny of the majority at its worst. It would be another kind of representative government, really, except that the reps would be self-selecting.

USA does not equal democracy

[wbm6k]

We currently have a representative democracy, not a pure democracy. An e-democracy, with all the issues decided directly by the citizens, could certainly be much closer to a theoretically perfect democracy, where the government exactly matches the wishes of the citizens.

Note: I do not think such a government is a good idea, but it would be a "real democracy" in the purest sense of the word.

Watch the movie Startup Dot Com

[serutan]

Anybody interested in getting the government online should watch a really cool documentary called Startup.Com. It's about a real company called "GovWorks" based on the idea of paying various government fees online -- parking tickets, drivers license renewals, etc. Most of the story deals with all their business gyrations and personal conflicts, but the idea itself is pretty interesting.

What struck me about it is the parallel with evolution of information systems in the business world. Companies first started using computers for payroll and billing, then other applications evolved. The interactions described in the article seem far more idealistic, to the point of being pie in the sky, but turning minor government financial transactions into e-commerce might lay the groundwork for the more interesting things.

I doubt that the average American politician would be sincerely interested in a proposal to build an online channel that lets us peons see behind the curtain. But if there were a way for it to evolve under their noses, as the Internet did, it might happen.

An actual EEE-Govt site

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, rank this site: http://minutes.co.palm-beach.fl.us/minutes/

It actually tries to deliver the process of government to the citizens in bite sized pieces. Given the lack of business rules before the site imposed them, I think version 1.0 isn't too bad.

Rick