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

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"

[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. :)

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

[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.

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..

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.

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.