Slashdot Mirror
Internet Based Political "Meta-Party" For Massachusetts
sophiachou writes "The Free Government Party, a non-profit, open source political 'meta-party' focused on providing citizens with more direct control of Congress through online polling and user-drafted bills, seems to be looking for a candidate to endorse for US Representative of Massachusetts' 8th Congressional District. If you're from the Boston area, you might have seen this already on Craigslist. The chosen candidate will be bound by contract to vote in Congress only as do his or her constituents online. However, they don't seem to be going for direct democracy. To make voting convenient, you can select advisers to cast your votes for you, unless you do so yourself. Supposedly, interviews for the candidate position are already underway. Anyone from MA's 8th Congressional District on Slashdot already apply?"
I can't remember my password, so screw Karma.
The pay for this job in MA is 31k.
Anyone intelligent at all is making 60k+.
Anyone unintelligent is making 40k at Mcdonalds if they actually fucking worked at it.
In other words: the pay doesn't just suck, a teenage dropout can make more.
I live in this district. I'd apply, and mean it, in a second if the job payed -anything- livable. 55k maybe.
For all of you who go "But 31k is fine in hickland" this is less than .01 miles from Boston! The cost of living here is crazy. I don't know anyone who can live on 31k a year, pay rent, own a car, and possibly even -dream- of owning a condo, let alone a house. 31k here means you live with roomates- forever. You do not get to support anyone. Ever. Feeding children? No way, that's just dreams.
The simple fact is, unless you are suicidal, 50+ (and so close to retiring you can afford the pay cut, because you already saved up your retirement fund and the pay is just icing), or so dumb you can't succeed at a damned mcdonalds.
Good people aren't cheap. And Reps are very cheap. Do you even wonder why reps are so easy to buy?
-They aren't paid to care about you, and never will be.-
Discloser: I am 25, and a software engineer.
I don't think that will be an issue.
Right now, theres a general feeling that one person can't do much about the state of things, people are generally disillusioned with politics in general, we've stopped viewing it as a system of representation like it should be and see it as a system of control we have little influence over.
If we get to the point where individuals really can work to shape policy I think we'll see a lot more people involved, and unwilling to give up their vote, even for money. Why accept cash when you can change the system to better suit you? I know I sure as hell wouldn't, not unless somebody offered me a outrageous sum of money, large enough to set me up for life. And that kind of cash nobody can afford to spend for one vote.
Imagine the power to get the folks in your area together, and form up behind a bill (in my area I do believe we'd be all over the current road repair system and why its failed miserably, get it replaced, and get our roads fixed.)
At the same time, it would completely cripple the ability of rich interest groups to dictate policy, people like the RIAA and disney get away with forcing stupid copyright on us because after they are in office we have no control over our representatives, and big corporations basically bribe them to get what they want. Instead a corporation would exactly as much pull as its board of directors, because thats how many votes they get. Telco immunity would have died a grizzly death before the ink on the bill was dry.
We'd be better off with this I think, if for no other reason than sheer scale.
I can go out to lunch with 5 buddies and end up with 7 desired toppings on the pizza, you think as a population that isn't being payed off by business interests that we could agree on a new law that runs to a few hundred pages?
Hell no, laws would get shorter, laws would get easier to understand, laws would become more narrow, pushing only one point at a time, because in a world where you can ask 6 people what they want on their pizza and get 7 answers back you'll have a hard enough time passing laws one point at time, never mind anything else. Write a law with 100 words in it, and give it up to the people for review, I bet you a fiver that you get back 150 things wrong with it.
Even if the election fairy manages to get this person in office, the existing system on the hill will surely keep him/her out of any and all comities until they do the bidding of the majority. Without being involved in special comities, it's a sure bet this person will be so isolated come next election they will be eaten alive.
Perhaps I'm getting jaded as I get older, but the longer I'm around, the more I wonder how on earth democracy works at all... and how it's managed to stay around so long. I'm almost a skeptic, but it truly is the least worst option, at least so far, that we've been able to come up with. (I wouldn't mind being ruled by an all powerful benevolent AI, should one become available).
(To paraphrase Carlin) Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize 50% are DUMBER THAN THAT...
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
People selfishly look for their representative to represent them best personally, when people instead should have the maturity to look for someone who represents them collectively.
I can't remember where I heard this (NPR?) but there were studies done that showed that people vote for who and what that they identify with, not who and what benefits them most or represents them most closely.
Why not try it and see what happens? What could possibly go wrong? Seriously, this is definitely something worth persuing. Maybe some variation of it in the future will prove better than what we're doing now. I'm sure there were people who didn't believe American democracy would work when our forefathers started this country.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Everywhere is
Freaks and hairies
Dykes and fairies
Tell me where is sanity
Tax the rich
Feed the poor
Till there are no
Rich no more
I'd love to change the world
But I don't know what to do
So I'll leave it up to you
Population
Keeps on breeding
Nation bleeding
Still more feeding economy
Life is funny
Skies are sunny
Bees make honey
Who needs money, monopoly
I'd love to change the world
But I don't know what to do
So I'll leave it up to you
Oh yeah
World pollution
There's no solution
Institution
Electrocution
Just black or white
Rich or poor
Them and us
Stop the war
I'd love to change the world
But I don't know what to do
So I'll leave it up to you
- "I'd Love To Change The World" by Ten Years After, 1967
Sounds a lot like a monarchy
Nope, it sounds like a committee. The electors were supposed to be performing an occasional, temporary public duty, like serving on a jury.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
...but it was started by two comedians, mostly as an elaborate joke I hink. They called it "The Political Party" and almost all the representatives were known Norwegian comedians. http://www.dpp.no/
Where I come from, any contract binding an elected representative to vote in a certain manner would violate the constitution, and thus be invalid from the start. Once a person is elected into the office, he/she can vote however he/she sees fit, and nobody can influence the vote (except $$$ of course ;). Also, it doesn't matter WHY the person has been elected, whether there was an invalid "contract" in the play - the person becomes a legally elected representative for full 4 years.
I was just thinking of a solution like this in the wake of the Telecoms debacle. What if some reasonably intelligent, semi organised group was to set up a shadow government of sorts, with its own structure to debate and vote on issues on a public website?
You could set it up like Slashdot, with the explicit goal of influencing government policy and officials to move in a suitable direction.
Such a group could have policies on health, education, technology, science, military, the whole gamut, all debated by people who know what they are talking about, with a moderation system like slashdot. Once the debate was finalised, you could hold a poll for the final direction of that piece of legislation or whatever, and set that as the policy for the year. The debate could perhaps be re-opened by popular demand as situations change.
And then you give it teeth. All members donate a hundred bucks a year to it (also a handy way to ensure that there are not too many duplicate accounts) for lobbying or funding the political group, and representatives are appointed to push the agenda on the hill. Its just the bare bones of an idea, it needs a hell of a lot of fleshing out, but damn me if I wouldn't set it up myself if I had the time.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
Why not have artificially intelligent avatars represent you?
You know what your overall objectives in voting are, but don't have time to pursue them on every single issue. You can't trust a human representative (who certainly has his own agenda) so you program an AI with parameters reflecting your personal preferences and it tries to emulate your vote on every issue that comes up, and if it comes across something it can't handle, alerts you so you can vote in person.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
weighing the good of ALL the people they represent against the good of the commonwealth, against the good of the planet...
and what subjective means are used to identify this? This is why meta-parties are such a good thing.
Enlightenment groups like the freemasons were vilified and persecuted as the bane of civil society by royalty and the pope because they recognized the tyranny and provided points of organization against....get this.. royalty and the pope.
Sound like certain technologies to me.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!