Slashdot Mirror
Australians Running On-Line Poll Based Senators
exeme writes "The 2007 Australian election was recently announced and a new completely on-line based political party is running for election to the Australian Senate. Senator On-Line will give Australian residents eligible to vote a chance to vote in on-line polls for every piece of legislation that comes to the Senate. The senator will then blindly vote in accordance with the majority.
The party has no position on anything until it is voted on and has been approved by the Australian Electoral Commission as a legitimate party. The party will be running two candidates in each Australian state." I imagine this could have a huge impact on CowboyNeal related legislation down under.
How do you expect the people's will to be subverted by corrupt politicians in such a system?
I'm all for people getting involved in their political system, but this kind of system is exactly what the authors of the American Constitution were trying to moderate because they understood a government that is strictly Democratic doesn't work.
Some non-political example is slashdot versus digg. Moderation is required.
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
You elect people to have judgement in complex legislative matters, and you replace them if they exhibit bad judgement. And many legislative matters, especially as related to defense or other security issues, can require a legislator to have an understanding of information that isn't (well, can't be) widely known. That's why you send a human to do that job, not a robot. Many legislators are not, in useful terms, human, of course. But net-based polling systems strike me as a crazy way to handle lawmaking. Simple majorities are often simply wrong about things.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
You left out the part where the senator turns down things that would make them extremely unpopular with the voting public. Sure they get some slimy stuff passed anyway, but they're careful enough about it that it's hard to pin them to it. Also don't forget the last minute additions to bills that are totally unrelated to that bill, that's one of their favorite tricks. Can pass an anti-poison in the food bill, or something equally stupid everyone would be in favor of, but tack in a little extra clause that say makes it legal for megacorps to dump excess hazardous waste into the ocean or some equally evil piece of legislation. Senator looks good because who wants poison in their food, and still collects a fat check from the mega-corps because he got their legislation passed at the same time.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
Hopefully they have checks and balances built in to prevent such abuse. Here in the States, we call it the Constitution. YMMV.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
The beauty of republicanism is that even though the people may only elect a representative by a majority, the representative is then the representative of ALL the people. The social contract is that the people agree to be represented by a representative chosen by the majority. Thus, at least in theory, republicanism is government by the People, by consent of the People, not government by the majority.
A direct-democracy candidate is by definition only and always the representative of the majority, leaving the minority unrepresented. Direct democracy is, both in theory and practice, government by the majority and only the majority. It is therefore arguably the worst possible form of government, as all other forms of tyranny involve a tyranny of a minority, which inherently gives the majority the potential power to forcibly overthrow the tyrants. One cannot overthrow a tyranny of the majority.
Governing bodies make dozens of votes on bills a day. Do they expect people to read, understand, and vote intelligently on, dozens of bills dozens of pages long a week? There's reasons we have people that work do this crap (nearly) full-time.
Voter turnout for everyday things is gonna suck.
Senators do more than just vote, too. They talk about bills, argue them, control things in committees, and introduce bills themselves. How are you going to do that if you are supposed to be a puppet of the people without any ideas of your own?
I wouldn't vote this party in.
It's a neat idea, but in practice it couldn't be done. You'd have no one of knowing from location to location what set of laws are in effect. What if say a neighborhood passes a law that makes it illegal to wear blue on Tuesdays, and you go to visit your friend on Tuesday wearing blue and get chucked in jail for it. Also, I would expect you'd want the state or city police to enforce these local laws, or will everyone have to provide their own police for at every level? Assuming that you'll use the city or state police, what happens if some small voting unit decides to ban use of firearms for police and only allow things like tasers, would you have a check point at the "border" where the cops coming in need to exchange their guns for tasers? What happens if one of the smaller units violates a law of a larger unit? I suppose that couldn't happen because you'd need a unanimous vote, and if a sub-unit is against it it wouldn't pass, but what happens if you pass a law in the super-unit, then a sub-unit decides they don't like it and passes a law in contradiction to the law of the super-unit?
There's a kernel of a good idea there I think, but it needs more fleshing out.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
I don't know what the rate of internet access is in Australia, but I'm absolutely certain it's not 100%. While I applaud the idea, there needs to be some sort of free access for those that either don't own a computer or or don't have an internet connection. Maybe 5 free minutes at the internet cafe so that people can read and vote on their legislation.
2 cents,
QueenB.
HDGary secures my bank
It's not a sham joke, it's simply misguided. Like communism and anarchy, it relies on the flawed axiom that humans are, at their core, good. Nearly all evidence points to the contrary, as shown by how the other political ideaologies based on the same axiom have played out.
If based on majority vote, it isn't the lowest common denominator, it's the largest common denominator. A thing to be marveled at!
Step back or forward, both have their ups and downs.
Yes, a representative democracy has its advantages. If, and only if, the person who is supposed to represent you does actually represent you. If he's just a slick bastard who gets the lowbrows to vote for him because he promises easy solutions to problems that have none, he's worse than any direct democracy could be.
Now, show me one politician who isn't such a slick bastard (one that actually has some power, not some wannabe, trying to get somewhere), and we'll talk.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Despite what you (and Mussolini) think, I think that most common people are quite capable of making decisions that affect their lives.
You're thinking of the wrong demographics. All the assorted pressure groups will mobilise their armies of members, and get them voting on line.
Only read a couple comments before posting...
Before you debate about this, clear up your vocabulary. Democracy is everyone votes on everything. A Republic is where everyone votes to put Senators, Republicans etc, in power and then they vote on the issues. The United States, is NOT a democracy, Austrailia, is NOT a democracy, etc..etc... If you question my vocabluary, look it up. Most people don't get the difference between a Democracy and Republic and think voting in officals who make the law is a Democracy, which it isn't.
The SOL party appears to be truely pushing a Democracy, i.e. everyone votes on everything for their one vote. One of the problems with a Democracy is if the majority of the people voting (or the population majority if you have 100% voting population) are pushing one particular issue, be it racial issue, public floggings, etc., that issues wins, no questions.
So, make your statement about Democracy failing, public floggings, etc., if you are in a true democracy and the voters want that, you get it. It can be scary if the population in the democracy is scary, or if they are so ambivilent they just don't care and don't vote and you could get crazyness.
Our democracies (I'm from the UK) aren't perfect, but its better than handing the lunatics the keys to the asylum.
Actually, I honestly don't think it is at the moment.
Today, we have a Prime Minister, complete with new Cabinet, who has never been voted into that office by the electorate, and indeed who just backed down from holding an election to get a mandate. (Anyone who is about to bleat about a party political system where the Labour Party was elected would do well to remember that they were elected after Blair said he would serve a full third term. There is no rational way you can argue that the Brown administration has a mandate based on party politics. And even if they had been elected without that promise, our first-past-the-post system is so broken that you could hardly call it representative.)
Many of the less popular acts of government in our country are now coming down from above. At national level, we have the unelected European Commission running the show, despite the presence of the directly elected European Parliament, and imposing legislation on national governments. I find it sadly ironic that the government is desperately trying to wriggle out of a referendum on the big European treaty on the basis that it has certain key safeguards for national sovereignty in place, when those "safeguards" basically mean they can ignore the few bits of European law that actually serve the interests of the people: human rights, protection for workers, etc. Meanwhile, the government imposes all sorts of unpopular nonsense on the basis that Europe told it that it had to. Remember that our own European Commissioner is serial ministerial resigner and locally politically uncredible screw-up Peter Mandelson — so when they say "Europe told us to", this is the sort of person they're taking orders from!
This happens at more local levels, too. I live in Cambridge, where right now our County Council are pretty obviously setting up a hugely unpopular congestion charge in the city. This is being done despite widespread opposition among city residents and their elected City Council, who aren't even being shown the models from the consultants. It's also being done by much the same crowd who are already screwing up local transport because of a pet scheme of theirs, which can't possibly be enough to solve the problems they claim we're going to have a few years down the line even according to their own laughably physics-defying models, yet which is being implemented right now at vast cost in both taxpayers' money and disruption to local residents and businesses, even after thousands of local residents opposed the scheme and basically no-one without a vested interest supported it.
In other words, right now the basic decisions that are going to affect me as an everyday guy, at local, national and international levels, are all being made by people I have had no chance to vote for or against. And a great many of the big decisions they are making are in the face of overwhelming popular opposition, which would probably be enough not just to get rid of the legislation but to outright finish political careers in some cases if any remotely democratic form of voting were in place.
I do not believe in a 100% "one adult, one vote" type of system for every little decision, for the simple, pragmatic reason that no-one has enough time to consider all the issues deeply enough to make a sensible, informed choice. I believe in a representative government elected according to the basic principles of the people, where those in the civil service can do the detailed investigation where appropriate and decisions are made by the elected representatives on the basis of the information and any expert advice available to them. I also believe in checks and balances, and in particular that if interest in a particular issue is sufficiently widespread, it should be possible for the people to override the government on that specific issue immediately, rather than waiting for anothe
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
While you were probably joking, this brings up a very important point -- elected officials do more than just vote "yea" or "nay," and I'm not talking about all the subversive stuff like accepting bribes and getting wined and dined...
A good elected official will take a piece of legislation that has good parts and bad parts, strip out the bad parts, and add more good parts to it. If all you can do is simply vote yes or no, you're losing quite a bit of power there. Would they allow you to vote on a particular bill and say "yes if you strike out this one provision" or "yes as long as we add x, y, or z." What about creating legislation from scratch? If you rely on the other senators to do so, you are really at their mercy in terms of what legislation the "voting mass" ever gets to vote on.
Note to self: Stop putting jokes in my insightful comments so I can get something other than +1 Funny!
Interesting idea. I think you may have taken it to the extreme, but the concept in general is something I have pondered before. A good example is for laws that violate basic rights, but are probably the right thing to do.
An example would be the US right to bear arms. With a literal reading, it clearly states we can possess any weapon we want. That, in most people's opinion, is preposterous as it allows anyone to own a missile or atomic weapon. We, of course, long ago made these things illegal. BUT, that is a slippery slope and many governments in the US have used that concept to ban handguns, assault weapons (broadly defined in many cases), etc. in clear violation of the constitution (IMNSHO). One gets the feeling the Constitution is just a silly piece of badly-worn paper at times.
One can find many examples outside of the contentious firearms issue. Restrictions on freedom of speech, habeas corpus, requirements for warrants, etc. all come to mind in recent times. Sometimes these laws are necessary, but it should not be done with a secret presidential order, by a simple majority of a legislature, or with the concurrence of a sympathetic judge. There should be structure behind it, not in any single person's purview, certainly not easy to do, with lots of checks and balances.
My idea is to allow laws in violation of the constitution but require a super-majority to enact them. To pick a number, say 80%. We would have no problem banning private ownership of a nuke or automatic weapon, but banning or heavily restricting owning a semi-auto rifle would not likely ever pass.
Canada has an interesting approach, called the "Notwithstanding clause". It provides a mechanism for Parliament to ignore parts of their Charter of Rights and Freedoms when necessary, but requires renewal every 5 years (or less if an expiry time was written into the law) or it automatically expires. An interesting concept, but seems way too easy to invoke.
The "tyranny of the majority" is certainly a big issue, and has eroded the sanctity of the US Constitution. It is not exactly useless, but is becoming less "supreme" everyday. This could bring it back to it's supreme status, while giving us some flexibility to deal with changing times and technology in an open and clear manner.
Bottom line, I like the way you are thinking, but there are some danger areas. It could have an opposite effect. Very small minorities could hold up a budget, but agree once they are bought off with some pork for their district. This happens even with a 50% requirement, and would become rampant with a 90%.
The only athletic sport I ever mastered was backgammon - Douglas William Jerrold
Direct democracy is obviously a disaster for reasons beyond infrastructure and free access. A representative democracy makes a lot more sense, but an improved way for everybody to get their opinions in will be a step forward. I think this is a big more aggressively progressive than the recent New Zealand wiki project, but these are the first countries experimenting in a government that acknowledges the influence and power of the internet.
It will most certainly be a failure, but as Edison responded to a reporter about how he felt about his hundreds of failures in inventing a lightbulb, he said "I didn't have any failures, I just learned hundreds of ways NOT to make a lightbulb"
Whatever the outcome, it will be an important learning experience. I am sure the next few groups that try such a thing will fail as well for the same reason. There is just going to need to be a lot of documentation (media, history books, etc) on how NOT to do this before it is done right.
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
anarchism assumes that nobody will try to seize power. without rulers, or authority, there is nothing at all to stop anyone from seizing power & turning it into a totalitarian dictatorship.
therefore it cannot possibly work, long term, in a large group, unless everybody is 'good' & doesnt try to seize power through force, for their own gain.
Web Design
You are wrong about anarchism. It does not rely on humans being fundamentally good. Where Madison says "if men were angels they would need no government", we say "if men were angels they could be trusted to run a government". The fundamental problem with government is that people are flawed and power corrupts. Concentrating power in a single institution with a monopoly on the use of force only amplifies the damage they can do. Ambitious corruptible people will be drawn to that institution, and the rest of us have little defense against it. And so we want to see power decentralized to it's very limit, the individual. After all, if absolute power corrupts absolutely, negligible power should corrupt negligibly.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Democracy is based upon the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something.
Autocracy is based upon the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides?
Lazarus Long
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
FYI - Voting in federal elections is compulsory in Australia. As an Australian I wouldn't want it any other way, having any section of society branded as non-voters simply gives their government a mandate to ignore or abuse them.
Any comparison to a political system that doesn't have compulsory voting (as many people have done here) is basically pointless.