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?"

Comments

Sounds like a miniature electoral college system.

[jcr]

The way we were supposed to choose our president was to know and vote for our electors, who were supposed to be the wisest people we knew. Political parties kind of buggered up the plan.

-jcr

aaaaalll-rriiiiggghhtt!!!!

[phantomfive]

This is just what I've been waiting for!! I have my vote-bots standing by, ready to tilt the vote when the time comes.

Of course, I won't use them for just ANY occasion, I will save them for something important. Hmmmmm.....the invasion of Canada vote!!!! Prepare thyself, Oh Canada!!

Re:aaaaalll-rriiiiggghhtt!!!!

[Max Littlemore]

Hmmmmm.....the invasion of Canada vote!!!! Prepare thyself, Oh Canada!!

This is what concerns me. On face value the idea sounds like a huge step forward for democracy and people who don't really think things through or aren't particularly educated will vote for it.

I have seen loads of clips - and yes American /.ers, I know how easy it is to selectively edit these things - that show interviews with "average Americans on the street" saying that Buddhists are terrorists who should be nuked when asked what they think of Buddhists. I know that this is not true for all Americans, but I also know a large percentage of Americans know less about the world outside their local area than any other Western country. I have grave fears for these people being able to directly vote on anything that a nuclear armed super power might do.

Sometimes I feel pissed off about the traditional two party thing we have here in Australia too, but there is something to be said for a system with checks and balances, separation of powers, the rule of law and non-elected bureaucrats keeping things orderly. It's frustrating but relatively benign and this idea of letting anyone vote directly on decisions threatens all of these things.

Re:aaaaalll-rriiiiggghhtt!!!!

[zappepcs]

There are ways to help work out the kinks before we have people voting to imprison Buddhists for terrorism. The process of voting from home can be asked to read some information regarding the subject matter of the vote before voting. Additionally a double opt-in vote would require that you insert your voter number to place the vote, then reply to the email sent to your registered email address before your vote is counted. This stops bots and gives those voting time to think it through and read about it a bit before just voting.

The key to getting a veracious vote result is education. The harder that you work to educate people on the issues, the more likely they are to vote using an informed opinion.

Yes, there are always those that oppose things out of ignorance or in support of something else, but perhaps if you informed people who Buddhists were before asking them the question they would not be so quick to say they should be nuked.

Education is the key to solving quite a few problems in the world.

Re:aaaaalll-rriiiiggghhtt!!!!

[DNS-and-BIND]

Actually, the entire world is like that. I live in China now, and Mr. Zhang on the street doesn't even know what's in the next province, much less overseas. Luckily, they're not allowed to vote, which should cheer you up.

We need a new name for a new basis of government

[Nefarious Wheel]

"Democracy" doesn't seem to sound right in this context -- Is it pure democracy when you have so much legislation to read that you tend to skim bits, and let representatives - proxies, as it were - handle the rest? Answer: Perhaps, I think. Maybe not.

And "Republic" doesn't seem to sound right either, when there is so much potential for this sort of system to take direct action. Is this right? Answer: Also "perhaps".

How about a "Liberacy"? (a) Maybe, but it evokes the wrong sort of popular pianist to appeal to everyone. YMMV. But I think we've blurred the boundaries so far it's really hard to use the original terms for this sort of political party.

But I think it's a great idea, myself.

Direct Democracy is tedious

[Sparr0]

Of course they aren't going for direct democracy. That is an organizational nightmare. Direct *Representation* is the model I have always advocated, and that is what they are doing. I should have a vote, and be able to give that vote to anyone that I feel is able to represent my views and interests best.

Re:Direct Democracy is tedious

[Leonard Fedorov]

Actually he would be trying to imply it. You're the one infering it.

[/pedantry]

Direct democracy

[phantomfive]

I'm not sure I like the idea of this direct democracy, actually. For while our honorable congressmen are very often little worthy of respect, at least they have had to go through the process of convincing a million (or so, depending on the region) people that they have half a clue more than someone else. On the other hand, given the vast amounts of random cluelessness I hear from people in other places, I really don't trust people generally to make a good vote.

Think of what we would have done if we were following the opinions of people just here on slashdot:

• We would have disbanded our police force.
• We would have invaded Israel.
• We would have also invaded Iran.
• And the headquarters of the RIAA.
• No one would be able to find work, because we would have made corporations illegal while simultaneously destroying any Unions.
• Everyone would have their idea of what was wrong, with no one knowing how to fix it.

The whole thing reminds me of a chess game, Kasparov VS the World, in which Kasparov played against anyone who willing to log in to MSN to vote. On one move, 2.5% of the people voted for a move that was completely ILLEGAL. In that particular game, the world did manage to play a good game, but arguably only because a few very good players managed to take charge and guide the hoards through it all. In general the message boards degenerated into a lot of flaming....

Re:Direct democracy

[phantomfive]

The problem is, the people who were acting as leaders were leaders because they were appointed so by Microsoft. Also, in chess, everyone has the same goal: to win, and it is easy to prove that a bad move is really bad. In life you are going to have nutcases who keep promoting the same bad ideas over and over.

Maybe it would work, but here in California where we have the ability to allow any proposition to appear on the ballot, we have had mixed success. Sometimes rather bad laws manage to pass (anti-gay marriage) whereas other times very reasonable and good laws are voted down (anti-gerrymandering). I'm not convinced that people voting on a law by law basis is a good idea.

doomed

[SuperBanana]

It's doomed. Why? 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.

A good representative is not someone who conducts polling every time something comes up. A good representative makes as sound an educated a decision as he or she can, weighing the good of ALL the people they represent against the good of the commonwealth, against the good of the planet...and more importantly, they should not make a career of it.

I don't see the voting populous having that kind of foresight. I'd be a happier if representation was randomly assigned amongst people.

Re:doomed

[Krishnoid]

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.

Re:obstacle: the two-party system

[Scr3wFace]

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.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

[Repton]

excellent congressman AA+++++++++ would def vote for again

Re:HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

[geoff43230]

This congressman accepts check, cash or PayPal. All bids are final.

alternately :
1. (sort of) vote for new congressperson
2. ?
3. Profit!

Something similar to this ....

[xk0der]

I happen to stumble upon something similar here : http://podvoters.org/

PodVoters looks to me like a much better idea (IMO), because it's an online system for selecting candidates, according to a process that should yield much better candidates, than we get at present. It's not about users directly managing the entire legislative process which is too burdensome for most (any?) citizen.

just my two cents :)

Re:Sounds like a miniature electoral college syste

[Anonymous Coward]

...vote for our electors, who were supposed to be the wisest people we knew.

Sounds a lot like a monarchy: the elite nobility governing the unwashed ignorant masses.

Something that is increasingly forgotten is that the key innovation of the American revolution was to move away from trying to find the most superior person to govern and to instead rely on a system. Instead of having a (supposedly) superior king decide whose head to chop off, they had a system - of laws and judges and lawyers and juries.

The basic realization was that you're not ever going to find some guy who is just so special that he can make all the best decisions for the country. Instead, you need a system of specialists, experts and ordinary citizens working together collectively.

For example, in that view, the president is not supposed to make decisions himself (and certainly not based on his "gut") but, like a judge, he is supposed to preside over the system to insure that the system reaches the correct decisions.

Re:Sounds like a miniature electoral college syste

[jcr]

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

Opponent if pretty awesome...

[Gibbs-Duhem]

I live in this district, and must say that as much as I love this idea, it would be tough to sway me (as a social libertarian and economic moderate) to vote out Capuano. His voting record is very consistently exactly in line with what I would want.

To whit, the ACLU ranks him at 94% voting the way they advocate and 100% by LBGT advocates (I'm also gay). He's in favor of affirmative action, which I have some minor objections to, but generally think isn't particularly evil. He voted against expanding criminal prosecutions for minors and is rated "soft on crime" (which I approve of, having been harassed by the police and FBI several times despite having committed no crimes). He is generally not in favor of the war on drugs. I don't think he's as savvy on energy and the environment as I'd like, but he probably is better informed that an average group of citizens...

I dunno, I'm not sure I'd trust my neighbors in general to be as sensible as Capuano has been. I've seen my neighbors believe some pretty stupid crap. I'd have to see a very sensible plan before I'd vote to change.

Someone tried this in Norway...

[MenThal]

...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/

Online influence!

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

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.

Re:Online influence!

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

To expand on the idea a bit, from reading the Telecoms debate, it would appear that the going rate for a politician is around $40,000. So lets say you get 100,000 people on board with this idea, thats $10 million or 200-odd politicians you are buying after expenses.

If you can even get a quarter of a percent of the population on board, you can utterly dwarf any other special interests group out there, the corporations would have no notion of competing, although it would have some hair raising debates with a million people participating. One thing I like about Slashdot however is that it almost always acts as a superb bullshit filter, and the true facts of most matters come out in the end. The same effect would apply for such a system, and contrary to common wisdom, the average person knows a line when its pointed out to them.

It would remove the power from the politicians, and only those who were voting off message would need to be targeted. You want additional funds going to NASA, or a complete reorganisation of NASA, you got it. You want more spending on education, it will be pushed through. You want the Telecoms bill revoked, congratulations and here's your receipt. You'd need to be careful that you weren't overwhelmed by special interest groups in the early stages (NRA or theological cults for example).

The idea might leave a bad taste in the mouths of many, but in a warped, roundabout way it sort of is the mercantile American way. And it would without a doubt get things done.