Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Saving Democracy With Web 2.0

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the hear-hear-hear dept.

Wired is running a piece about how "Web 2.0" (still hate that buzz word) can save democracy this upcoming election date. Web 2.0 hyperbole aside, the piece itself covers the extent of the different mapping tools, get out the vote, finding who funds a candidate and other election candies. Good round-up story.

190 comments

  1. How appropriate... by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 1, Funny

    Nothing for you to see here... move along.

    --
    Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    1. Re:How appropriate... by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 1

      Just one question to the mod. This was the very first post on this topic. How the heck could it be redundant?

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
  2. I've heard this bedtime story before by Control+Group · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Really, this is no different than initial utopian claims about how the internet will change everything, bring people together, cause world peace, eliminate hunger, and usher in a new era of universal well being.

    More tools are great, and making information easily accessible is a Good Thing. Calling politicians on their sources of funding is always positive, and holding politicians accountable for the things they say and the promises they make is fantastic.

    But no matter how available you make the information, it only matters if people care enough to find out. That's the advantage the traditional media have: given US culture, it's a push medium. It brings information to people, rather than wating for people retrieve the information. The implication of an article like this is that the threat to democracy is unavailability of information, which isn't true - or at least, is far from the whole story.

    The real threat to democracy is people who don't really care about what's going on in government. People who have voted straight ticket in every election since they were 18 (and are proud of the fact!) are the problem. People who consider themselves members of a Team Republican or Team Democrat are the problem. People who don't know who's on the ballot until they show up to vote are the problem. It's a combination of apathy, cynicism, and misguided loyalty that is the problem.

    This "web 2.0" phenomenon that the article discusses is, in a sense, the same as the "get out the vote" initiatives that come out every election cycle. When you come right down to it, if someone's only going to vote because MTV told them to, it's probably someone that shouldn't be voting*. If someone doesn't care enough about the process to know who stands for what and to take the time to go vote without being harangued by some celebrity, then that person should have just stayed home; we might as well roll dice to determine who gets elected.

    All the tools that are now available for information disclosure are great tools, and they make the job of a responsible voter easier. But they won't make someone who doesn't care in the first place suddenly care unless the information is forced in front of him - which is exactly the information model that the web doesn't match up to. Helping informed voters become better informed is a great thing, but it's not going to save democracy.

    *No, this doesn't mean I would ever advocate any kind of system to "validate" voters. Every citizen gets to vote if he wants to, and anything that begins to change that is abhorrent to the very idea of democracy. Nor would I restrict the right of any person or group to encourage people to vote. But that doesn't change the fact that the people who only vote because the TV told them to are very likely to cast unconsidered votes, which is not an ideal situation. Then, of course, there's the problem that any group pushing people to go vote is, almost certainly, pushing people to go vote the way that group wants them to - and the people being convinced don't even know that they're being pushed to a specific political position, rather than just being encouraged to exercise their franchise.

    --

    Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
    1. Re:I've heard this bedtime story before by kfg · · Score: 1

      "get out the vote" initiatives that come out every election cycle.

      Back in the day this process was pretty straight forward, all it took was five bucks and a bottle of Wild Turkey per vote.

      KFG

    2. Re:I've heard this bedtime story before by fossa · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wonder how removing party designations from ballots, randomizing the candidate order on each ballot, or providing completely blank ballots and requiring a full name be written, would affect the polls, implementation issues aside. The goal would be minimizing the effect of ignorant votes.

    3. Re:I've heard this bedtime story before by Control+Group · · Score: 1

      All I got was to keep my kneecaps.

      I feel so ripped off.

      --

      Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
    4. Re:I've heard this bedtime story before by Control+Group · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm all for it, except for the name-writing requirement. I've written too much code to trust arbitrary input compared to menu choices. This would result in too many valid, considered ballots being discarded for reasons irrelevant to the election (spelling errors, for example).

      Now, providing a menu of all the offices to be filled on one side, and a menu of all the candidates on the other side (with no reference to the office for which each is running, of course)...then we'd be on to something.

      --

      Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
    5. Re:I've heard this bedtime story before by OldeTimeGeek · · Score: 1
      Are you talking about removing the party designation printed next to the candidate's name or the designation on the top of the ballot in partisan races? Removing the candidate's party only helps keep the voter from voting a straight party line by looking at the party. It won't help when they use a slate card given to them by their local political party or interest group to help them mark their ballot. A surprising number of people do this. Removing the name from the ballot in a primary election (it doesn't appear on general elections) would lead to some confusion as people wouldn't be certain whether they had gotten the correct ballot.

      Randomizing the order of names would lead to confusion. A whole lot of people use their sample ballots to help them mark their ballot. If the real ballot is different than their sample ballot, it's going to take them longer to find the name. A surprising number of people are very nervous about voting - throwing additional confusion would make their job a lot harder.

      Please, please, please don't give people a blank ballot. Have you ever had a job that required you to read people's handwriting? If you did, you'd know why this is a bad idea. Most people have terrible handwriting.

      How would this lead to a reduction of ignorant votes? They'll have exactly the same information when entering the voting booths as they have today; forcing them through additional hoops will make them all the less likely to want to vote.

    6. Re:I've heard this bedtime story before by diersing · · Score: 1
      It would create mass confusion - outside the 'big' elections (President, Governor, maybe a Senate or Congressional seat) the local elections would grind to a halt as most people couldn't name either candidate.

      You want minimize the effect of ignorant votes - require candidates to complete a simple YEA/NAY survey on the issues - if I had half an idea of where the candidates actually stood my vote would be far more educated. Instead we get inundated with negative campaign odds where we end up choosing the lesser of two evils.

    7. Re:I've heard this bedtime story before by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      I love the idea of removing party designations, especially for judges. But I think that having an all write-in ballot would greatly reduce voter turnout. With those damn e-Slate machines, it's very hard to write in somebody's name. I think people would just give up and not vote at all. Maybe the candidates would legally change their names to "Rep Ublican" and "Demo Crat" to subvert the system. Vote Kinky!

    8. Re:I've heard this bedtime story before by ranton · · Score: 1

      or providing completely blank ballots and requiring a full name be written

      That is absolutely the best idea I have ever heard (as far as election reform goes). If you do not even know the name of the person you are voting for then why in the hell did you show up?

      Unfortunatly they would probably just stick their heads out of the ballot box and ask a guy standing in line what that one "John" guy's last name is.

      --

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    9. Re:I've heard this bedtime story before by Kijori · · Score: 1
      How would this lead to a reduction of ignorant votes? They'll have exactly the same information when entering the voting booths as they have today; forcing them through additional hoops will make them all the less likely to want to vote.
      That's the point. Why shouldn't voting be restricted to people that know what the candidate stands for, or at least has one reason for voting for that person over an opponent? Not that I'm necessarily in favour of it, just think it's an interesting point.
    10. Re:I've heard this bedtime story before by LindseyJ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And who gets to decide what level of "candidate education" is acceptable? The government (ie. the currently empowered political party)? For that matter, what criteria are we testing? It's not such a big jump from testing 'knowledge' to what basically amounts to a litmus exam: "I see you filled in agreement with the War on Terror/NSA Wiretaps/Social Secuirty/[Immigration stance]... I'm afraid we can't let you vote today. Please re-educate yourself and report back next year." If you really believe that Diebold equates to the death of Democracy in this country, then this isn't such a big leap.

      I find it funny, and more than a little sad, that the new voting machines have taken so much flak, but a suggestion like this gets aired openly. The saddest part is that I know a lot of people who would seriously consider asking people if they agree with GWB and the War (etc) before they are permitted to vote. (And to be fair, I know at least as many people who would say the same thing if you agreed with pulling out of Iraq, stopping NSA wiretaps, etc...) Funny how the more you point fingers at someone, the more you start to become what you claim they are.

    11. Re:I've heard this bedtime story before by blugu64 · · Score: 1

      Kinky eh? Did you hear him call the internet a work of satan during the Texas Gov. Debate? Granted I believe he was joking but it caught my attention ;)

      --
      "Personal ownership is a hallmark of conservative capitalism. And I don't believe I am entitled to anything that I did n
    12. Re:I've heard this bedtime story before by Moofie · · Score: 1

      "When you come right down to it, if someone's only going to vote because MTV told them to"

      OK. I'd make the same assertion about the AARP, NRA, EFF, and any other special interest group.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    13. Re:I've heard this bedtime story before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the real threat to democracy is people who don't really care about what's going on in government.

      If I had a nickel for every time some poor indoctrined statist coughed up that tired old line...

      Government has been telling us for years that all problems in government are due to simply having the wrong man in power, NEVER due to the very existence of power itself (the "right" to employ coercion as a means). Oh no, there couldn't possibly be anything wrong with THAT concept, shouts the man who makes his fortune on exploiting the coercive power of government.

      Come on now... do you REALLY believe them? If you do, let's see you admit it like a man. Tell me there's absolutely no reason to be skeptical of a man or group of men holding the "right" to employ force against other men as their business model. Tell me with a straight face that all the corruption, all the self-interest, all the immorality can be fixed if we just vote the right ruler into power". Can you do it?

    14. Re:I've heard this bedtime story before by Control+Group · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

      I just picked MTV because their "Rock the Vote" campaign is the first thing that leapt to mind.

      --

      Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
    15. Re:I've heard this bedtime story before by Moofie · · Score: 1

      The big difference between the MTV campaign and AARP's campaigns is that AARP's work.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    16. Re:I've heard this bedtime story before by Control+Group · · Score: 1

      News flash: some people are stronger than other people. This is the basis of the existence of power. All efforts at just government are attempts to abstract this power away from simply "I/we can beat you up, so you have to do what we say" into something that provides a higher order than that.

      Complaining that it's the very existence of power that's the problem is, quite simply, either tectonically naive or a boring troll. When you can provide a system that eliminates power, then you can make your silly accusations.

      Not that I even know why I'm bothering to respond to an anarchist AC.

      --

      Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
    17. Re:I've heard this bedtime story before by DragonWriter · · Score: 1
      Why shouldn't voting be restricted to people that know what the candidate stands for, or at least has one reason for voting for that person over an opponent?


      But, your proposal doesn't restrict voting at all, even if that would be a good thing. It just reduces one clear and impartial source of factual information that voters have available in making their decision, making them more vulnerable to voting based on false information from dirty tricks.

      If you want to limit voting based on a poll test that evaluates the kind of knowledge you suggest should be required, well, we could debate that. But the policies you propose don't enforce the knowledge requirements you suggest, they simply make it somewhat more difficult to get certain bits of information than is presently the case.
    18. Re:I've heard this bedtime story before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AARP members have nothing better to do and wake up in time to make it to the voting booth.

    19. Re:I've heard this bedtime story before by hswerdfe · · Score: 1

      I just did an early vote an early vote in the Ontario municipal elections. if I would have been given a blank ballot I would not have been able to vote.

      I knew the candidates (all of them)
      I knew the positions, on the issues.
      I know who best fit my views.
      and I knew I was going to strategically vote for based on poll results.
      But, for the life of me I would not be able to spell my candidates name without a crib sheet.

      --
      --meh--
    20. Re:I've heard this bedtime story before by demachina · · Score: 1

      "The real threat to democracy is people who don't really care about what's going on in government."

      That is part of the problem but the real basis of the problem is we've settled in to an entrenched two party system. Those two parties have established a complete strangehold on the electoral process and as long as they are both equally bad they get away with it, they can just ping pong power between each other while the country heads in to the dumper.

      For example:

      - The 2 parties have used numerous methods to block the formation of a viable 3rd party with a chance to win, in many states by placing huge burdens on 3rd parties to just get on the ballot, and of course most 3rd parties have been dominated by fringe candidates and supporters that just don't have the staying power or wide enough appeal to win. The media compounds the problem by painting anyone not Republican or Democrat as a nut and a novelty depriving them of legitimacy in the minds of voters. So we have a system in which both parties are bad and they have no incentive to improve because the competition isn't any better and there is no viable 3rd choice.

      - Many states completely disenfranchise independent voters since they can't vote in primaries. This means the Democrats and the Republicans pick the two choices and independents hold their nose and pick the worst of the two. Independents have no say in the process of picking good candidates and even in the states they can vote in the primary they are just spoilers or king makers of the two party's candidates. You want to shake up the system, make it law that independents have their own primary and can nominate their own candidate. If you got good sensible, non extremist candidates running and independents put good people on the ballot, people may well start leaving the two parties in droves for independency. Many people now hate both parties with a passion but feel locked in to them because if they go independent they are largely disenfranchised. I often wonder if our political system might actually work better if there were no party affiliations and no party line votes either on ballots or on legislation. You get elected on merit and ideas and not on party affiliation. Legislation gets passed if it is sound and garners enough support, not because one party wants to shove their polarizing agenda through. Maybe less legislation would get passed but that would probably be an improvement too.

      - The 2 parties, when they gain control of state legislatures, have completely gerrymandered every congressional district to insure they will win in an as many districts as possible, i.e. put all the minorities in one contorted urban district where a minority candidate wins but the Republicans get a lock on 2-3 seats in the suburbs as a result. Gerrymandering is probably the single most corrosive force working against Democracy today, since it promotes candidates on the extremes who pander to their rigged base consituency. Also as long as they get their parties nomination there is a low chance of them every getting voted out so they have no accountability to their constituents. You want to fix the House, come up with a color blind algorithm to create house districts somewhat randomly and based on simple geometry and geography, and hopefully make more districts competitive and diverse. The challenge is to not completely deprive minorties of representation in the process.

      A final problem is the simple fact really good smart people don't usually run for office any more, if they ever did. Their simply aren't any great statesman anymore. The people who run are nearly universally bad people, they are manipulative opportunists, not people who want to pass sound laws and work for the betterment of their country. If good people do run the manipulative opportunists beat them. Getting elected sucks, especially getting on your knees for campaign contributions, the pay sucks(until you leave and turn in to a lobbyist), the scrutiny of your life sucks, and when you get in office y

      --
      @de_machina
    21. Re:I've heard this bedtime story before by kbielefe · · Score: 1
      Now, providing a menu of all the offices to be filled on one side, and a menu of all the candidates on the other side
      Cool, I want John Kerry for precinct committeeman.
      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    22. Re:I've heard this bedtime story before by InsertCleverUsername · · Score: 1
      Politics is greatly evolved today. Candidates now offer you a tax cut --so you can buy your own bottle of Wild Turkey (maybe even three bottles with a typical tax refund!).

      "The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."
      --Alexis de Tocqueville


      --
      Ask me about my sig!
    23. Re:I've heard this bedtime story before by hswerdfe · · Score: 1

      I don't think grand parent is an anarchist.
      I think maybe he believes that the system to determine who or what is in power is more important then the actual person or group in power.
      On this point I agree with him.
      "Voting the bums out." Will not help!

      --
      --meh--
    24. Re:I've heard this bedtime story before by Control+Group · · Score: 1

      If that's what the GP AC meant, then perhaps he shouldn't have said "due to the very existence of power itself," which sure sounds to me like the central tenet of anarchism.

      Regardless, your point I agree with, to a certain extent. Specifically, to the extent that our (the US') particular system has flaws that far outweigh the differences between or the flaws among our elected officials (this is based, primarily, on the fundamentally broken "one man, one vote" winner-take-all system. Incidentally, from the "those founding father guys were really pretty smart" dept., the existence of the Electoral College was designed to mitigate this, along with indirect election of Senators. Only one of those is still around, and the other is under attack. One could wish that the math of voting methodologies had been well developed before they drafted the Constitution; we'd be in better shape today).

      I do not agree that this is necessarily the case; I am optimistic enough to believe that perhaps a representation/voting system could be designed such that its flaws were trivial in comparison to the flaws of the representatives

      --

      Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
    25. Re:I've heard this bedtime story before by Control+Group · · Score: 1

      That is part of the problem but the real basis of the problem is we've settled in to an entrenched two party system. Those two parties have established a complete strangehold on the electoral process and as long as they are both equally bad they get away with it, they can just ping pong power between each other while the country heads in to the dumper.

      I agree that the two-party situation we're in is a deep, systemic flaw in our political landscape. It's not, however, fundamental. The fundamental problem is the plurality voting system we've got ("one man, one vote" combined with winner-take-all). This methodology virtually guarantees a two-party system, since that's the only way the votes turn out to be particularly meaningful. As an example, a voting system such that a vote for your favorite candidate is also, effectively, a vote for your least favorite candidate is completely broken. Plurality voting allows for that as soon as more than two parties are involved (consider the '92 and '00 presidential elections).

      In fact, the case can be made that plurality voting is just about the worst possible method of determining representatives in accordance with the will of the electorate. Specifically, to quote the wikipedia article, "[m]ost systems showed some potential advantage over Plurality, in many cases greater than the advantages of Plurality over monarchy."

      So yes, the two-party system is the problem. But the cause of the two-party system is the very voting scheme we have in place in the US.

      --

      Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
    26. Re:I've heard this bedtime story before by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      You know what I would do if there was no government? I'd go up and steal your watch.
      You're bringing your friends? I'll bring my friends.
      And now we're back to square 1.
      Do you really think that removing the government completely would change anything for the better?

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    27. Re:I've heard this bedtime story before by ranton · · Score: 1

      But, for the life of me I would not be able to spell my candidates name without a crib sheet.

      Thats where electronic ballots could come in. If you have a slight misspelling in the name it could give a suggestion (as far as the spelling goes) about who you want to vote for. But if you cannot even get phonetically close, or even have the foggiest idea what their last name is, then you dont really know that much about the candidates.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    28. Re:I've heard this bedtime story before by hswerdfe · · Score: 1
      If that's what the GP AC meant, then perhaps he shouldn't have said "due to the very existence of power itself," which sure sounds to me like the central tenet of anarchism.


      sorry for being of topic for a second, but I have always loved Starship troopers of this quote:
      When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force my friends is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.


      any way back on topic:
        I suppose you could be correct. I thought he was referring to current power authorities, but I may very well have been wrong.

      As for "indirect election of Senators", and Electoral Collage, I think both are really really bad ideas. But then I think the existence of a single strong figurehead ie US President is a bad idea.
      I am optimistic enough to believe that perhaps a representation/voting system could be designed such that its flaws were trivial in comparison to the flaws of the representatives

      I as well am am optimistic, but only that a system can be designed and implemented that is useful for our time. I think and system will have flaws that slowly creep into it, causing issues. and forcing a new system.

      and just a curiosity. do you have any thought on what system this would be?

      --
      --meh--
    29. Re:I've heard this bedtime story before by kbielefe · · Score: 1
      And who gets to decide what level of "candidate education" is acceptable?

      Maybe the candidates can each put a couple of short multiple choice questions? If you have a chance to talk to them face to face for a minute, every candidate has a few set things about themselves that they feel are important for people to know in order to make an informed decision, even if the voter doesn't know anything else.

      For one candidate it might be his vote on a particular bill. For another candidate it might be an innovative idea she has. Another candidate might emphasize his family or religious beliefs. Watch them work a room and it will be the same thing over and over.

      There is a huge difference between being able to show that you know what a candidate stands for, and indicating whether you agree with that position or not. In fact, in a heated election like this one many voters are more aware of a position of the person they are voting against than those of the person they are implicitly or explicitly voting for.

      Of course, both sides like to think that more people would vote their way if only they were better informed. In reality, better education usually merely results in more intellectual arguments for the same position.

      Interestingly, this year I've seen a few fairly successful "don't say anything so you won't say anything stupid" re-election campaigns, which seem to be based on the premise that less voter education is better for their campaign, but doesn't say much about the level of confidence in their platform.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    30. Re:I've heard this bedtime story before by LindseyJ · · Score: 1
      For me, voter education is more about seeing through the outright lies and misconstructions (is that even a word?) in political ads and rhetoric. FactCheck.org is a site that I find especially helpful in this regard (I am not affiliated with them in any way, yadda yadda yadda). They are nonpartisan and very credible, citing their sources so you can go validiate their assertions that assert that politicians' assertions are wrong.

      As for the rest, while I agree that a better-educated voting populace is always good, I still cannot be behind any sort of voting qualification other than being 'of age' and a citizen. On that note, I am in favor of some sort of validation that you are who you claim you are before you are allowed to cast your vote. Whether it be photo ID presentation at the voting location, or something like a one-time-use-only card or voucher that is mailed to you a week or two before elections that you must present and have validated before you can vote. But there are problems with those too, of course.

      In fact, in a heated election like this one many voters are more aware of a position of the person they are voting against than those of the person they are implicitly or explicitly voting for.

      This is true, and people don't generally realize the underlying rationale behind this. Why don't people think more of the fact that they know more about their oposition than they do about their own candidate? Personally, I think it's because of the polarization mentality of most of America these days, which is perpetuated by things like mudslinging campaign ads. I was talking to a good friend of mine the other day, who is about as educated as most, politically speaking. Sometime during our conversation, the upcoming election came up and I remarked that it was probably safe to assume he was voting a stright party line. He said that yes, he was; so I asked him "Why, do you even know what they stand for?" I thought his response was particularly telling: "Well they stand for the oposite of those other guys. I've seen those ads, and I definately don't want to be voting for anyone like that."

      Anecdotes aside, and about your last paragraph: If (as it is seeming) the only choices are for a candidate to sling mud everywhere or just shut up, I would rather them just shut up.
    31. Re:I've heard this bedtime story before by kfg · · Score: 1

      Candidates now offer you a tax cut --so you can buy your own bottle of Wild Turkey (maybe even three bottles with a typical tax refund!).

      People who vote for five bucks and a bottle of Wild Turkey do not get tax refunds.

      KFG

    32. Re:I've heard this bedtime story before by kbielefe · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was mostly playing devil's advocate there on the voter qualification thing. In all honesty, I have a lot of faith in the electorate, and think the truly clueless mostly stay home. I also favor a voter id requirement. The Supreme Court decision temporarily reinstating Arizona's voter id requirement (which I voted for) has some good arguments for it. It quotes the 1964 Reynolds vs. Sims decision: ""[T]he right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise."

      Sometimes I worry that people get too much of a one-sided influence from the media, though. FactCheck.org looks like a great site. I gave up trying to discredit all the misleading campaign rhetoric a long time ago. I generally avoid traditional media and ignore campaign ads altogether, and prefer to get my information on a candidate's platform from his or her own website, facts on voting records from unquestionably impartial sites like thomas.loc.gov, and balance opinions by visiting both rnc.org and dnc.org, for example.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    33. Re:I've heard this bedtime story before by Kijori · · Score: 1

      What impartial source of information does it reduce? I don't understand how I'm restricting what information people have access to.

    34. Re:I've heard this bedtime story before by DragonWriter · · Score: 1
      What impartial source of information does it reduce?


      The factual information about partisan affiliation which is printed on the ballot and therefore available to every voter, which you would eliminate from the ballot.

    35. Re:I've heard this bedtime story before by Kijori · · Score: 1

      I don't necessarily need to eliminate that from the ballot, with the advent of electronic voting I could ask the first. But why should that be on the ballot anyway? Why shouldn't we expect more from people than sheep-voting, and maybe even go as far as to expect that people know to which party their preferred candidate belongs before they enter the voting booth?

    36. Re:I've heard this bedtime story before by DragonWriter · · Score: 1
      I don't necessarily need to eliminate that from the ballot, with the advent of electronic voting I could ask the first.


      "...ask the first" what?

      But why should that be on the ballot anyway?


      Because its factual information relevant to the selection, because with similar names it can be useful for disambiguation, and probably other reasons, too.

      Why shouldn't we expect more from people than sheep-voting, and maybe even go as far as to expect that people know to which party their preferred candidate belongs before they enter the voting booth?


      First, eliminating the party from the ballot doesn't affect people who know who their preferred candidate is but not what party they are affiliated with, but those who know their preferred candidate's party but not their name. Second, there is nothing wrong with expecting anything you'd like, which is purely passive.

      There is a problem with what seems to be implied by your "ask the[m?] first" line: exclusionary poll tests, which limit the franchise and restrict the utility of democratic process in providing a sense of participation and a legal method of working to change the system and thus providing an alternative to attempts to violently change the system through unlawful and destructive means.

      There is also a problem with your initial proposal, which limits ballot information on the premise that you "expect" people will know certain information, and therefore, to the extent that assumption is false, decreases the degree to which the actual vote represents the actual will of the electorate, and introduces additional, avoidable noise into the results with no benefit.

    37. Re:I've heard this bedtime story before by Kijori · · Score: 1

      I agree my method was ill conceived, particularly in light of similiarly named candidates, but I don't think that removing those people that don't know the slightest thing about their candidate would invalidate the result; if anything, it would make it more relevant. Ask yourself: if people know nothing about a candidate's opinions and record, or those of his opponent, what drives their vote? Almost certainly it is a combination of scare tactics and peer influence. Neither of these are things we want to take into account in an election. So why not remove them?

    38. Re:I've heard this bedtime story before by DragonWriter · · Score: 1
      I agree my method was ill conceived, particularly in light of similiarly named candidates, but I don't think that removing those people that don't know the slightest thing about their candidate would invalidate the result


      A person who knows nothing but what party they prefer knows "the slightest thing" about their preferred candidate. They may not know the information you think is important, but the whole point of democratic participation is that each citizen decides on their own what is important to their voting decision.

      How, anyway, would we eliminate only those voters who don't know the slightest thing about candidates? Someone would have to design the test to filter the bad voters, and whoever designed the test would be influenced by their own opinion of what information is important and what is not, defeating the entire purpose of democratic participation.

      Ask yourself: if people know nothing about a candidate's opinions and record, or those of his opponent, what drives their vote?


      The public platform of the party (either the one they are voting for, or the one they hope to stop), perceived group identity, any of a number of other factors besides "opinions" and "record" may be important to voters.

      Almost certainly it is a combination of scare tactics and peer influence. Neither of these are things we want to take into account in an election.


      I disagree with both your perception of what is "almost certainly" the case here, and with your idea that peer influence is not something we want to take account of in elections. Sure, I'd rather that played less commanding a role in shaping opinions, but once it has, I don't think it should be excluded from elections—indeed, I think excluding those people would be particularly dangerous.

  3. FTA by udderly · · Score: 1

    FTA: Many Americans believe that our political system is broken, and that money is to blame. Legislators are beholden to donations from special interest groups. Regulators pass through a revolving door to take jobs in the very industries they used to regulate. Big campaign donors somehow land big government contracts, despite arcane public bidding processes.

    This is exactly the problem. I wonder if this will help though. Beware the media/government/corporate complex and interlocking directorships.

    1. Re:FTA by toetagger1 · · Score: 1
      This is exactly the problem. I wonder if this will help though. Beware the media/government/corporate complex and interlocking directorships.
      you misspelled DICTATORSHIP
      --
      who | grep -i blond | date cd ~; unzip; touch; strip; finger; mount; gasp; yes; uptime; umount; sleep
  4. Not really.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Internet does not have the same level of penetration as the mainstream media (TV and newspapers). It will, one day, but then the PR machine will make sure web2.0 (or 3.0) will be as tainted as present day TV to make sure voters are far away from reality.

    Sorry - nobody can save democracy - at least in US.

  5. It's worthless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For one voter who may seek information through the Web there are 10 voters who only watch Fox News.

    The war on laziness has been lost for ages...

    1. Re:It's worthless by LindseyJ · · Score: 1

      And 10 more who only watch MTV.

      I'm not sure which is worse: a half-educated voter who may be mislead by their media outlet of choice, or a non-educated voter who only votes because some halfwit musician on MTV told them to.

    2. Re:It's worthless by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      I would say the half-educated one....since the non educated one would simply be doing what some educated person told them...supposedly

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
  6. Democracy needs technology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would say that if we really want to save democracy we'll go out of our way to try and keep technology out of it. Look at electronic voting machines (I know there not technically web2.0) - they are the single biggest threat to democracy we face at the moment. As for actual Web2.0 stuff (I hate that buzzword so much - when will we be in web2.0, how will we know, does anyone care?...) you have political online TV without any oversight shooting out propaganda 24/7, all the politics on the web is pretty much inane

  7. Democracy is a buzzword by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. I guess Constitutional Republic doesn't flow off the tongue very well. Or it is calculated ignorance.

    1. Re:Democracy is a buzzword by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I saw a T-shirt at a science fiction convention with a quote from Ben Franklin: "Democracy is a sheep sitting down with two lions; liberty is one well-armed sheep."

    2. Re:Democracy is a buzzword by RingDev · · Score: 1

      That t-shirt missed the point of the jest. The lions/sheep have to be voting one dinner.

      "Benjamin Franklin observed that democracy is two wolves and a sheep holding an election to decide what to have for dinner, and that liberty is a well-armed sheep vigorously contesting the election result."

      The problem with that statement in today's government is that if you were to do so, you would be labeled a domestic terrorist. You would be detained, your rights to habias corpus stripped, shipped overseas, tortured, and then locked away.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    3. Re:Democracy is a buzzword by CamDawg · · Score: 1

      That's not a Ben Franklin quote, though its many variations are often (mis)attributed to him.

    4. Re:Democracy is a buzzword by Sigg3.net · · Score: 0

      It's fun how Americans often associate guns with liberty.
      That's really something to think about.

      --
      Defining Statistics and Social Research
    5. Re:Democracy is a buzzword by paralaxcreations · · Score: 1

      Guess you can say it's part of our culture...the only reason we exist as an independent nation today is because we used guns to free ourselves. So yeah- our first taste of liberty was through force.

      If our first taste of liberty was by giving children candy canes and cotton candy, we would probably associate liberty with sugar. Unfortunately, sugar doesn't generally win liberty.

      Tell me: when your government strips all your rights away and makes you a slave, how would you propose a reaquisition of liberty? Through the same rational talks that proved useless up to that point? Through protests that now get you locked up and in most cases severely beaten?

      I'm all for peace, but governments need to fear their people. The only thing a populace has over its government is numbers, and numbers are useless if they're not willing to do anything with them. If you don't see that, then your government already has big plans for you. Congratulations, Citizen #886486. Please pick up your rations at your nearest disbursement center, and proceed directly to your housecell before 8:00 curfew.

    6. Re:Democracy is a buzzword by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Have guns actually brought freedom even once since 1800?
      The 2nd has a horrendous track record of protecting the 1st.
      The ACLU, however, has a much better track record.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    7. Re:Democracy is a buzzword by Sigg3.net · · Score: 0

      I don't think fear is the right kind of motivation or foundation of any state/government.
      Unless you buy Hobbes' theory of men; every man's warre against every other man; _in splendid isolation_ from each other (extracted from Netwonian principles).

      From what you're saying the government is not people.
      That's a fallacy.

      --
      Defining Statistics and Social Research
  8. like this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like this? http://www.editgrid.com/user/fleetadmiralj/Josh_Te st

  9. But, I thought... by WED+Fan · · Score: 0

    .NET was supposed to save democracy, or was that Linux. Wait, I know, Bush was supposed to save democracy. All I know is I heard the RAZOR scooter...no, that was another scooter that was supposed to save democracy.

    Here in Seattle, we have fancey $500k toilets that clean themselves. That's supposed to save democracy. Well, actually, they're a haven for prostitutes and drug dealers. There I go again, back on .Net and Linux. But, which is which? You decide, your vote counts. DEMOCRACY.

    --
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
    1. Re:But, I thought... by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      ok, you got me all curious now: why do prostitutes and drug dealers like the toilets?

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    2. Re:But, I thought... by WED+Fan · · Score: 0

      Because they are on the corners, and big, and spacious, and a place to hide. Seattle thought they'd clean up blighted areas, instead, they attracted more.

      But what has that got to do with Democracy? Seattle has nothing to do with Democracy. The mayor says he wants a tunnel, he's going to get a tunnel, and the voters aren't even allowed an ADVISORY vote.

      --
      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
  10. Web 2.0? by xdxfp · · Score: 1

    When does Web 2.1 come out?

    --
    HRESULT WinAPIGetSystemProcessThreadMetricsMenu...
    LibraryVolumeModuleHandlePtrEx(PHSPTMMLVM PHndl);
    1. Re:Web 2.0? by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1

      Web 2.1 is currently in beta.. It will be released "soon"

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    2. Re:Web 2.0? by MrCopilot · · Score: 1
      When does Web 2.1 come out?

      It's been cheecked into svn for weeks.

      --
      OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
    3. Re:Web 2.0? by Firehed · · Score: 1

      Did the inline stupidity-checker get implemented as requested? I was hoping that would have made it in by Web 1.5, but no joy.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    4. Re:Web 2.0? by risk+one · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm still holding out for Web 2.11 for Workgroups.

    5. Re:Web 2.0? by AWhiteFlame · · Score: 1

      As soon as people forget the web 1.0 bubble and the web 2.0 bubble again.

      --
      "Everything worth innovating today will go to court tomorrow."
    6. Re:Web 2.0? by kchrist · · Score: 1

      You're about a year late. Web 2.1 was in October of last year. Web 2.2 is happening in just a few days.

      --
      Web consulting +
  11. Yes, but... by andrewman327 · · Score: 1

    What good do all of these tools do if we cannot protect the mechanisms of voting? Transparency is a good thing, but it only goes so far. I do not understand why so many places are moving to electronic machines after decades of success with other devices. (I am personally a big fan of mechanical lever machines.)

    --
    Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
    1. Re:Yes, but... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Electonic machines are supposed to reduce the human element in deciding if a ballot chad was hanging, loose and/or pregnant. The only thing we have to work about is the machine was hacked and/or tilted to Republican.

  12. This story is a follow-up to last year's... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    How the Blink Tag Can End the Two-Party Duopoly.

  13. Web 2.0 Saving Democracy? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    After 236 years of elections, both fair and foul, we need Web 2.0 to save deomcracy?! Sounds like a bunch of soon-to-be unemployed Republican policy wonks looking for a new angle to sell their snake oil.

    1. Re:Web 2.0 Saving Democracy? by k_187 · · Score: 1

      nah, wouldn't they just clog the tubes or something and prevent this from working?

      --
      11 was a racehorse
      12 was 12
      1111 Race
      12112
    2. Re:Web 2.0 Saving Democracy? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      No, no, no. If democracy is failing, it's because we have a two-party system that's more interested in what goes on in the Beltway and whatever the talking heads are preaching that day. I very much doubt that Web 2.0 will change that for the better. After tomorrow, I expect quite a few Republican policy wonks to be out of the job. Does it really matter that I'm a moderate Republican from California?

    3. Re:Web 2.0 Saving Democracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this modded down? It's 100% true. No one was complaining about democracy being dead until Republicans gained control of Congress and the White House. Suddenly every intellectual in the world started talking about how "democracy was dead in America".

      It isn't. It's alive and well. People vote Republican because, here's a shocking concept, THEY AGREE WITH THEM! If you look at a map of the United States, you'll notice that most of America is represented by Republicans. That's exactly how the system is supposed to work.

      Democracy (in the new-aged meaning of a constitutional representative republic) is not dead in America. Most people support the Republicans, so they're currently in power. No matter what the so-called "intellectuals" think, Americans as a whole mostly vote Republican. That may change on Tuesday (I'd hope not or then America will be in serious trouble), but that's the way it's supposed to work. No matter what the left-wing thinkers that dominate "intellectuals" want us to believe.

    4. Re:Web 2.0 Saving Democracy? by ElGameR · · Score: 1

      After 236 years of elections, both fair and foul, we need Web 2.0 to save deomcracy?! Sounds like a bunch of soon-to-be unemployed Democrat policy wonks looking for a new angle to sell their snake oil.

    5. Re:Web 2.0 Saving Democracy? by DragonWriter · · Score: 1
      After 236 years of elections, both fair and foul, we need Web 2.0 to save deomcracy?!


      Its an arms race. A lot of the threats to effective democracy are enhanced or enabled by technology (fine-grained political gerrymandering, targetted misinformation and push-polling, astroturfing in every medium known to mankind, etc.) So, yes, those interested in preserving democracy rather than allowing a narrow elite to run the government by control of information and elections need to make effective use of technology, as well.

      Its like, at the beginning of the age of gunpowder, complaining that swords and bows have been adequate to defend a nation for several hundred years, so of course there is no need to use cannons and guns. Sure, its not important, unless you want to win.
    6. Re:Web 2.0 Saving Democracy? by doom · · Score: 1
      Anonymous Coward wrote:
      Why is this modded down? It's 100% true. No one was complaining about democracy being dead until Republicans gained control of Congress and the White House. Suddenly every intellectual in the world started talking about how "democracy was dead in America".

      Actually, anonymous, we're worried that "democracy is dead" because the Republicans have got electoral corruption down to a fine art, and the media can't be bothered to notice.

      One of the reasons I'm going to be voting Democratic tomorrow is that I'm hoping that we can get a big enough Democratic vote to overwhelm the Republican corruption machine in enough places to begin instituting real electoral reform.

      On the off chance that you or anyone reading this is a sincere Republican voter: please look at the bastards that have taken over your party really closely. Your team ain't your team any more: they're taken you for a ride, and taking the rest of the country down the tubes with them.

      People vote Republican because, here's a shocking concept, THEY AGREE WITH THEM!

      Actually, this isn't true. Even if you're convinced that the 2004 election was a legitmate win, it's still not true: post election polling showed that the people who voted Republican then were amazingly ignorant of the stated positions of the Bush regime. Just one example: if you asked them if Bush supported the Kyoto accord on global warming, they would say "yes".

      That isn't a mandate: that's an electorate being kept in the dark by a fundamentally broken news media.

  14. Easily rigged machines by QuickFox · · Score: 1

    How can Web 2.0 change the fact that lots of votes go through easily rigged voting machines?

    --
    Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
    1. Re:Easily rigged machines by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      I dont know how to answer about the rigging and all, but my machine says 52% republican.

      --
    2. Re:Easily rigged machines by thule · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it just goes to show you that you should say home. Do not vote.

  15. Web 1.0 can do that by everphilski · · Score: 1

    ... web 2.0 just makes it prettier...

    1. Re:Web 1.0 can do that by kfg · · Score: 1

      . . .while providing the illusion of participation. How apropos.

      KFG

  16. Other Features of Web 2.0 Include: by KermodeBear · · Score: 2, Funny

    * Solve world hunger
    * Cure cancer
    * Revive the dead
    * Talk to God
    * End poverty
    * Find your soul mate
    * Kill Chuck Norris

    What else am I missing? Help me out, people!

    --
    Love sees no species.
    1. Re:Other Features of Web 2.0 Include: by fritzk3 · · Score: 1

      You forgot: * Building the $100 laptop * Stopping global warming * Fixing the hole in the ozone layer * Stopping Slashdot dupes

      --
      All your sig are belong to us.
    2. Re:Other Features of Web 2.0 Include: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      * Post insightful stories on Slashdot
      * Get you laid
      * Clean your mom's basement

      err wait a minute ...

    3. Re:Other Features of Web 2.0 Include: by kfg · · Score: 1

      Only if you synergize it with hemp.

      KFG

    4. Re:Other Features of Web 2.0 Include: by Sigg3.net · · Score: 0

      The first thing Web 2.0 did when it became sentient was to locate Elvis.
      He sent his regards. By an XSS contact form.
      Then it sentenced mankind to death.

      --
      Defining Statistics and Social Research
    5. Re:Other Features of Web 2.0 Include: by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 1

      Web 2.0 - it solves the halting problem! It violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics! It makes your tea and washes the dog! It's a floor wax and a dessert topping! Web 2.0 will not pollute your precious bodily fluids!

      --
      "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
    6. Re:Other Features of Web 2.0 Include: by refriedchicken · · Score: 1

      pr0n and lots of it...

  17. No laws against missleading web pages... by Kenja · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The real good news is that the web gets around all those pesky laws stopping you from telling lies about the political subjects or canidates you dont like.

    In fact, there's nothing stopping me from saying things like Mesure A (a public transit initiative where I am) will kill babies, and all who support it will feast on the baby meat!

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:No laws against missleading web pages... by clang_jangle · · Score: 1
      n fact, there's nothing stopping me from saying things like Mesure A (a public transit initiative where I am) will kill babies, and all who support it will feast on the baby meat!


      How dare you impugn the integrity of a small but vital minority of this fine nation by attempting to link us to public transportation schemes.

      Baby-eaters have feelings too, you insensitive clod!
      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    2. Re:No laws against missleading web pages... by mrdogi · · Score: 1

      Mr. Swift, is that you...?

  18. I disagree in part by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 1

    The main inhibitor to the efficiency of democracy (at least in the U.S.) is not -- you're correct -- a lack of information. It's the outdated system by which information is *legitimated.

    That system, which in a nutshell is "media conglomerates tell the unwashed masses what is true" can and will be outdated by decentralized tools. I don't think mySpace is going to save the proletariat, but the fact is that empowerment-in-general grew with the free flow of information, and it will grow again with reliable, objective (and egalitarian!) ways of sorting the good information from the bad.

    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
    1. Re:I disagree in part by Control+Group · · Score: 1

      It's already been outdated by centralized tools. By pretty much any metric, news is better on the internet than on TV/radio (wider variety of sources to help counteract bias, more details for each item of interest, greater availability of primary sources, greater availability of raw data, greater variety of topics available, etc). But that doesn't mean that it has taken over for traditional media in the general population, because it require more work to go get the information than it does to be told the information.

      That's a fight against laziness, and that's a fight that, if it even can be won, won't be won for quite some time.

      --

      Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
    2. Re:I disagree in part by Control+Group · · Score: 1

      Gah

      "outdated by centralized tools" should be "outdated by decentralized tools."

      Nothing like typos that completely invert the intent of what you wrote. Sorry, and all that.

      --

      Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
    3. Re:I disagree in part by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Er, "Internet news is better than TV news" isn't evidence that TV news is "outdated". By the criteria you use, TV news was never better than newspapers, anyway. The only advantage TV news has ever had is that its easier for lazy people to passively access. Heck, the studies I've seen have always shown that, all other things being equal, watching more TV news produces, on average, less knowledge of current events, so in one sense TV news has always had negative utility as a mechanism for spreading true information about current events.

  19. You had me, up till by everphilski · · Score: 1

    Stopping Slashdot Dupes

  20. Save Democracy, or save Fake Democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Representational democracy, what we have here in America, is a sham, a farce, and not a true democracy. Its food, in the way jello is food. Fake food, the illusion of food without the substance or nutrition. Being able to vote every four years, for people who you have no clue what they stand for on the local level, to represent your ideas, is a total farce.

    For true democracy, people should have the opportunity to directly participate in government and vote on individual laws which they must live under. I can't ever remember ever having the opportunity to vote on any law, most of which have been passed by people who are now long since dead.

    ANARCHY TV debutted yesterday, on Guy Fawkes Day. Check it out!
    http://anarchy.shellprompt.com/

    1. Re:Save Democracy, or save Fake Democracy by QuickFox · · Score: 1

      No, the direct democracy that you describe is worse. It means only activists with lots of free time get a say. People who are always busy and tired get very little influence. Being always busy and tired is more common among the poor than among the rich, so the poor get vastly underrepresented.

      What you need is politicians who are regular people, close to the rest of the people; media that first and foremost scrutinize everything the politicians do, well aware that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance; and a people who are aware enough to buy such media.

      --
      Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
    2. Re:Save Democracy, or save Fake Democracy by kinglink · · Score: 1

      Apparently you don't vote. There's many referendums every year, and I'm sure there's still a lot for your personal state, city, district.

      If you don't vote don't complain, if you don't know the issues you vote on, don't complain, but you've had the opportunity even if you didn't know. The fact you know nothing about the voting process isn't an excuse.

      While this is representational democracy for the most part, you don't vote once every four years, if you actually care you vote EVERY YEAR! If you belong to a party you vote in primaries. It's not even hard to know when a vote is. Most voting boards send out information talking about upcoming votes, maybe it's time you actually got involved, rather then complaining about it.

    3. Re:Save Democracy, or save Fake Democracy by hswerdfe · · Score: 1

      This might interest you :
      Direct Democracy by Delegable Proxy.

      The technology to do it and make sure it is secure is years away, but it is a very cool idea.

      --
      --meh--
    4. Re:Save Democracy, or save Fake Democracy by hswerdfe · · Score: 1

      I think you misunderstand Direct Democracy. Or at least its meaning in popular reform circles.

      generally the idea is that
      Citizens have the right to overrule, and initiate laws.

      ie

      Should the Government be given a petition signed by X% of the citizens and meeting criteria A, B, and C. The Government *MUST* bring forth a bill for a vote in the house within Time T on the subject of the petition.

      Should the Government be given a petition signed by X% of the citizens and meeting criteria A, B, and C, regarding a law passed by the government. The government *MUST* within Time T hold a referendum on the subject.

      something like that

      --
      --meh--
    5. Re:Save Democracy, or save Fake Democracy by QuickFox · · Score: 1

      Indeed I wasn't aware of that definition. Interesting. Thanks.

      It seems to me unfortunate that the same term "direct democracy" is used for two radically different systems. What you describe seems to me a representative democracy with strong referendum rules. There should be separate terms for this system, and for the other meaning of "direct democracy", a system where everything is decided by referendum.

      --
      Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
    6. Re:Save Democracy, or save Fake Democracy by hswerdfe · · Score: 1

      It can also mean direct democracy, like literally direct (all power goes directly to the people), which is very much unworkable in groups larger then a dozen or so.

      But most people who I talk about it with refer to that
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy
      there is usually lots of talk about "town halls", and "public consultation" and what not.

      Now but to defend the two terms as being somthing simmilar. They both start by recognizing that the "sovereignty" of a nation is in "the citizens" of the country. not in the head of state, or the various levels of governements.
      One would put all power directly in "the citizens" hands, the other would modify the current sytsem of power to recognize this fact.

      --
      --meh--
  21. "Election day"... of what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the benefits of foreigners, can someone elaborate on this "election day"? Why can't Slashdot or Wired name it? Something like "November 7 is the **** election". What is at stake exactly?

  22. too late by yoth · · Score: 0

    i heard that W already knows about the internets.

  23. my wish for election 2006 by Speare · · Score: 1

    My one major wish for this election is for the mainstream press to give some breakdown numbers that show precinct-by-precinct-by-ballot-type totals. Does Diebold seem as party-neutral as other electronic tally machines? Do paper-trailed machines disagree strongly with pull-lever machine totals? Does optical scan seem to lean to the Preservatives? Does punchcard seem to go to the Libertines?

    Even if everything looks mostly kosher with regards to the final vote totals, it would plant the seed that shows that it's not just what you vote, it's who counts your vote.

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
    1. Re:my wish for election 2006 by balsy2001 · · Score: 1

      My wish for the 2006 election is that "None of the above" be implemented on the ballot. Then if say 30% of the people vote none of the above we have a new election.

      --
      GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
    2. Re:my wish for election 2006 by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      How about the press staying out of the election all together?
      No more opinion pieces, no more endorsing candidates, and NO MORE POLLS.
      They just publish what the candidates say?

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    3. Re:my wish for election 2006 by Dionysus · · Score: 1
      They just publish what the candidates say?

      Like,
      Candidate R: My opponent supports terrorism and hate America!
      Candidate D: My opponent is a fascist and hate America!
      --
      Je ne parle pas francais.
    4. Re:my wish for election 2006 by oojah · · Score: 1

      ... with none of the previous candidates being allowed to stand again.

      (I'm from Britain, not the US)

      Cheers,

      Roger

      --
      Do you have any better hostages?
    5. Re:my wish for election 2006 by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1
      My wish for the 2006 election is that "None of the above" be implemented on the ballot.
      That's who I voted for in my state's Senate election. A lot better than the other guys running.
    6. Re:my wish for election 2006 by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      I think you misunderstood what he said. He wants a change, not exactly what already happens.

    7. Re:my wish for election 2006 by businessnerd · · Score: 1

      This information would be interesting, but there are too many variables involved to make any kind of conclusions about which voting methods actually lean in any particular way. The problem is that the various types of voting methods are not evenly distributed among all states and districts. For instance, the district that I am currently registered in is a very republican district, yet it is in a consistently blue state. This district, to the best of my knowledge, has usually had "cutting edge" voting booths. My first memories were mechanical lever, and by the time I was in Jr. High, they had electronic machines that were essentially a white board with a light next to the candidate you voted for (last i voted in a booth, this was still in use, although I've been voting absentee for the past four years. Tomorrow will be my first time in a booth in some time, so we'll see what I get). So someone looking at my district would be able to say that "District X" uses electronic machines and leans to the right, with an overwhelming number of "straight" ballots. There must be a defect! Well no, it just turns out that the voters in District X are all C-level execs for major multi-national corporations who have always voted republican in every election since becoming rich and moving to the area (which is the true case).

      --
      "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how drunk you get." -- H. J. Simpson
    8. Re:my wish for election 2006 by 0racle · · Score: 1

      Who cares. The popular vote is just that, a popularity contest. Your vote doesn't mean anything.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    9. Re:my wish for election 2006 by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Yes because what we have now is the candidates getting other people to say those things for them!

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  24. Better Democracy with instant runoff elections by openright · · Score: 1

    Web information and discussion can help people be informed,
    but with a stale two party system, people mostly vote for "the lesser of two evils".

    Only with some kind of runoff voting system will there be results more true to the public choice.

    "Instant runoff" means that you that you can have some backup choices in case your first choice fails.

    There are some different ways to do instant runoff,
    but they are all more democratic than the dual party system in place now.

    1. Re:Better Democracy with instant runoff elections by jordanhh · · Score: 1

      unfortunately you fall victim to one of the classic blunders...sorry wrong movie anyway the problem with what you're saying is that you view the public as having a single feeling of what is in their interest and that democracy can every adequately represent this public interest. Unfortunately that's impossible, Kenneth Arrow, won a nobel prize for stating essentially that no method of aggregation can come up with a completely fair estimate of the public interest. In large part because of cycling ala one person likes a>b>c another b>c>a and a third c>a>b in this sort of scenario there is no such thing as a condercet winner(one that beats all the others) because B beats C, A beats B and C beats A. in reality no method including instant runoffs is completely fair they just bring about a different winner without improving the overall "fairness" level additional arguments can be made because of strategic voting where individuals purposely misrepresent their vote in order to avoid their worst outcome.

    2. Re:Better Democracy with instant runoff elections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be assuming that the choice of the public is arbitrary or random. I would agree that in that case, fairness is not improved. But in that case, any election results are arbitrary.

      There is not a single feeling of the public. But there are often feelings shared by large groups.

      For actual election fairness/satisfaction measurments, I suppose one could poll existing systems with runoff or instant-runoff systems and compare public election satisfaction.

      I can offer an example:

      Say you have three people running for office: A. Bush, B. Gore, C. McCain. (Names just for example)

      35 percent of people (Group L) have this opinion:
        A - Strongly not desired (slashot - line too short) (slashot - line too short)
        B - Desired (slashot - line too short) (slashot - line too short)
        C - Acceptable (slashot - line too short) (slashot - line too short)

      35 percent of people (Group R) have this opinion:
        A - Desired (slashot - line too short) (slashot - line too short)
        B - Strongly not desired (slashot - line too short) (slashot - line too short)
        C - Acceptable (slashot - line too short) (slashot - line too short)

      12 percent of peple (Group IL) have this opinion
        A - Not Desired (slashot - line too short) (slashot - line too short)
        B - Acceptible (slashot - line too short) (slashot - line too short)
        C - Desired (slashot - line too short) (slashot - line too short)

      12 percent of peple (Group IR) have this opinion
        A - Acceptible (slashot - line too short) (slashot - line too short)
        B - Not Desired (slashot - line too short) (slashot - line too short)
        C - Desired (slashot - line too sh (slashot - line too short)ort)

      6 percent are outside these groups

      If A wins:
        47% are satisfied or more than satified. (slashot - line too short) (slashot - line too short)
        47% are not satified or deeply dissatisfied. (slashot - line too short) (slashot - line too short)
        6% are indifferent or have another opinion (slashot - line too short) (slashot - line too short)

      If B wins:
        47% are satisfied or more than satified. (slashot - line too short) (slashot - line too short)
        47% are not satified or deeply dissatisfied. (slashot - line too short) (slashot - line too short)
        6% are indifferent or have another opinion (slashot - line too short) (slashot - line too short)

      If C wins:
        94% are satisfied or more than satified. (slashot - line too short) (slashot - line too short)
        6% are indifferent or have another opinion (slashot - line too short) (slashot - line too short)

      In a two party system,
      The people that wanted C, see from the polls that C can only get 24%, so they vote for A or B instead.
      Then A or B wins and is possibly divisive and possibly unpopular.

      In an instant runoff system:

      The votes are like:

      Group L:
        B or C (slashot - line too short) (slashot - line too short)

      Group R:
        A or C (slashot - line too short) (slashot - line too short)

      Group IL: (slashot - line too short)
        C or A (slashot - line too short) (slashot - line too short) (slashot - line too short)

      Group IR: (slashot - line too short) (slashot - line too short) (slashot - line too short)
        C or B (slashot - line too short) (slashot - line too short) (slashot - line too short)

      First choice results:
        A - 35 (slashot - line too short) (slashot - line too short)
        B - 35 (slashot - line too short) (slashot - line too short)
        C - 24 (slashot - line too short) (slashot - line too short)

      First and second choice results:
        A - 47 (slashot - line too short) (slashot - line too short)
        B - 47 (slashot - line too short) (slashot - line too short)
        C - 94 (slashot - line too short) (slashot - line too short)

      C wins and is generally accepted.

    3. Re:Better Democracy with instant runoff elections by hswerdfe · · Score: 1

      I believe he limited his statement to elections with
        * more then 2 choices
      AND
        * more than 1 voter

      and in the US you only have "2 choices" Therefor you elections are fair!
      QED.

      any way, all joking aside look into Direct Democracy by Delegable Proxy its a very cool idea, from a theoretical view.

      --
      --meh--
  25. Yeah yeah yeah except it really doesn't matter by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    Not until you get your electoral system fixed first.

    e.g.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_represen tation

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:Yeah yeah yeah except it really doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No matter how electoral system you will choose, all of them are more or less broken.

      A common error is to think that voting will decide the future of our country for X years. Except it you vote for an extreme-(right/left)wing (candidate/party), that's mainly false.

      Elections are only the visible part of the political iceberg. Those who make the real decisions are individuals, groups and companies which most of them are not elected. If you really want to do something about those f..ing decisions, you have to play the game, start lobbying and gain some influence over them. You need lots of time, money and, depending about what's you're lobbying for and aginst, be prepared fo face many kind of threats (even in a "Democratic" country like USA). And above all, you can't do that by yourself alone.

      This is the only way to get things done, accept it. Elections are nothing but a small tool which make most people think that they can decide what's best for their country.

    2. Re:Yeah yeah yeah except it really doesn't matter by hswerdfe · · Score: 1

      I agree almost entirely.
      But, is it not also an option to Limit the power of these hidden groups with "Funding laws", "Bribery laws", "lobbying laws", "an Independent auditor general", "Arms length Taxpayers owned Mass Media corporations", "Freedom of Information Laws"?

      --
      --meh--
  26. If it's in Wired, you know it's crap. by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    Good rule of thumb for anyone who invests in or works with technology:
    If it's in "Wired", you know it's crap.

  27. Realize this: Democracy is wrong by TonyXL · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Democracy is the most vile form of government... democracies have ever
    been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found
    incompatible with personal security or the rights of property:
    and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent
    in their deaths.
    -James Madison

    That is why our country was founded as a Constitutional Republic where FREEDOM, not democracy, was the ideal. Unfortunately, we are drifting away from freedom towards democracy, which has given us a bigger, more instrusive, and more corrupt federal government.

    1. Re:Realize this: Democracy is wrong by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      If 50% + 1 person votes to kill an ethnic group, guess what happens in a democracy?

      Wow, the rights of the minority are nonexistent. Better hope you don't end up in that minority.

      --
    2. Re:Realize this: Democracy is wrong by smoker2 · · Score: 1
      If 50% + 1 person votes to kill an ethnic group, guess what happens in a democracy?
      Even worse, if there is only a 60% turnout and the winners get 40% then we have government by 24% of the electorate.

      Yes, that means you TB.

      Bring on proportional representation ...

    3. Re:Realize this: Democracy is wrong by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but apathy is no excuse.

      I see people that dont vote as happy with the majority decision. If they wern't happy, they'd vote.

      --
    4. Re:Realize this: Democracy is wrong by kfg · · Score: 1

      Bring on proportional representation ...

      The framers were familiar with proportional representation. That's why they rejected it along with pure democracy.

      KFG

    5. Re:Realize this: Democracy is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This premise is right-on!

      Our system as originally designed is to balance everyone's rights and prevent any part of the country from dominating any other. Let's recap the original design and the reason for the choices for each of the components:

      1. House of Representitives - Elected by majority vote of citizens to short terms. Representation directly proportional to population.
      Goal: to reflect the will of a majority of the People at all times.
      Power: May introduce general legislation. Only place budgetary laws may be introduced for vote.
      Term: 2 years.

      2. Senate - Appointed by state legislatures to represent states. Representation equal for each state.
      Goal: Add a balance to House's reflection of sometimes fickle and uninformed public, and to prevent large states from imposing their will upon the smaller ones. A good analogy is that it's a "speed brake" on democracy to ensure that anything passed is REALLY a good idea and not just a momentary emotional response to some event or moment of regional passions.
      Power: May introduce general legislation.
      Term: 6 years.

      NOTE: House and Senate must both approve any legislation before it may be sent to the President.

      3. President - Elected by states to head the government's executive functions. Each state has votes equalling number of Representitives plus number of Senators. Minimum of 3, no maximum.
      Goal: A blend between House and Senate goals. A President should normally be acceptable to both large, populous areas and small, rural ones.
      Power: May veto acts of Congress (which may be overridden with 2/3 of both House & Senate), General Executive duties, and may issue Pardons to overrule the courts.
      Term: 4 years.

      4. Courts (Judges) - Appointed for life by President with approval of Senate.
      Goal: To be independent of politics and to be totally fair in the execution of their office.
      Power: To judge and rule on disputes and crimes. Took on power to also overrule laws for reasons of a conflict with Constitution.
      Term: Life ("Under Good Behavior" -- not convicted of a crime).

      The reason for this balancing act is that a straight democracy is nothing more than mob rule. The system was designed to balance the rights and powers of all the stakeholders, majority and minority, big and small, urban and rural. It's design is to give the "little guy" a "bigger voice".

      In a large country, the last thing you need is a straight democracy or straight proportional representation. It's a recipe for a few urban centers (think L.A., New York City, etc.) to push an agenda that is absolutely unacceptable to people living in some small farm town in the middle of Nebraska. The net result of such a system will eventually be a really nasty civil war due to resentment of being "bullied".

      For example, in a directly proportional democracy, the Congress could pass a law supported by 90% of the polpulace of the large urban areas and opposed by 90% of rural areas that required all farmers to provide food at no charge under threat of execution. Conversely, in a totally non-proportional system, all the rural areas could "gang up" on the urban areas and pass laws requiring that food prices be set to extremely high levels.

      Changes:

      The biggest change to the basic system was the 17th Amendment that caused Senators to be directly elected by the populace of their states rather than representing the Government of their state. It can be argued that it changed the nature of the Senate from a very slow and deliberate body to being "just another House of Representitives". Conversely, it may be argued that it caused the Senate to be more responsive to the will of the people at large.

      Shortcomings:
      The original structure did have some shortcomings that were a "sign of the times" and which have been eliminated over the years (elimination of slavery, grant of universal suffrage, vague Presidential succession order, and method of electing President / Vice President being the biggest ones).

  28. lozers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great, Web 2.o saving Election 0.o. Lozers

      http://lyricslist.com/lyrics/artist_albums/19/adam s_bryan.php/

  29. How the Web Polarized Politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From a Q&A CIO Insight published with web content expert Gerry McGovern: "It's easy to get carried away with this Wired magazine view of 'All You Need is Web 2.0,' but in some ways the very technology that is meant to solve problems merely makes people more emotional---not more reasonable. We ultimately do a disservice to society by creating this euphoria about what technology can really deliver." The full piece can be found at: http://www.cioinsight.com/article2/0,1540,2052119, 00.asp

  30. Why save democracy? by mulhollandj · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Democracy is just tyranny of the majority. A 51% vote by the people still doesn't give them moral authority to take my land. Government only has power which people give it and people can only give power which they themselves hold. This includes defense of life, liberty, property, and little else.

    1. Re:Why save democracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, but democracy is the least bad political system we know of.

  31. Mmmmmm... Web 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there anything it can't do?

  32. Vote NO! to Web 2.0! by RingDev · · Score: 1

    Web 2.0 is not on our side! Look at Web 2.0's track record:

    Web 2.0 has done nothing to protect the environment. Under Web 2.0's watch our harmful green house gas emissions have INCREASED!

    Web 2.0 has never prosecuted violent offenders!

    Web 2.0 failed to vote for a resolution that would put child molesters behind bars!

    Web 2.0 funnels millions of dollars through thousands of corporations and special interest groups. There have even been ties to Phillip Morris (big tabacco)!

    Web 2.0 stood by doing nothing while America went to war!

    Gotta love the campaign season commercials.

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
  33. More distraction by NineNine · · Score: 1

    Eh. Voting machines are just another distraction from the real problem: democracy is dead in the US. There are only two parties even allowed to be on the ballot in most states, and many states even throw away write-in votes. At this point, it's like voting for Coke or Pepsi. There is no real choice, but people like to think that they have a real choice to make a real difference. It's 100% bullshit. The Democrats and Republicans are just playing good cop/bad cop. They're both happy as long as they can have half of the power and money, and the people are contented enough to think that they actually have a choice.

    1. Re:More distraction by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      And if you don't live in a swing state, you don't actually even get to choose between D or R. You can thank the Electoral College for that.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  34. If you want election advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just take it from parties with a vested intrest :

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3324310, 00.html

    They basically say that you get the choice of where to fight islam's jihad : in iraq ... or ... in america. Right now tens of thousands of terrorists try to blow up well-armed and well-prepared soldiers in iraq, funded by billions of oil money from saoudi arabia (sunni) and iran (shia), they could shift their focus to the united states if there is no more reason to fight in iraq.

    So do you stay, or retreat ?

    Just remember one simple thing : why do people fight ? Because they think they can win through pure violence. The US can actually win, the terrorists cannot, and while they attack iraq tens of other muslim countries are being liberated because these assholes are leaving. If america stays in iraq it will be next to worshipped for 20-30 years or longer when the country stabilizes (see south korea, see europe, see ...). If america leaves, it will be demonized and attacked by tens of others. Every defeat will prolong the war for at least 10 years. And no, they can't win. But they can do a lot of damage before they lose.

    So which is it ?

    (and this is a political discussion and I will be villified anyway so I'm posting anonymous)

  35. UtahDebate.org by mulhollandj · · Score: 1

    I setup UtahDebate.org in order to allow candidates to run without a lot of money and still get their message across. People don't need to spend millions of dollars on campaigns and therefore do not need to take 'loans' from special interest groups to run. All of these other laws really just interfere with free speech and make it harder for candidates from smaller parties to run.

  36. will the majority care about web 2.0? by yoth · · Score: 0

    i hate to seem this cynical, but how informed are most voters? Are the majority of voters web-savvy? To really be effective, someone will have to take the information out there in web 2.0 and figure out what and how to mass-communicate this information.

  37. Whatever by styryx · · Score: 1

    Who cares about Web 2.0 saving democracy...

    I can't wait for the pr0n on web3d!

    NB: Web3D is being copyrighted by me, right now, you all saw it!!

  38. Web 2.0 can stop Global Warming! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How, do you ask? Easy: All the Web 2.0 'evangelists' shut up and stop blowing hot air into the atmosphere.

  39. What pesky laws? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm guessing from your sig, you might not much too much TV, but I do. Here in Bucks County, the ads are almost universally trash from all parties. They all find clever ways to wrap the candidates and positions in families and flags and find clever ways to frame the opposing candidate or position as supporting child rape. Even the guy I'm voting for runs trash ads. They work. The pinhead electorate buys it. No law will eliminate the scumminess of politics. Only the electorate can do that. And they are clearly part of the problem.

    I'd hate to think what our Wild West internet will look like with all these fine folks to make more great laws for us to obey. Committees to approve our web pages and such. Then the web might be as clean as TV or print media.

    1. Re:What pesky laws? by The+Great+Pretender · · Score: 1

      Give them all the same amount of cash to campaign with, give them 6 weeks only to campaign. I'm tired of watching the millions disappear into trash ads 12 months before the vote.

      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
    2. Re:What pesky laws? by feepness · · Score: 1

      Even the guy I'm voting for runs trash ads. They work. The pinhead electorate buys it.

      Yes, yes they do.

  40. Bullshit by MikeRT · · Score: 1

    We still have districts, which are arbitrary geographic regions often with little common interests. They're chopped up based on population, nothing more. That's how we have all of these little fiefdoms. The ultimate blow to incumbents would be when like-minded people could vote for any candidate in the state who represents them. When I lived in Virginia's 6th district, we had Congressman Goodlatte, the guy who drafted the gambling ban. The SOB did NOT represent me as a libertarian, conservative Christian or software developer, nor did he in practice represent most of his district. He was so unchallenged due to the fact that voters in his district could only choose him, rather than choose a better Virginia Republican or anyone else. I'd have voted for Wolf, the Republican up here in Northern Virginia over Goodlatte any day if given the chance! So yes, we still have districts, still have usually only two "real choices" and we are to believe that "democracy is being saved." Bah. Few people really want to "save democracy." The changes are too extreme and most people in this country wouldn't understand them. Try getting one of those retards who couldn't handle the Florida ballots with their super-advanced hole punching mechanism to understand that they can now vote for any candidate in the entire state that they like. These are the people who can't understand the proper usage of a hole puncher. A friggin hole puncher! I'm sorry, I forgot. If you want to "save democracy," than add "disenfranchise the 'demagogue bait' voters" to the short list of things that must be done.

  41. Wording matters by benhocking · · Score: 1
    require candidates to complete a simple YEA/NAY survey on the issues

    Sounds good, until you ask the question: who gets to write the survey that states the issues? How the question is asked can make quite a difference. Choosing which questions to ask also makes a difference. For example, I've seen very few politicians state their position on any environmental issue. I don't recall seeing any of the politicians I'm voting for in this election make any environmental statements. Maybe each party on the ticket could submit a list of n "issues" worded the way they choose to word it, and each politician needs to vote yea/nay/pass on every issue. In such a case, however, 3rd (or nth) party candidates might have a bigger impact. IMO, that's a Good Thing.

    So, basically, I guess it still sounds good to me.

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
    1. Re:Wording matters by maxume · · Score: 1

      All you would have to do is require that they be honest!

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:Wording matters by diersing · · Score: 1
      Who would write it? Lawyers of course, most politicians are lawyers and know how to make an issue statement without taking a stance, only another lawyer could compose a question in such a way to make a candidate pick a side. These could be used to 'score' our politicians to see how often they stray from their declared position. Of course this would have to coupled with that add-on bills - for example, a law comes to vote that would require all sex offenders to register and make tracking online available so we can lookup who's living in our neighborhoods - what politician would vote against it and stand with child molesters right? But at the last minute someone tags on a huge spending bill that will fund additional big oil breaks and further suppress alternative energy research (or something else unrelated to the spirit/nature of the bill that otherwise wouldn't pass). This happens far more then we care to know about, but that single YEA vote suddenly counts for being for two different (and possibly opposing) stances.

      Its not a mature idea, but a Voter Information Packet is something that is long overdue IMHO. An independent identical survey seems like it would work, of course it may also point out how often the candidates agree and further merge to two parties as they fight for mainstream/center votes. Damn I wish there was a Center Party that combined the conservative financial ideals with the liberal social conscience.

    3. Re:Wording matters by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 1
      You could slap together Voter Information Packets until all of the world's trees committed suicide in an act of preemptive capitulation and it would not matter, because people in general will not take the time to read any of it, and even if they do they will not understand the bulk of what is written because they do not have the necessary fundamental understanding of even half the issues that pass in front of your average legislator.


      From the example you give I assume you'd be overjoyed to give pedophiles unfettered access to the underpants of our children just because you don't want to see oil companies given competitive edge they need to keep more jobs and more wealth right here in the USA? You aren;t happy with just mentally deranging our kids, you want us all to lose our jobs and have to go on the state dole as well?

      You print up your info packets and hope people read them. I'll slap the above paragraph on a billboard next to a major commuter artery. People want sensational marketing. They want one sentence, preferably one word, answers to everything. Freedom. Terror. Islamofacist. Children. We are conditioned to digest our information in tiny little bites. We no longer have the stomach for critical thinking.

      If you want a single solution, and I know everyone does, eliminate the television entirely. Tear down every TV broadcast tower, rip out every inch of coax, laser blast the satellites from the sky. That would do more than any packets of any kind.

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    4. Re:Wording matters by diersing · · Score: 1
      My example was aimed at drawing an illustration where unrelated bills are attached to easily passable legislation. From your examples I assume you'd prefer to live in Oceania? War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength. Catchy aren't they?

      I don't want the world boiled down to single word marketing, but I think any candidate could look at survey of are you Pro-Life or Pro-Choice and be able to check a box. Are you for or against gun control? Are you for or against forgiving third-world debt? I realize not every issue can be boiled down to a single question, but there are certainly enough that would paint a picture of where a candidate stands on issues the voters do care about. Honestly, what percentage of political ads have you personally read/seen/heard that attacked their opponent rather then promote themselves?

      About big oil keeping wealth right here in the US. There are 5 'major' oil companies - ExxonMobile, Chevron Texaco, BP, Royal Dutch Petroleum, and Total S.A. - only 2 are US companies so the wealth (especially considering the Saudi's royal families and other Arab sources which don't release earnings to the public) is not as centralized as you may believe.

  42. what a huge amount of BS. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    typically there is less than 50% turnout on elections of the REGISTERED voters in an area. of that percentage the majority are old people that dont care about what is online or how a blog talks about something.

    I.E. it's all you young people's fault the system is as screwed up as it is! if you got your butt to the polls and voted on EVERY election the voter turnout would be higher, the young to incredibly old voter ratio would change and the 90+ year old undead that are maintaining seats in the senate and house would not be there.

    Want to make a change and "save democracy? get off your ASS! go vote! pick on and ridicule you co workers that are not voting, call friends and bug them until they vote. Being passive and not getting out there does exactly what they want you to do. be complacent, uncaring and lazy. They want you to let the 45+ be the only voting voice...

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:what a huge amount of BS. by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      voting this time around is a waste of time.

      voting machines are rigged. we all know that.

      I wish it wasn't true, but it surely is.

      bring back paper ballots and I'll go spend my time to vote. but as it is now, we're all being duped into THINKING our votes count.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:what a huge amount of BS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there was a huge wave of voter turnout then rigging it will not be easy to hide... everyone knows that the young and minority do not agree with anythign the current administration is doing. them winning in the face of a gigantic turnout will cause uproar and highlight that it is completely rigged. The old people of this world are the only ones that feel that the crackdown on rights makes them safer.... everyone else has finally said, "woah! wait a minute!" and even staunch republicans will be voting against republicans this time around.... if they win... it will be obvoius... if there is a giant turnout, not even fox news can ignore the rigging.

    3. Re:what a huge amount of BS. by hswerdfe · · Score: 1

      To the best of my knowledge Voting is a very small part of the power structures decision making process. perhaps it is a good idea to encourage participation and reform in all portions of the decision making process.

      --
      --meh--
  43. Web 2.0 (hate that buzzword): Why? by foamrotreturns · · Score: 1

    Why do so many people hate the idea of having an easy name for the concept of web pages that interact with the user? I don't see anyone else coming up with a better name. Yeah, let's stop calling it "Web 2.0" and move on to the oh-so-efficient "Interactive web pages built on AJAX, JSON, and other technological advancements." Give me a break, people. Unless you have coined a better term, stop whining.

    1. Re:Web 2.0 (hate that buzzword): Why? by painQuin · · Score: 1

      I shall call them wobsites.

      --
      A guilty conscience means at least you've got one.
    2. Re:Web 2.0 (hate that buzzword): Why? by doom · · Score: 1
      Why do so many people hate the idea of having an easy name for the concept of web pages that interact with the user? I don't see anyone else coming up with a better name. Yeah, let's stop calling it "Web 2.0" and move on to the oh-so-efficient "Interactive web pages built on AJAX, JSON, and other technological advancements." Give me a break, people. Unless you have coined a better term, stop whining.

      How about "database backed websites"? Or how about just "website", since more often than not they're database-backed?

      There's nothing in principle about transparency of political funding that requires it to be based on AJAX, dude. Great, so they're going to do something or other with google maps: who cares? What you need is a pretty simple app: "What's your zip code?"/"Okay, here's who bought the scum running to 'represent' you."

  44. Rename Web 2.0 by saintory · · Score: 1

    How about hyperevents since it really is an event happening outside the normal HTTP request-response cycle? I'll start a grassroots campaign and build a platform on it.

  45. The first step would not be technological by Sigg3.net · · Score: 0

    The first step in saving democracy would not be implementing new technologies, but getting people to actually vote -- preferably from a basis of knowledge rather than superficial slogans of the political pop industry.

    The truth is, democracy could work. It's a good idea. But if voter participation is not first priority, then let's face it; democracy will fail. It's as simple as 0wnage.
    At least in the original sense of Demos = (common) people.

    --
    Defining Statistics and Social Research
  46. out of curiosity... by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    why is the method of voting, the operation of government, only a problem when Republicans win?

    I mean, c'mon now, the old voting systems were nearly always rigged. It became so common place people joked about it. Government has ALWAYS been about who had the money.

    Ever since the Big Deal, when we started being more concerned having the government look after us, instead of us watching the government it does not matter who is in power. People are apathetic because they cannot see how they can do anything.

    Got to love it, my friend who teaches has been told to vote for specific people by her UNION. All of course not official but they do it anyway. It isn't that people who associate with one party that don't think for themselves its just that most people would rather blame a bad vote on someone else.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:out of curiosity... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      "why is the method of voting, the operation of government, only a problem when Republicans win?"

      Because recently, they seem to be the most egregious abusers of the public trust.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    2. Re:out of curiosity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Got to love it, my friend who teaches has been told to vote for specific people by her UNION."

      Yeah, I was told who to vote for my my BOSS. You know, the one who signs my paychecks and can FIRE ME. Oh, but I wasn't 'told', he said "Can you believe what Candidate X said/did? This guy is unbelieveable! How could any sane person vote for him?"

    3. Re:out of curiosity... by dangitman · · Score: 1
      Got to love it, my friend who teaches has been told to vote for specific people by her UNION.

      Well, that makes a lot more sense than being told who to vote for by God, or TV or talk radio hosts. After all, a union is usually pretty involved in issues that effect the members directly. Sure, they may be wrong a lot of the time, or even corrupt. But if you're not going to bother researching candidates directly, then wouldn't it be better to be told who to vote by someone who represents your employment than someone unrelated your wellbeing in the workplace? Most people seem rather concerned about their employment, in fact most people's lives revolve around their job.

      Of course, I think people should do research on their own, but in reality that doesn't happen very often.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    4. Re:out of curiosity... by doom · · Score: 1
      Shivetya (243324) wrote:
      why is the method of voting, the operation of government, only a problem when Republicans win?

      Well the simple explanation is that this just isn't true, however it is a popular form of smoke blown by Republican sock-puppets.

      The reason everyone is worried about the electoral system just now is that we all know that the forms of electronic voting machines that were pushed into use are horribly vulnerable to wholesale fraud... the fear is that it's not just a finger on the scale anymore, it could be that this is a two ton weight. You got it? This could be the death of the Republic, the end of democracy.

      The one hope is that they're not quite that good at rigging elections yet; the hope is that this election control of the House can be taken away from the bastards that have eaten the brain of the Republican party; and then after that we can try to get the "Paper Ballot Act" pushed through, and begin restoring some integrity to the process.

      This is an important election. It may be the last election.

  47. Midterms by benhocking · · Score: 1

    On years divisible by 2 but not by 4, we elect "midterms". Midterms are the office assistants that do the work that neither pages nor interns wish to do.

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
    1. Re:Midterms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the same years, the rest of us have a 'World Cup' which seems to be a much more popular form of competition

  48. Theoretically possible by benhocking · · Score: 1

    But highly improbable. Many political scientists have pointed out that in the real world, having enough people who prefer A to B to C, enough people who prefer B to C to A, and enough people who prefer C to A to B, means that the Condorcet method is perfectly viable. If you want to make it as good as the current system, just state that in the extremely unlikely scenario above, the one with the most first-place (or least last-place if you prefer) votes wins.

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
  49. Buzzwords by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hate buzzwords like Web 2.0. I can't wait until a Web 2.0 killer comes along. :P

  50. Have you told these people? by benhocking · · Score: 1

    You might want to let these people know...

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
  51. Go out and vote tomorrow by benhocking · · Score: 1

    If for no other reason than to help prove the election is rigged! Seriously, if the election is rigged, the more people who vote, the harder it will be to rig without getting caught.

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
  52. Depends on what you value by NEOtaku17 · · Score: 1

    I would have to disagree on that one. A Minarchist Republic would be the ideal form of government if you value Individual Freedom. Democracy is only the best if you value "equality" over liberty.

    --
    Creative Demolition
    1. Re:Depends on what you value by mulhollandj · · Score: 1

      Democracy or Communism? The US, along with the rest of the world, are quickly turning socialist. The 51% have realized that they can rob people through voting. Karl Marx said Socialism was the middle step from Capitalism to Communism.

  53. obligatory... by monkeyboythom · · Score: 1

    Oh...dear...God...no...

  54. Because lawyers write so clearly... by benhocking · · Score: 1
    Who would write it? Lawyers of course, most politicians are lawyers and know how to make an issue statement without taking a stance, only another lawyer could compose a question in such a way to make a candidate pick a side.

    See, the problem is you want it to be unbiased AND understandable by most voters! The only thing worse than having lawyers write it would be to have those people who write the tech manuals write it! (Or perhaps to have me write it!)

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
  55. Here today... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.taxbreakdown.org/ already has some of the functionality that they are envisioning coming down the pipe in the next few years.

  56. Internet democracy by emmanuel.charpentier · · Score: 1

    I've been working on an internet democracy project for a few years. It aims at allowing a fully trustable system, transparent to the point of being set up as a cluster of P2P servers, with PGP signatures and electoral lists.

    Using the internet everybody could participate on everything from everywhere and at anytime. Yet you still need participation and a drive for fair decision making.

    Internet could bring one thing: direct democracy. Just imagine the forum of the ancient greeks, but without any size limitation!!!

    But no, it won't change everything: the desire to really decide on things democratically, the energy to go beyond media manipulations, the drive to let minorities live without oppression of the majority.

    http://leparlement.org/

  57. How is this going to help, really? by doom · · Score: 1
    Calling politicians on their sources of funding is always positive, and holding politicians accountable for the things they say and the promises they make is fantastic.

    But consider: is any of this stuff really the issue this election season? I mean, I don't want to come off as a "Democrats and Republicans are all the same" kind of guy -- I suspect you'd find at least subtle shades of D vs. R differences between the funding behind your candidates for House -- but none of this is really the issue right now, is it?

    This particular US election looks to me like a referendum on the iraq war, so we're essentially choosing between the guys who we suspect are more enthusiastic for it and the guys we suspect are less enthusiastic, even though in both cases most of them voted for it; and the side that we're treating as nominally "anti-war" is typically too timid to even make a public statement in that direction.

    How is better information on the net going to get us away from having to do this kind of political mind-reading?

    And further: pretty much all of us knows that campaign fund-raising has mutated into legalized bribery. None of us like it -- and no politician is going to tell you that they like the situation either. You know what they say? "Yeah, it really sucks that the moment I get elected I've got to hit the ground running to raise money for the next election, but I'm stuck doing this, if I don't I'm going to get beaten by the other guys next year who do a better job of raising funds." In other words, you're back to mind-reading again, trying to distinguish the truely corrupt from the principled fellow who feels compelled to act like he's corrupt.

    If you want improve this, you need to radically change the situation. So, you got any candidates with a scheme for that? How about "public funding of campaigns"? How about "free TV ads for political parties"? Anything at all?

    (And yeah, this is yet another "Web 2.0" app that's not remotely different from "Web 1.0". Wired is a fucking hive of buzzwords.)

  58. By the way: Don't forget to vote! by doom · · Score: 1
    the same as the "get out the vote" initiatives that come out every election cycle. When you come right down to it, if someone's only going to vote because MTV told them to, it's probably someone that shouldn't be voting

    But on the other hand, if Some Guy on Slashdot tells them to vote, they're just the kind of folks we need to take back the government from those Republican Diebold-lovers, so Don't forget to vote in the US election tomorrow kids!

    Well, presuming you're a US citizen. And presuming you're of age. And presuming you remembered to register -- and if you didn't now would be a good time to get it out of the way for the 2008 election, eh?

    If you're feeling clueless about the process, you can check the Can I vote? site.

    Take a look at the current state of the polls: Electoral Vote. The control of the Senate is balanced on a knife-edge right now.

    (And if you live in California: Don't forget to vote for Debra Bowen for Secretary of State -- unlike the Republican appointee she's running against, she understands something about electoral integrity. And in my opinion, the world could use some better action movies far more than it needs a Hummer-driving environmentalist in the government office, so send him back to Hollywood, all right? And read up on Prop 90 before you walk into the booth.)

  59. Voting a straight ticket is NOT a problem by ubuwalker31 · · Score: 1

    I am a proud lifelong Democrat who has voted a straight party line ticket all of my life. I read up on the issues and I am well informed. I occassionally flirt with other party's platforms, but they don't do it for me. I don't like the Republicans, I dislike the idealism of the Libertarians, and I dispise the La Rouchies.

    I take issue with the statement that "If someone doesn't care enough about the process to know who stands for what and to take the time to go vote without being harangued by some celebrity, then that person should have just stayed home". You have a right to choose who will represent you in Congress regardless of whether you know where he stands on the issues. It might be silly to vote for someone who doesn't have your best interests at heart, but each individual has to shoulder that responsibility himself. And if a celeberty tries to educate someone on an issue and encourages them to vote, more power to them.

    In short, your lack of faith in this country and in the electorate is sickening, and is the prime reason why this country is in the shithole that it is in today.

  60. Democracy has outlived its usefulness (seriously) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Democracy can work when issues are simple enough, and the population small enough, that everyone can be an informed voter. For most 21st century societies,neither holds true. Technocracy would be far better.

  61. you *do* have a choice by doom · · Score: 1
    There are only two parties even allowed to be on the ballot in most states, and many states even throw away write-in votes. At this point, it's like voting for Coke or Pepsi.

    Look, are you a Republican shill? That seems to be one of their talking points for forums like this that they perceive as being liberal/left: "Oh, there's no damn difference between Democrats and Republicans. I'm going to stay home. Anyone with me?".

    In the United States we have a clear choice at the polls on Tuesday: we get to choose between evil and incompetence. Think about it. If you ask me, some incompetence would be a nice change right now.

  62. We get the governments we deserve by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

    I agree with both you and parent. In anticipation of the next General Election, look for existing campaign groups who have the ability to make these things happen. If they don't exist, find people to start them.

  63. Just how much Web 2.0? by VGfort · · Score: 1

    What we really want to know is what framework they are going to develop in and what AJAX library they are going to use to save democracy.

  64. LOL! by Plutonite · · Score: 1

    * Find your soul mate

    I believe many websites have claimed this before, and they were like, not joking. Are you trying to make fun of online hookers?

  65. asshole A or asshole B....hmmm....decisions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    will either choice change the system that holds us down? no.

  66. e-democracy, the way ahead by karlmb · · Score: 1

    I have to point out some info about my party for the Swedish parliament; We think we have found a new step in evolution of democary, we call it representative direct democarcy. Most of our ideas can be found here: www.aktivdemokrati.se English manifesto (not more than 5 minutes to read):http://wse75376.web16.talkactive.net/PHPbb/p hpbb2019/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=139&sid=fa318f9cc3 c24b95e93e1ae5ed6ffc2b We are in desperate need for programmers!

  67. Misstating Arrow by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

    Its correct that Arrow showed that system of voting taking a set of ballots with individual, strictly ordered preference rankings as input and producing a strictly ordered preference ranking as output could ever meet all of a certain set of "fairness" criteria, all of which were binary pass-fail criteria.

    That proof does not show, however, that no voting system (even among those types that are strictly covered by the theorem) can be "more" or "less" fair, as to make "more" or "less" fair even meaningful statements, you have to use non-binary standards different from what Arrow used. (There is also some debate over whether Arrow's standards are all really desirable as pass-fail criteria in the first place.)

    If we were to take your view that no method differs from any other in overall "fairness", we could save a lot of money and just select winners from among the available candidates by lot; if you were right, that would be as "fair" a method of selecting candidates, and represent the public will as well, as any method that actually bothered counting ballots, and it certainly would be much cheaper.