The First E-President

Szentigrade writes "Popular Science is running a letter by Daniel Engber of the online Slate Magazine in which he offers the US Presidential nominees advice on using the full potential of the Internet upon their election into office. Some examples discussed in the letter include: a project already being developed that speeds up the patent approval process, a UK site that aims to improve government-citizen interactions, and perhaps most importantly, a call for government information to be 'presented in a standardized and widely used data format, like XML, so that anyone — in or out of government — could use and reconfigure it however they pleased.' Will 2009 be the first year of the E-President?"

Comments

can they use?

[a302b]

It appears this is a good idea. But do the political parties know how to use technology in an efficient manner?

Re:can they use?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it is time that we ask both major Presidential candidates to submit code samples. Bonus points will be awarded if they submit the code in Perl, Assembly, or FORTRAN.

Re:can they use?

[MichaelSmith]

I think it is time that we ask both major Presidential candidates to submit code samples. Bonus points will be awarded if they submit the code in Perl, Assembly, or FORTRAN.

Lets be fair to both candidates. Switch settings for a bombe should be acceptable.

Re:can they use?

[QuantumRiff]

Many government agencies have to release public information whenever asked, including the school I used to work for. However, you have to figure out who to ask, and make an appointment, then fill out forms, then sometimes pay a small copying fee, then they give you copies of their budgets. Why the hell aren't all government agencies (especially the small, local ones!) putting this info on the web? I brought this up to the dean of finance and she damn near had a stroke! I would love, as a taxpayer, to be able to delve into a file of stuff, and see for myself exactly where the money goes, rather than look at the shiny charts that break it down into a couple of very generic areas. I know there are privacy implications, but you could list how much you pay for salaries in different areas/departments. Perhaps clump all office supply purchases into one line item. It really can't be that hard, but nobody wants to, and no taxpayers are demanding it.

Re:can they use?

[truthsearch]

I think it is time that we ask both major Presidential candidates to submit code samples. Bonus points will be awarded if they submit the code in Perl, Assembly, or FORTRAN.

I think blub would be most appropriate.

Re:can they use?

[lysergic.acid]

perhaps one of the greatest benefits of IT is the possibility of establishing a direct democracy on a national scale through online referendums.

gone are the days when logistical obstacles prevented the public from directly participating in the legislative process. there's really no excuse to not involve the public in public policy decisions and create a participatory democracy at the federal level.

a government of the people, by the people, for the people, is not just a catchy phrase from the Gettysburg Address. if we want to continue to call ourselves a democracy, then we need to actually employ a democratic system of government that carries out the will of the people.

Re:can they use?

[truthsearch]

I imagine the issue is simply money. It would cost a lot of programming time to put something good together, especially spread across all of the local departments.

The only way to convince them to do it (without major public demand) would be to show it would somehow save them money in the long run. Maybe automating output in standard formats would allow other common systems to aggregate reports and generate graphs, saving manual labor, for example.

Re:can they use?

[Anonymous Coward]

"there's really no excuse to not involve the public in public policy decisions and create a participatory democracy at the federal level."

Are you insane?

Re:can they use?

[Lemmy Caution]

In many ways, it's You Tube that's killed the Republican coalition between fiscal conservatives (libertarians), social conservatives, and the "National Greatness" conservatives (the neo-cons, more or less.)

Obama's campaign helped the Republicans self-destruct by aggressively running a 50-state campaign, not a 50% +1 campaign. This meant that the RNC had to run ads to shore up its base in formerly secure red states. The problem is, the message that rallies the base - using "liberal" as a smear word, attacking patriotism, etc - alienates the middle. An ad attacking the Democrats in North Carolina will be seen by voters in New Hampshire and Minnesota, and they will find it repellent. Meanwhile, Obama does not have to appeal to the far left to mobilize his base, and his base is already extremely well mobilized. He is more or less in a situation where he never has to apologize or be sheepish about any ad with "I'm Barack Obama, and I approve this message" on it, while a lot of the John McCain ads are frankly embarrassing.

The result is Republican meltdown. Fiscal conservatives already suspect that it may be easier, as in the Clinton era, to get fiscally conservative policy out of a Dem administration than out of the Republicans. It's definitely easier to push fiscal conservatism in the Democratic party than it is to push social liberalism in the Republican one. Now, the tensions between the generally secular neo-cons and the religious social conservatives (many of whom, like Huckabee, are actually comfortable with a government that provides a lot of services) is being reflected in the cracks between McCain's camp and Palin's camp.

I think what YouTube has done is put an asterisk next to Tip O'Neill's old axiom that "all politics are local." That asterisk is "but all communications are global."

Re:can they use?

[Minozake]

I think we'd have to consider the logistical problems. Remote
electronic voting would alleviate many resource problems. But if we
can't allegedly make e-machines cast votes correctly, do we expect the
servers keeping the votes to keep them correctly? Also, what of
security problems? Should there be a paper trail of every vote to
physically prove something went one way or another? Also, what of bill
revision? It's "yes" or "no", not "kinda yes, but..." and vice versa.

However, I really agree wholeheartedly with you. The most the common
citizen can do is write to their congressman for federal matters.
Campaigning is too expensive and politics isn't for everyone. A direct
democracy would really increase citizen involvement.

Re:can they use?

[tomhudson]

I imagine the issue is simply money. It would cost a lot of programming time to put something good together, especially spread across all of the local departments.

The only way to convince them to do it (without major public demand) would be to show it would somehow save them money in the long run. Maybe automating output in standard formats would allow other common systems to aggregate reports and generate graphs, saving manual labor, for example.

The information is already there in electronic form. I seriously doubt any government still uses a typewriter. Can you even buy one any more?

Re:can they use?

[Anonymous Coward]

For a Slashdot reader, your lack of understanding of how computers work is incredible.

Re:can they use?

[Curunir_wolf]

Right. It's just a matter of priorities. As a case in point, they can do it if the bureaucrats decide it's something important. But they are going to always act out of self interest, so these projects are pretty rare.

Re:can they use?

[Irish_Samurai]

Fuck man.

You get it.

This is probably the most succinct evaluation of new society campaigning I have ever read.

Re:can they use?

[longacre]

there's really no excuse to not involve the public in public policy decisions and create a participatory democracy at the federal level.

I think there's a pretty strong argument that efforts like Rock the Vote which encourage the most uninformed ignorant sectors of the population to participate in a democracy they know little about are partially responsible for the dearth of brains in elected office for the past 20 years. Now imagine if we also had "Rock the Tax Code" and "Rock the Defense Appropriations Bill". No thanks.

Re:can they use?

[Anonymous Coward]

the US is not a democracy. It's a republic. Knowing the difference should be one of the minimum requirements for participating in such feedback. You fail.

Re:can they use?

[Miseph]

Right answer, wrong explanation. if they made it obvious and easily accesible to figure out where all of the money went, it would make it that much harder for any of it to stick to their hands. You really think people are willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars just to get a 6-figure salary, a comped mansion and an impressive title for a couple of years? You think that such people could actually manage to win?

Re:can they use?

[pushing-robot]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you're voting for Obama, not McCain?

Re:can they use?

[Anonymous Coward]

the problem with McCain is that most Republicans are further to the right than he is, but he won the primaries by letting the two main conservative candidates split the majority of the party, while he skated in winning just enough of the liberal & 'Rockefeller Republicans' to win the nomination. So most of the party really doesn't like him, and in order to win those people over, he's trying to be something that he's not, and isn't doing a good job at it. To be honest, he could just have a narrator read this, splice in the relevant clips from that article, and have a killer ad or set of ads.

IMHO, it's sad to see that the media will do more background checking on some schmuck in Ohio than what they've done looking into the candidate answering the schmuck's question.

Re:can they use?

[Lemmy Caution]

I'm afraid that the HotAir.com link is exactly what the middle finds repellent about the right. The attempt to smear by association, the claim that Obama is playing the "race card" (when he clearly isn't: anything but, frankly) - and if you read HotAir.com, particularly its comments, you read the kind of over-the-top, conspiracy-theory type thinking that is turning the Republican party into a rump party.

What McCain needed to do was to work on his positives - at one time, he was a persuasive moderate with cross-the-aisle appeal, which he squandered with negative campaign ads and the Palin pick - while picking up the two strengths he really did have for people who aren't already solidly in the right-wing camp: his experience and his relatively strong hand in foreign policy. Instead, his campaign has generally followed the talking points you linked to, and we see the results: a perception of McCain as mean-spirited, angry, and dishonest. And the Palin pick obliterated his positives completely.

What the conservatives have to understand is something the left has already figured out: that they aren't the majority, and the stories they tell themselves to build consensus aren't the stories that the history-making middle wants to hear. The fact that the conservative movement is more defined by resentment of the left rather than by positive and appealing ideas, in no small part due to its very contradictory constituencies, makes that task all the more difficult.

Re:can they use?

[ShakaUVM]

"while a lot of the John McCain ads are frankly embarrassing"

They *ought* to be embarassing to Obama, but the media gives him a free pass on it, pooh-poohing his association with people who say a lot about his character, instead saying shame on McCain for daring to smear the messiah. McCain was the guy calling for reform for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, but he has been labeled "part of the Bush administration" by the O-camp, and the media lets it pass. Obama has gotten by far and away the most money per year from Fannie Mae, and the second highest overall in the past 25 years, and the media lets it slide.

Obama has run successfully a Seinfeld campaign - say nothing of substance, try to keep it positive and upbeat. He knows that when he actually talks substance, he comes across as a raving lunatic, so he just talks about positive change and the audacity of hope, etc., while the press lets it slide. On the contrary, when Couric asked Palin what McCain had done about the housing crisis, and Palin said (correctly) McCain had called for reform back in 2004, Couric said, "Yes, well, besides that," pressing for ever-more details while the question was actually answered correctly, because she knows that Palin gets flustered easily and can't talk off the cuff very well. If the media pressed Obama just as hard for details, Obama's rating would be in single digits.

Re:can they use?

[SL Baur]

Bonus points will be awarded if they submit the code in Perl, Assembly, or FORTRAN.

Bonus points if the same source works in 3 or more languages, see http://www0.us.ioccc.org/1986/applin.c

Re:can they use?

[electrictroy]

Precisely. You can't just dump documents onto the net. You have to sterilize them first to remove social security numbers or other personal information. That takes Labor and of course money to pay the labor.

If I were president I'd pressure the Telephone companies to upgrade all their lines to DSL capability. In this day-and-age there's no excuse for having someone still stuck at 56k access. The lines are already there; even the most-distant citizen has a clean enough line to handle 1 megabit/second access. If the companies whined about funding, I'd point to the "rural access fee" on everybody's bill and say, "You have the money right in front of you. Use that."

I would also push to have 3 or 4 cable companies serving every home. I want to see people have choice, so that if Comcast is crewing them with $100 a month bills, they can abandon ship and switch to the cheaper Time-Warner, Cox, or Verizon services.

And finally, I'd push for legislation that prevents NBC (and other companies) from bundling their Sci-Fi, USA, MSNBC, Bravo, Univision channels into a single package. Again, people should have a choice which channels they want, not be force-fed to take them all.

Re:can they use?

[electrictroy]

>>>direct democracy

And now I will define what that means: "A Tyranny of the Majority to squash the right of the Minority (or the individual) with a mere 50%+1 vote." EXAMPLE: The execution of Socrates by a majority vote in the Athens democracy. Why? Simply because they didn't like him.

Pass.

A Republic of Laws that defends the rights of the individual is the surest defense against an out-of control majority. In the U.S. Republic the execution of Socrates would have never happened, because the government would guarantee his right to jury trial in front of an impartial, his right to speak freely regardless of how ridiculous his idea sounded, and protected him from a Demos trying to kill him "just because we don't like him".

Re:can they use?

[jonaskoelker]

In the U.S. Republic the execution of Socrates would have never happened, because the government would guarantee his right to jury trial in front of an impartial, his right to speak freely regardless of how ridiculous his idea sounded, and protected him from a Demos trying to kill him "just because we don't like him".

O_o. Waltz, Tango, Foxtrot.

Wouldn't the constitution give Socrates the right to a fair trial? Or do you plan on changing it to "" if enough people are for it?

Re:can they use?

[Cassius Corodes]

Do you even read the news? - Obama's associations were prominently discussed in the nytimes (considered by the right to be part of the left liberal elite media, whatever the fuck that is supposed to even mean). Problem is that people aren't reacting to it like you are, so instead of correctly summising that perhaps you are reading too much into them, you instead postulate that there is a vast conspiracy to keep a lid on this.

In short, people are aware of his associations with a variety of colourful people - they just don't give a shit, as there are far more important things to worry about.

Re:can they use?

[funwithBSD]

Oh come on, if YOUR computer was hawt as Cindy, would you use an PC or an Apple?

P.S. it is well documented that having his shoulders, arms, and fingers broken keeps him from using a normal computer. Could he use one of those Hawking type computer systems? Sure he could, but see the Cindy comment...

Re:can they use?

[QuantumRiff]

That's actually the funny part. I was pushing our dean of finance to do it to fight the perception that we were wasting money. The school I worked for was actually very, very lean, in an area where the k-12 districts were corrupt, and wasting money. It would be good to have people look at how we spent our money, then ask the other school districts how they spend theirs. We would look like hero's, and probably get our bond levy passed.

Re:can they use?

[DragonWriter]

perhaps one of the greatest benefits of IT is the possibility of establishing a direct democracy on a national scale through online referendums.

The problem with direct democracy in a modern large society is not simply one of communication, it is also that the number of issues is too large for people who aren't devoted to it full-time to consider well, without being manipulated by those who are devoted to policy issues full-time. Online referenda address some of the communication issue (that is, getting people to the same, at least virtual, "place" so that communication can occur), but not all of the communications issues, and not the deliberation issue.

OTOH, virtual sessions of representative bodies could allow representatives to remain closer to their constituencies while still remaining engaged in political debates, and IT could offer a lot in terms of enhancing transparency.

gone are the days when logistical obstacles prevented the public from directly participating in the legislative process.

Really? When was the last time you were in a chat room with 100 million participants?

Re:can they use?

[sac13]

perhaps one of the greatest benefits of IT is the possibility of establishing a direct democracy on a national scale through online referendums.

gone are the days when logistical obstacles prevented the public from directly participating in the legislative process. there's really no excuse to not involve the public in public policy decisions and create a participatory democracy at the federal level.

a government of the people, by the people, for the people, is not just a catchy phrase from the Gettysburg Address. if we want to continue to call ourselves a democracy, then we need to actually employ a democratic system of government that carries out the will of the people.

Great idea on the surface. Sounds all utopian. Unfortunately, if EVERYONE gets to decide on EVERYTHING, we're screwed. The founders weren't fools. They understood that the majority of people would not have the capacity to understand the intricacies of the issues at hand to make proper choices. Back then, it also wasn't practical. But, the fact is, that we live in a society today where over 40% of the people think the Republicans are in charge of Congress. People are not informed enough to be given that responsibility. We will literally be screwed if we ever do something as insane as this.

I'm all for it if there's some standard for who gets to vote and for what. Unfortunately, most people in the US are only informed enough to choose who's the American Idol winner... and he's about to be president-elect.

Re:can they use?

[jahudabudy]

You really think people are willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars just to get a 6-figure salary, a comped mansion and an impressive title for a couple of years?

You mean hundreds of millions of other people's dollars. There have been some notable exceptions, but most politicians don't campaign with their own money.

Re:can they use?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah.... Ever hear of the Tyranny of the Majority? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority)

As soon as ORGANIZED majorities (squeaky wheels getting grease) realize that they can appropriate the efforts or property of others (the Minority), then your ideal society falls apart.

Of the people, by the people, and for the people can quickly ravage the individual (and individual rights).

Without individual inalienable rights, then freedom quickly fades.

BTW: The reason rights come from "the creator", is that if rights come from Government, government can take those rights away (Life, Liberty[freedom], and the Pursuit [opportunity] of Happiness).

Re:can they use?

[electrictroy]

Oh look! A grammar/typo bot. I thought those were only limited to wikipedia. I guess maybe one of the little critters escaped from his cage and came to visit slashdot.

Re:can they use?

[aqk]

FORTRAN???? Well, BAL doesn't seem too bad.

If it's McCain, then COBOL here we come!

As a retired citizen of Canada, and as a self-described COBOL expert who even had a crush on Admiral Grace H., I am sure we can get those meanframes back on track!
And maybe a green card for me.

But alas, it looks a lot like RubyObama on Rails will win out...

PHPs, PGPs, PHDs... bah!

Re:can they use?

[omfglearntoplay]

Theoretically there should be a small percent of politicians that actually do their job to help people and the world. Not sure how easy they are to find though.

Not if McCain wins!

[russlar]

He's just starting to learn to use "the Google". And YouTube? He thinks the internet is just a big truck you dump everything on!

Re:Not if McCain wins!

[Anonymous Coward]

And YouTube?

Of course you tube! It's a series of tubes! "Cindy, hold the phone, I'm a-goin' tubin'!"

Re:Not if McCain wins!

[Anonymous Coward]

He's just starting to learn to use "the Google". And YouTube? He thinks the internet is just a big truck you dump everything on!

What is funny about making fun of someone's war wounds? You people are sick.

Re:Not if McCain wins!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, don't people realise he was repeatedly beaten with the internet!

Re:Not if McCain wins!

[flyingsquid]

At this point the odds of a McCain presidency range from slim to nonexistent, depending on who you ask. According to CNN's electoral map, Obama has 192 electoral votes all but guaranteed, and can count on 85 more from states that are likely to go his way, giving him 277- and he needs 270 to win. So even if McCain wins every single red state, every single state that is leaning Republican, and all the races that are too close to call, he's going to lose. The Intrade prediction market predicts that Obama will pick up 364 electoral votes. Slate.com has an electoral map predicting that Obama has 272 electoral votes in the bag, 39 likely to go his way, and 85 in play. RealClearPolitics.com predicts 306 Obama, 157 McCain, 75 tossup. Again, he needs 270 to win. The only people who pretend there is anything like a sense of suspense here are (surprise, surprise) Fox News.

I almost feel bad for McCain. Having to run on the Bush legacy and having to embrace the same Republican establishment that attacked him in 2000 must suck. But his decision to nominate Palin made me finally decide I could never vote for him. McCain runs on the premise of "Country First" but picking someone as inexperienced, brain-dead, and radical as Palin is an example of putting electoral politics first, and country second. It's classic Bush Administration politics all over again: appoint an incompetent right wing hack who agrees with your politics, instead of someone who could actually do a decent job. At this point, I figure whatever he gets, he deserves.

Re:Not if McCain wins!

[stupidflanders]

Wouldn't the SUV-flippers be Destructicons? :-p (Also, "DAZ-MO" != "Dumb As Shit Mommy". Learn to spell. Idiot.)

Re:Not if McCain wins!

[dpilot]

There are some tens of millions of voter registrations that have been thrown out over the past few years, predominantly by Republican secretaries-of-state, and predominantly from demographics that favor Democrats.

Throw out enough of the right (or is that left, or is that wrong) votes, and McCain can still win.

Chads and butterflies had little to do with the Florida results in 2000. Bush won because Katherin Harris, in the name of voter fraud, threw out some 30,000+ voter registrations in a wide dragnet looking for "black felons." Had they thrown out the registration of felons, without the desired false positives, Florida wouldn't have been close, and chads and butterflies never would have shown up on the media radar.

Re:Not if McCain wins!

[knghtrider]

To preface this: I'm a fiscal conservative, somewhat social liberal who believes that the government's job is taking care of National Security and necessary infrastructure to support commerce FIRST and foremost. I believe that charitable organizations--food banks, churches, etc. are the FIRST line of support for the truly needy. The government is the second line. I have no problem supporting those who truly CANNOT work; but I balk at just throwing money/food/whatever to those who are truly able to work for more than a short term. I've seen many, many courageous and inspiring people who the 'system' would call "Disabled" hold down meaningful and well-compensated careers. I know single mothers working multiple jobs and attending school to get a better career moving (and PAYING for childcare) just to keep from taking government money. It grates hard on me to just 'give' money to some (I realize it's a relatively small percentage) who just refuse to work. Now..on to my comment...

So, you are saying you'd rather have an Obama-Biden presidency? One that believes that RAISING taxes during and economic downturn is a good thing? A President who voted 'present' 130 times out of 134 votes on bills in Illinois; yet 'claims' to have enacted legislation to help the middle class? A candidate who's first response to the Palin choice was to go 'investigate' her (none of his business--not his party to investigate)? A candidate who thinks a small business with an adjusted gross income of 250K is 'rich'? or is that 200k? maybe 150K (Joe Biden)?

Never mind his 'questionable' relationships with the Bill Ayres (if he has no remorse for his actions then his thinking has not changed) or the leadership that destroyed Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac--and Collected MILLIONS while doing so.

We haven't had decent leadership (with notable exception of Ronald Reagan) for most of my lifetime. Clinton's presidency gave us most of the relaxation of the rules enacted after the Depression (Glass-Steagall anyone?) that would have prevented just the kind of financial meltdown we are currently in the throes of. Bush Sr. was lame domestically and abroad...Carter was lame domestically (his work for peace in the Mid East is wonderful--and I respect him for that and his work today with Habitat for Humanity) and gave us double-digit inflation and double-digit REPORTED unemployment..(I was 13 when he was elected) Nixon/Ford--well history shows us there. Johnson was just as much of an idiot as Bush. JFK would have been a great two-term president--too bad he was killed a month after I was born. Sadly, it is a historical fact Good Presidents are rare, and that Great Presidents are more RARE.

Re:Not if McCain wins!

[readin]

Obama ran an ad about McCain not using email. A little bit of Googling on Obama's part (does he know about Google) would have informed him that McCain has trouble typing because of his war injuries. Perhaps McCain will be more sensitive to the needs of physically challenged Americans than Obama.

As for McCain's ability to handle technology. Before becoming a Senator he operated in real time some of the most sophisticated machines on the planet. As senator he has been called the "Senate's savviest technologist" by Forbes magazine. According to Jacob Weisber of the liberal Slate magazine, McCain, as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, was "forced him to learn about the Internet early on, and young Web entrepreneurs such as Jerry Yang and Jeff Bezos fascinate him."

Re:Not if McCain wins!

[Anonymous Coward]

Lay off the Olbermann, dude. Your paranoia is showing.

Is XML a data format for documents?

[Joce640k]

Maybe you mean OOXML, that's definitely for documents.

Re:Is XML a data format for documents?

[lysergic.acid]

XML can be used for documents. just because it has broader uses doesn't mean it can't be used as a document format.

besides, OOXML, ODF, and XHTML are all based on XML--meaning they all validate as XML documents.

Re:Is XML a data format for documents?

[X0563511]

Now now, there's nothing wrong with using a gzipped xml for a document.

Now, there's lots of things wrong with using a vanilla xml fule...

Re:Is XML a data format for documents?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's talking about documents?

"Will 2009 be the first year of the E-President?"

[realmolo]

If the "E" stands for "ebony", then yeah, probably.

Not the first.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Clinton has been trolling the message boards using whitehouse69 for years.

it's already happened

[circletimessquare]

in previous elections, grassroots fundraising was small time. dean certainly created buzz in 2004, and $, on the internet, but by far, obama has shown that internet fundraising is a tsunami. it dwarfs the old-boy network and other sources of funding

i think a lot of us lament the influence of money in american democracy. but i think this is the first election you would ever have republicans siding with that sentiment

Re:it's already happened

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I've seen claims that Obama's average donation size is $80 and that he has refused corporate donations. I've heard McCain refused corporate/lobbyist money too, but nothing about donation sizes and sources.

But what I would really like to see, from a place like factcheck.org, is a comprehensive breakdown of funding for both candidates by size, demographic, time frame and 'outside influences' like corps that lean on their employees to donate to a candidate or just a PAC - including the RNC and DNC and any other 3rd party advocacy groups.

Re:it's already happened

[Drakin020]

Sorry to sound redundant, but let's not forget Ron Paul's record gains that one day. (I forget when it was)

Re:it's already happened

[Orne]

But what I would really like to see ... is a comprehensive breakdown of funding ...

The problem is, the Obama donations have been shown to not even implement the simplest of credit card validation. Their software readily accepts made-up names and addresses, gift cards, and doesn't even filter for credit cards sourced by American accounts (which is a violation of campaign finance laws to have contributions from foreign countries).

• In early October, citizens began reporting fraudulent donations made to the Obama campaign on their credit cards. Flash in the pan, lasted about 2 days on the talk radio circuit, but...
• PowerLine broke the story by discovering that Obama's donation site bills no questions asked, including readers from England and made-up names/addresses...
• National Journal finds gift cards work which can be purchased anywhere in the world, and wonders why the FEC isn't enforcing this campaign law violation...

Essentially, they are using the $200 reporting limit to masquerade illegal donation practices, and none of it will hit the mainstream media until November 5th.

Re:it's already happened

[Anonymous Coward]

it's also being used to obtain record amounts of illegal campaign contributions. You think the proverbial hacker with a shed-load of stolen credit cards wouldn't be able to make lots of little donations to benefit to the candidate that would be the most lenient to the causes they support?

Re:it's already happened

[Firehed]

Yeah, but that record I'm pretty sure has been broken several times by Obama since.

I still wonder what the political ads would look like today had Paul somehow managed to get the Republican nomination (not that I honestly believe that the people whose votes actually count would have voted for him, regardless of the primary results). And I really wonder what the people who still approve of Bush would do, once they get out of the hospital for aneurism treatment of course.

Re:it's already happened

[Anonymous Coward]

(which is a violation of campaign finance laws to have contributions from foreign countries)

Not true. You can be an American citizen living abroad.

In any case, the FEC has historically been notorious for failing to enforce any kind of election law, and usually the penalty is at worst a small fine and a slap on the wrist.

Re:it's already happened

[dpilot]

As an aside, several have pointed out that Obama's site didn't do decent credit card validation, leading to the possiblity of fraudulent donations. I guess I can't fight that allegation, but I will bring out an important point about it.

If there are fraudulent donations, there is no possibility for quid-pro-qou.

In other words, maybe Obama is getting extra money because fraudulent donors anticipate that they will prefer his policies, but that is completely different from the case of donors making large contributions, expecting something in return, even if it is only "access."

Bad is bad, but there are also degrees of bad, and quid-pro-quo is generally worse.

Re:it's already happened

[Attila Dimedici]

Um, you do know that the Republican candidate for President is one of the foremost sponsors of legislation to "get money out of politics"? That's why the most recent compaign finance law has his name on it.
Additionally, I have seen several sources where people were able to donate to the Obama campaign with false names and addresses. There is no evidence that the Obama fund raising is made up of small donors. The only thing we know for sure is that is made up of small donations.

Re:"Will 2009 be the first year of the E-President

[Anonymous Coward]

or evil

X marks the spot

[Zouden]

The government has a problem giving information to the people, so it decides to use XML... now it has two problems.

Re:X marks the spot

[Suhas]

Don't remember where I read it but....
XML is like violence, if it doesn't work, use more.

Re:X marks the spot

[sketerpot]

Better than inconsistently formatted HTML, if you want to parse it programmatically.

Re:X marks the spot

[Firehed]

It's crazy-verbose, but I think that kind of unnecessary clarification would be good coming from the government.

Well, until you actually see the results:
<congress>
<lawspassed>
<law>bigoil++</law>
<law>screw you</law>
</lawspassed>
<worthless>true</worthless>
</congress>

I guess it would be a start anyways. No more spending $150k on wardrobes when you can just give a freelancer $150 for a new XSL, at the very least.

Re:X marks the spot

[tomtomtom777]

XML is like violence, if it doesn't work, use more.

It's a sig of a regular here. Can't remember who though...

Re:X marks the spot

[Luyseyal]

Those angle brackets do look pretty scary...

-l

NO! they'll block the tubes!

[plasmacutter]

All presidents love to throw their weight around, pushing their 'visions'.

They'll cram their visions down the tubes, and block enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material!

We don't have to worry about it this time around though.

Obama is for "change", He'll likely change the tubes to bigger tubes so he can send his visions into the tubes.

McCain is simply doing the same old policy that's already there, so his own visions as president would be very unlikely to clog the tubes.

For nader, he's against tubes spoiling our american green space, he'll puncture the tubes, drowning our urban areas in streaming videos. This is not all bad though, the spam will fall out of the tubes before it reaches our inboxes.

It won't work

[robably]

From personal experience of the UK gov petitions site - many times over - it has no effect whatsoever. It's a sham, a deflection for discontentment, a way of saying they are listening to your concerns without actually doing anything about them. All that happens - no matter how many thousands of signatures a petition gets - is that it ends and then a boilerplate response says how they understand your concerns but you're wrong. It has as much effect as all the millions of protesters in London had on us going to war in Iraq. It makes you realize how little say you have and it's very depressing. As has been said before about voting - taking part only legitimises a corrupt system.

The real "full potential of the internet" is that it allows the government to ignore people on a more massive scale than ever before.

Re:It won't work

[mkiwi]

As has been said before about voting - taking part only legitimises a corrupt system.

Not trying to be too harsh here, but you would rather do absolutely nothing and ignore the problem rather than try to fix it in any way you could?

Re:It won't work

[Anonymous Coward]

Politicians can afford to ignore petitions because they're signed by a vocal minority on just one issue. If you start voting out politicians because of just one issue, then they'll start listening. But that would only be possible in a system with several parties.

Re:It won't work

[Nursie]

Refusing to legitimise the broken system by taking part *is* doing something. With enough weight behind it, non-participation can cause a lot of change.

Re:It won't work

[Nursie]

Agreed. It's the same crap you get from your MP when you write to them. A form letter that misses the points you raise and tells you that they know best so shut the hell up.

The website just allows them to do it to everyone at once. It's a total scam.

Re:It won't work

[LingNoi]

Yes, I'd rather not waste my time and effort on boot licking these management assholes to get things changed only to end up where I started, which is no where.

Re:It won't work

[Philotic]

As has been said before about voting - taking part only legitimises a corrupt system.

And not taking part allows the system to do whatever it wants with impunity. Do you suggest we relinquish what power we do have and suffer the consequences? Human systems will forever be imperfect. Refusal to participate guarantees that power will be in the hands of the most corrupt. I refuse to stand idly by while history unfolds itself without contributing my own efforts, however small they may be.

Re:It won't work

[Nursie]

No, not taking part weakens the system to the point that change must happen because the government no longer have the mandate of the people.

It weakens the government and makes some sort of societal reset more likely and widely supported.

Not taking part is a legitimate political action, whereas voting not only gives your mandate to one or other set of sheisters, but continues to prop up and legitimise a broken system.

Re:It won't work

[plasmacutter]

Refusing to legitimise the broken system by taking part *is* doing something. With enough weight behind it, non-participation can cause a lot of change.

Yes, in the direction opposite of reform, unless you are willing to take up arms.

I'm reminded of the first primes in SG1. They participate in an inherently evil system, but as they train their successors they teach them how to introduce moderation to the goa'uld's despotic tendencies.

They could choose not to participate, but the snake head would just find someone else to do it, and that soldier probably won't have those values.

By choosing to participate and do what little they can, they save thousands of lives.

In the case of democracy or representative republics, it's the same way. Choosing not to participate will not stop the injustice. Participating, however, will help mitigate it.

Re:It won't work

[plasmacutter]

actually this is not true.

Systems like fascism and feudalism arise because a significant portion of the population actually support them.

hitler didn't seize power alone.

Re:It won't work

[Nursie]

Bullshit.

Sorry, but I don't buy that at all. Slow change from within is nonsense in the current situation, where embedded interests are perverting society slowly but enjoying the support of the citizenry.

Were it a totalitarian state with dictators, yes, people willing to work within the system might help.

Right now?

Dems or Repubs are going to keep on winning. The only protest possible is to stay home.

Re:It won't work

[PatrickThomson]

Let me be crystal clear. The point I am about to raise is one I only do so in order to bait you. I have selected you as the most likely to be baited by out of all the responses in the thread, it's nothing personal. I don't agree with the point I will raise, and I think anyone who does is paranoid.

All that having been said:

The UK government petition site requires a verifiable email address and a valid name/address pair already known to the government. Thus, citizens can be trivially linked to political leanings and issues that bother them, making it trivial for the corrupt members of the government to abuse power.

I dare someone to miss the point, reply, and agree with me.

Re:It won't work

[Yvanhoe]

I keep saying it : what is needed is a switzerland-like constitution amendment. There, if a petition about a law proposition gets signed by a proportion of the population (1%, 0.5%) a referendum has to be held. If the "yes" wins, the proposition becomes law. Yes it would scale (Switzerland population is a several millions and it works fine for more than 150 years). No people would not vote things like "no tax" because as they would really be asked their opinion in a meaningful way, they would get interested in politics and begin to understand what is what. No this is not a receipt to mayhem : Switzerland has a top education and health system and yet it is known for its low tax rates.

Re:It won't work

[plasmacutter]

Actually, the reason things are getting bad is because america is refusing to elect the alternating unified governments they did in the first half of the 20th century.

Back then, things got done, and got done better.

Republicans would get upwards of a decade, then democrats.

This allowed them to actually implement, in full, their policies. They and the public got to see how they played out and apply correction where necessary.

In a gridlock situation, or one in which unitary governments fluctuate every 2-6 years, you don't get that happening, and have interference with "the great experiment" by a bunch of people who "don't think it will work" and don't even want to try.

Re:It won't work

[Mjec]

The real "full potential of the internet" is that it allows the government to ignore people on a more massive scale than ever before.

The full potential of the internet is in making information accessible. Imagine it - budget drilldowns from full budget down to agency expenditure. Everything that should be visible under FOI just a few clicks away.

If this is done properly - and that's a big if - we could have the data automatically available. We could have truly transparent government. Anything put on file is instantly available online, unless it's given a security classification. Too much for you? How about just file indices. Knowing what documents exist, even if you can't see the contents, would be incredible.

I live in hope.

Re:It won't work

[iamhigh]

Your argument for greater action on petitions fails in the same areas as does the argument for a direct democracy (just above in this thread).

Re:It won't work

[Nick Ives]

And I'm sure you can point to lots of examples where people changed the world by doing nothing?

The reality is that inaction wont lead to change. If you want something different to the world we have now you have to get organised with other like-minded people, agree on what your alternative is and then work really fucking hard to achieve it. Staying at home wont solve anything and you're deluded if you think it will. People in power will just tell any journalists who ask that low voter turnout is a sign of general contentment, that people don't have any problems with the political system and so don't feel the need to vote.

I realise you're advocating mass abstention from voting but that in itself would be a lot harder than simply staying at home, you'd need to campaign for it, and even after you'd built up a big consensus you'd still have to get agreement on an alternative. The left have been failing at doing exactly that for well over a hundred years now, so good luck!

Re:It won't work

[Nursie]

Right, right, because politics only work when people are unanimous and don't kick out the politicians that are screwing them?

So what you're advocating is a one party system? Good work.

IMHO, a crippled government is exactly what's needed, to stop the assholes pushing through masses of crazy legislation whilst effectively unopposed.

Re:It won't work

[plasmacutter]

that's not what i'm saying at all.

I'm saying that without unitary governments with vocal oppositions, you end up with only partially implemented policies.

Ever try to drive with a half assembled car? A tire here, an empty rim there, an accelarator but no steering wheel...

What's going on now is the same thing. Then people complain about how it won't work and never will, which is bullcrap. It can and will work if it's ever finished, it just may lack features people want, in which case you can modify it.

If the idea is that bad AFTER it's been fully implemented and tested, then the unitary government shifts.

Re:It won't work

[Nursie]

Voting for either of the large US parties is doing even less than staying home. Refusal to participate does not mean that you're either lazy or relying on non-participation as the only method of change.

"People in power will just tell any journalists who ask that low voter turnout is a sign of general contentment,"

Funny, because when we have had record low turnout here in the UK, all the media and politicos start talking about what's going wrong and trying to involve people in the process.

They still miss the point - people don't want to vote for any of them and either actively abstain or just plain don't give a fuck which weasel gets in - but it attracts attention.

Re:It won't work

[Randym]

Dems or Repubs are going to keep on winning. The only protest possible is to stay home.

Wuss. They *want* you to opt out. Where's your American sense of adventure? Get out there and help one of the many little parties which, BTW, *are* winning races here and there more and more often. As government at *all levels* seesaws back and forth unsteadily, more and more people are not voting for the same old crap, but exploring various alternatives. Most politics really *is* local.

Re:It won't work

[robably]

would rather do absolutely nothing and ignore the problem rather than try to fix it in any way you could?

Completely the opposite - when you choose to accept and work within a system that is already there then you have to accept its rules and limitations, and you will have only two or three options and very little chance of forcing change.

But there are an infinite amount of ways that you can make change in the world - so why would you restrict yourself to thinking and acting within someone else's boundaries - especially when it's those boundaries that you are trying to change?

I'm not advocating violence or stupid stunts like dressing up as spiderman and scaling a building - but just to free yourself from thinking that you ever have to fill in Form B to get to Point C (Profit). The key to making change in the world (without force or violence) is to appear to be far more reasonable and rational than the other side. To look like you know what you are doing, and to get other people to agree with you. And if you're going to organise a protest, protest reasonably, don't act like a mob, encourage other normal people to join with you, and tell the dreadlocked jugglers to fuck off because they will make your group look like a bunch of incompetent weirdos and drive normal people away from ever joining you. I don't care how doe-eyed and well-meaning they are, dreadlocked jugglers are the kiss of death to any serious protest and you need to tell them where they can stick their didgeridoo. /rant.

Album title: Oval Office Party - Chiefs and Squaws

[rift321]

Obama gets impeached because he mistakenly shared that album with "All" - himself and his chiefs of staff hitting the "Presidential Six-footer" with Biden in the background giving the shocker sign, his arms around two busty assistants. It would be arguably funnier if that happened to McCain... We would all be walking around the next day, dazed, saying "Yeah, like, I guess he was kinda cool..."

Speeding up patent applications?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about a project that speeds up the patent rejection process?

Internet Secretary

[Devil's BSD]

Maybe they'll even appoint a Secretary of the Internet!

Re:Internet Secretary

[TubeSteak]

Maybe they'll even appoint a Secretary of the Internet!

Boy are you going to dissappointed when you read Part 2 and find out who they pick.

300 million critics

[postbigbang]

could use maybe a pdf, but I'm thinking xml makes tracking data changes too difficult. So:

1) put the US budget proposals, including all the fat and pork online for one week before it gets a vote or passage
2) put all expenditures (except the dark stuff) online in lists that can be viewed; maybe streamed.
3) mandate all legislation gets to be downloaded for one week before it can be voted on, for public scrutiny
4) mandate all trade agreements, and all bi-lateral information is published for a week prior to signing
5) require a planned versus actual listing of all major budget expenditures, including all military expenditures

Wanna read something scary? Pick any one of the above.

Re:300 million critics

[SL Baur]

Wanna read something scary? Pick any one of the above.

Am I missing something? Those are all positive things.

Or did I miss your sarcasm tag?

Hey what now? E-President getting advice

[Orion Blastar]

from the Internet?

Do we really want Anonymous Internet Trolls giving the next US President advice? That will lead to things like making "Chocolate Rain" as the new National Anthem and making it so that Plan9 is the official and only operating system to be used for the government and instead of being called The Commander In Chief the President will be called The National Idiot in Command.

Good grief! They might even try to change the US Flag to a Goatse or Tubgirl motif. :)

Anyway, yes we do need a standard for file exchange on the Internet like XML but it needs to be encrypted so that hackers and crackers don't steal the data and use it for identity theft. So maybe use GPG to encrypt the files with at least a 4096 byte key.

A lot of federal computer systems are still modem and command line based, they need to be upgraded to Web 2.0 standards and use broadband speeds. Some of the Medicare/Medicade systems use Modem dial-ups to process bill payments and medical records, which is why it costs so much and is so slow and has so much red tape and doesn't cover a lot of expenses. By modernizing it, it will help reduce costs and make it more affordable.

Get rid of that darned Donut Hole, poor people are going without their medication for the last four to three months of the year because they fell into a donut hole and lost coverage until they spend $3500 of their own money, and have to pay $200 to $300 to $500 per prescription per month, those of us on ten or more prescriptions are really really hurting esp when we are on disability and are too sick to work.

Re:Hey what now? E-President getting advice

[techno-vampire]

Good grief! They might even try to change the US Flag to a Goatse or Tubgirl motif. :)

No, they'd never go that far. They might, however, change our symbol from the American Eagle to a pony. OMG! PONIES!!1! LOTS AND LOTS OF PINK PONIES111!!!!!11!!!!!lll

Re:Hey what now? E-President getting advice

[Anonymous Coward]

Do we really want Anonymous Internet Trolls giving the next US President advice? That will lead to things like making "Chocolate Rain" as the new National Anthem and making it so that Plan9 is the official and only operating system to be used for the government and instead of being called The Commander In Chief the President will be called The National Idiot in Command.

Good grief! They might even try to change the US Flag to a Goatse or Tubgirl motif. :)

On the upside, the Cult of Scientology finally gets its comeuppance.

And I'm still not seeing any downside.

ANONYMOUS FOR PRESDIENT: BECAUSE NONE OF US IS AS AWESOME AS ALL OF US.

Re:Hey what now? E-President getting advice

[Orion Blastar]

Sorry they don't qualify.

Most of them are under 35 years of age, and since they remain anonymous they cannot prove their age or that they were born in the USA. They would have to drop all privacy and go public in order to run for office.

Nice try though, but even I, Orion Blastar, cannot run for office unless I drop my privacy and give my real name, real age, and birth certificate proving I was born in the USA. I'd rather be Anonymous and give helpful advice to Presidents and Congress than run for office.

Re:Or

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it also inconceivable that a Barack Obama supporter donates more than is legally allowed?

Will 2009 be the first year of the E-President?

[greenguy]

No.

Re:"Will 2009 be the first year of the E-President

[halivar]

or... ebola?
enema?
emulsified?

or.. or... OR...

excremental!

Obama does.

[Anonymous Coward]

> It appears this is a good idea. But do the political parties know how to use technology in an efficient manner?

At least in terms of campaign organizing, Obama sure does. They've found crazy ways to crowdsource all kinds of election activities, from having people call & persuade other voters with their cell phones, to using social networking to get their friends to vote. (Mind you, I hate the buzzword "crowdsource" but I don't know what else to call it.) If they're half as good at implementing that when in office as they were building it from nothing, we can expect considerable improvements.

That said, government IT projects aren't very much like political campaigns. They usually get twisted by political concerns and sourced to incompetent government vendors who charge exorbitant fees. So I wouldn't get too optimistic.

Though they can't really do much worse than some of the terrible systems in place now, like the manual sorting & archiving of email in the White House, or the crappy COBOL payroll systems in California where you have to put in code changes to change peoples' pay!

Re:Obama does.

[cayenne8]

"At least in terms of campaign organizing, Obama sure does. They've found crazy ways to crowdsource all kinds of election activities, from having people call & persuade other voters with their cell phones, to using social networking to get their friends to vote. (Mind you, I hate the buzzword "crowdsource" but I don't know what else to call it.) If they're half as good at implementing that when in office as they were building it from nothing, we can expect considerable improvements."

The Obama IT camp, however, can't seem to implement even the most basic credit card verification for donations...to make sure the names and addresses given match those of the credit card number being used.

I mean, when they just only require valid cc numbers, well..people could make donations over and over again, probably over the limits...or maybe people from outside the US, that aren't citizens could make donations. I mean, this could mean they could raise a TON of money extra without verifying names/addresses....OH wait...hmm....

Re:Album title: Oval Office Party - Chiefs and Squ

[Orion Blastar]

Nah if they appealed Bill Clinton's impeachment they'll appeal Barack Obama's impeachment as well for the same reasons.

Look at all of the stuff George W. Bush is accused of doing, and they still can't impeach him. That is because they don't have enough evidence to start an impeachment trial, but what they do have is accusations, rumors, gossip, and opinions, but no "hard evidence" beyond a reasonable doubt. There wouldn't be enough "hard evidence" for Obama either even if he did make the album public because he could claim it was a practical joke or parody and didn't really mean it. Just like Bill Clinton claimed that oral sex was not sexual relations by his definition.

If Richard M. Nixon didn't resign, he'd win his impeachment appeal like Bill Clinton did. Those tapes were taken illegally without a search warrant and would have been thrown out in an impeachment trial plus the prosecutor would have been found to be biased like Ken Starr was.

It is really really hard to impeach a President.

Re:Or

[Anonymous Coward]

no. simply multiply the maximum allowed for one person by the number of persons associated with that card.

The obama campaign has already refunded millions because people exceeded their limits.

Their fundraising is on the up and up.

Electronic referendums are -VITAL- next step

[Anonymous Coward]

The people need to be able to veto any policy they dont want, with enough of a majority. The polititians need to realise that they -serve- the people, not the other way around. Common sense needs to be able to prevent things which we basically all know are wrong or unwanted choices. Give the people the choice! - it's their country, - not just yours. The people have to live with whatever wrong choice the polititians make for the next 100 years or whatever, while the polititian walks away...

I claim prior art on the first E-Pen...

[Justin Ames]

Oh, it says the first E-President...

Re:"Will 2009 be the first year of the E-President

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to the First President on E? How about the First E-President that just happens to be on E??

Let's not kill Socrates again.

[Capsaicin]

a government of the people, by the people, for the people, is not just a catchy phrase from the Gettysburg Address. if we want to continue to call ourselves a democracy, then we need to actually employ a democratic system of government that carries out the will of the people.

"Direct democracy," no matter how well intentioned, is a recipe for dystopia. Every democracy worth living in has mechanisms set up to protect individuals from "the will of the people."

We don't "need" to make radical changes, at all. Sorry to get all conservative on you, but given such a high level of complexity, a established system, incorporating countless bug-fixes, is preferable to a complete re-write. A similar principle applies to software developement.

Re:Let's not kill Socrates again.

[Cassius Corodes]

While it may be common sense that such a system will not work - it has worked in a number of places, although at smaller scales (usually direct participation in local legislation, or directing local council spending). Wikipedia was slated by many to fail, and it did not. I personally would like to see such a thing trailed - so that even if it doesn't work overall we might find positive aspects to implement.

The courts will still be there to overrule unconstitutional legislation and protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority (as they do now) so there will not be that kind of danger.

Re:Let's not kill Socrates again.

[Capsaicin]

While it may be common sense that such a system will not work - it has worked in a number of places.

You did notice the subject of the post you are responding to? ;)

Wikipedia was slated by many to fail, and it did not.

Wikipedia allows people who know something about something to write what they know, to have it corrected by other someones and ultimately to be subject intervention from on high. Direct democracy would involve getting people who know nothing about anything to decide everything. OK, that's hyperbole, but do read on. :)

I'm with Popper here. The strength of democracy does not lie in our ability to elect a government, but to dismiss one. We (you, I and every voter) are singularly unqualified to asses the strength of prospective governments. Firstly we can't believe what the candidates or the press or the smear campaigns etc etc tell us. Secondly we are not qualified in Economics && Law && Domestic Administration && Foreign Affairs && the countless other things governments must deal with. However, when incumbents get it wrong, there is no-one, but no-one, who is better informed than the people who are subject to that government's misrule.

We are, I submit, even less qualified to make a call on day-to-day administrative or legislative processes.

The courts will still be there to overrule unconstitutional legislation and protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority (as they do now) so there will not be that kind of danger.

The courts would be the very first thing to go. And what is this constitution that you speak of? Not the one you've thrown out the door to bring this about?

Re:Let's not kill Socrates again.

[tomhudson]

Every democracy worth living in has mechanisms set up to protect individuals from "the will of the people."

In Bush's case, the mechanism is the Secret Service, and "the will of the people" is to tar and feather him. nd that's just for starters.

Your statement is inaccurate and should be rephrased as "Every democracy currentlyworth living in" ... we now have the means to devise a future democraciy that would have been unimaginable in times past.

Re:Let's not kill Socrates again.

[Capsaicin]

In Bush's case, the mechanism is the Secret Service, and "the will of the people" is to tar and feather him. nd that's just for starters.

When simply voting the incumbent party out of office (or convincing oneself that the party, with its new candidate, has seriously reformed itself) would be a much more civilised response. The "tar and feather" bit is exactly what I'm afraid of, thanks.

Your statement is inaccurate and should be rephrased as "Every democracy currentlyworth living in" ... we now have the means to devise a future democraciy that would have been unimaginable in times past.

Your statement is also capable of being rephrased. We now have the means to implementa future democraciy that would have been only imaginable in times past. I've imagined it for a number of decades now, and let me tell you it's not a pretty picture that gets conjured up in my mind. I'm not against change. But rather than ditching a system that has proved itself for several centuries in favor of the phantasm someone's imagination as implemented by Diebold, I'd prefer to reform representative democracy.

Re:Let's not kill Socrates again.

[Cassius Corodes]

You did notice the subject of the post you are responding to? ;)

Indeed, however direct democracy would not be the perfect government, it *could* be better than what we have now - that is all I am suggesting.

Wikipedia allows people who know something about something to write what they know, to have it corrected by other someones and ultimately to be subject intervention from on high. Direct democracy would involve getting people who know nothing about anything to decide everything.

Why do you assume that (last sentence)? Why not try adopting things from the way wikipedia is run? Direct democracy doesn't preclude things like votes being valued differently based on subject matter expertise for instance.

We (you, I and every voter) are singularly unqualified to asses the strength of prospective governments. Firstly we can't believe what the candidates or the press or the smear campaigns etc etc tell us.

We may be individually - but the result may be surprising when aggregated. We are just as vulnerable now to press and smear campaigns as we would be under direct democracy.

The courts would be the very first thing to go. And what is this constitution that you speak of? Not the one you've thrown out the door to bring this about?

Why would the courts be the first to go? Why would the constitution disappear? (make it require a higher majority + majority in all states to change, etc - problem has been encountered and solved before).

Re:Let's not kill Socrates again.

[Anonymous Coward]

software development and governing are 2 very separate things. Republicans are very clever at winning elections. Less government in business and more business in government they say. That doesn't help anyone except the wealthy. You cant rely on business to take care health care, education or any of these types of services - for the people. Business is there to make money. Not to do the right thing by you. Business ethics are 'technically' optional. I am not advocating tearing down our society and running amok, just that there should be some kind of responsibility to society from these companies that take so much yet give so little. offering some low paying jobs while making obscene amount of money and paying little tax (no matter what they pay, they will claim its too much) does not meet that responsibility. If everyone in society has some more money, they all spend more. The very nature of being conservative is flawed. The world is a changing place. being conservative means you dont want to change. How can mccain even claim to stand for change when hes a conservative? oh thats right, they say anything to win elections and make out that if you dont agree with them you must hate america...fear fear fear...all you republicans can just kiss my ass, coz in a weeks time, you are going to see a rise of the liberals that you aint seen in your lifetime. You republican scumbags are through....for awhile.....

Re:Let's not kill Socrates again.

[Haeleth]

Why not try adopting things from the way wikipedia is run?

Wikipedia is not a direct democracy.

Re:Let's not kill Socrates again.

[Cassius Corodes]

Perhaps you were replying to someone who claimed it is?

Re:Let's not kill Socrates again.

[electrictroy]

>>>Wikipedia was slated by many to fail, and it did not.

It has ruined several persons live by printing false information in their Wiki-biographies. Now imagine if wikipedia had the power to kill..... all it takes is 50%+1 majority, and your life is gone. Simply because people don't like you.

You're probably scoffing at this point, but it happened to Socrates. He exercised his right of free speech, the Athens Democracy did not like his ideas, and so they voted by majority to execute him. Had Athens been a republic that protected free speech by a supreme over-arching law, then the government never could have touched him.

Re:Let's not kill Socrates again.

[Cassius Corodes]

Read my response to this point on my reply to the previous reply.

Re:Let's not kill Socrates again.

[Sebilrazen]

I see where you were going, but it was a hard journey to get there. You're arguing that like wikipedia, that certain contributors have more weight than others, thus their edits/votes are counted more. What I don't understand is your concept of weighted votes:

Direct democracy doesn't preclude things like votes being valued differently based on subject matter expertise for instance.

How would you propose a person's expertise is gauged? A test at voter registration? Is it re administered annually? Please tell me it's not take home, I don't want some Bible-thumping 7th-day Adventist cribbing the answers to the science questions so they'd be considered an expert.

While I commend your outside the box thinking, fractionated votes aren't the answer imho, it brings back to many memories of pre-civil rights' era America when blacks were only afforded 6/10ths of a vote like they were somehow less than a whole white person.

Re:Let's not kill Socrates again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you hate America?

Re:Let's not kill Socrates again.

[dpilot]

I think the gp is referring to "Tyranny of the Majority." The founding fathers were very concerned, and that's part of why we have a Senate, and the Supreme Court is filled the way it is.

Re:Let's not kill Socrates again.

[Cassius Corodes]

Its just one option - all I'm arguing for is to have a fresh think of the possible problems and solutions. The reason I like the notion of some votes being worth more then others is to drive home the notion that being educated is vital to a democracy - and those that take the time to learn about the world are rewarded (which is turn hopefully pushes others to get educated - either that or it ends up completely demoralising and disenfranchising them :[). How such a thing might be measured? I don't know - its an interesting problem, IQ tests and all are fairly woeful but we don't need a perfect presentation - it just has to be approximately right. Perhaps professional organisations might rate domain knowledge as well as certify people (ie architects, bar associations etc). Perhaps its somehow measured by your contribution to society (do you participate in the community, contribute to topical online discussions, active voter, feedback from your friends/relatives (aka 360 evaluation) etc). The answer might be a mix of a number of different metrics that evens out the disadvantages in individual metrics.

Perhaps my main point is that these are all problems that could possibly solved if we think about it - after all representative democracy was thought of as untenable at one point, and many valid arguments were put against it - however solutions where found for all these problems (most of which were aren't 100% solved) that were good enough to make the system work. There is no reason for the system to be static either - a council that gets together annual can identify problems and make recommendations for possible solutions - the system can evolve along with society.

Re:Let's not kill Socrates again.

[tomhudson]

I'd prefer to reform representative democracy.

... and some of those reforms could be along lines that were not even possible in times past, because of the length of time it took to communicate, the problems with amassing votes on individual topics or voting someone out of office in a recall election, etc.

Already, email has made real-time consultative democracy practical. Instant feedback from your constituents.

Proportional representation is another "new old thing" that is now practical, as would be the ability for people who are too lazy to vote to transfer their voting right to someone they trust - bring democracy right down to the friends/family unit ....

Just thoughts. Use your imagination, and I'm sure you can think of a few other things tht can be changed - like dumping the electoral college.

Re:Let's not kill Socrates again.

[tomhudson]

Looks like we have two choices - tryanny of the majority or tyranny of the minority.

Much easier to corrupt a few senators ... more return on your investment, etc., so the system is flawed.

We have laws to prevent the tyranny of the majority from interfering with the civil rights of the minority; on questions of taxation, why can't the majority define how they think the money should be raised and spent?

Re:Let's not kill Socrates again.

[dpilot]

It's a little more fundamental that that, because it's all done with laws, because that's the tool that Congress has. Laws govern civil rights and budgets both. In the case of the way Congress works, the minority gets its power by its ability to prevent action, not to cause it. It's essentially a veto.

I think the biggest problem with corruption is the 2-party system, because it makes 2-stop shopping with your influen^H^H^H^H^H^Hcampaign contributions.

It's about time!

[ITEric]

This is supposed to be a representative government, but how long have we been left wondering who, exactly, they were representing? Following these suggestions would bring about the transparency we need to help eliminate the (perceived) corruption and cronyism in our government. I suggest it be taken a step farther to help reduce the number of unwise laws that are passed. Let's have the sponsors of bills post them to a website where they can be reviewed by the public-at-large. Then every lawmaker who wants to amend the bill would post the amendment as a comment so that the public can see who is loading the bills down with what pork. I doubt it would take very long for the public to see exactly which politicians are screwing us and how. - That's transparency!

Re:It's about time!

[SL Baur]

This is supposed to be a representative government, ...

True, the US is a Republic not a Democracy.

but how long have we been left wondering who, exactly, they were representing?

At least my lifetime, but who's counting?

Following these suggestions would bring about the transparency we need to help eliminate the (perceived) corruption and cronyism in our government.

Nope.

I have one single suggestion that would instantly result in better government:

If a representative wishes to vote AYE on a bill, he/she must pass a test that proves that he/she has read the bill and understands it.

Think about it. We really do not willy-nilly passage of a barrage of laws so much as applying some actually thinking as to how they all fit together.

Does anyone else remember the promised slowdown by a US airline carrier in the 1980s? (I think it was United, but I'm not sure). The airline employees instead of striking, promised to obey every law to the letter, which of course, stopped the system.

Re:Album title: Oval Office Party - Chiefs and Squ

[techno-vampire]

Nah if they appealed Bill Clinton's impeachment they'll appeal Barack Obama's impeachment as well for the same reasons.

What makes you think an impeachment can be appealed? Who would hear it? The Supreme Court? They're the judges in the impeachment, they can't also hear an appeal, and there's nobody else left. If the President is successfully impeached, he's out, no ifs, ands or buts. Judging from what you've written, you think that Clinton's impeachment hearings before Congress were an appeal. They weren't, they were the impeachment itself. You clearly don't understand the process. Either your school skimped on teaching civics or you weren't listening.

Bill Clinton claimed that oral sex was not sexual relations by his definition.

No, you're wrong again. He was able to claim that oral sex wasn't sexual relations because they didn't fit the definition that the plaintiff's attorneys were using. They tried to box him in and outsmarted themselves. As far as Nixon is concerned, even his own party would have voted to impeach.

Re:Or

[brian0918]

RTFA. Example credit card names include the fictional character John Galt from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. His billing address? 1957 Ayn Rand Lane, Galts Gulch, CO 99999.

Dynamic congressional voting

[cgenman]

I'd love to see a congressional voting site where you can vote on X numbers of issues that come before the congress, before they come before the congress. Congressmen could then use or ignore that information when making decisions.

Of course, that congressional divergence would be online for all to see. You could even see the %divergence between various senators and your personal votepoints on the issues. Does Feinstein really agree with your POV? Does Liberman? Now you can know.

Re:Dynamic congressional voting

[SL Baur]

Does Feinstein really agree with your POV? Does Liberman? Now you can know.

Di Fi represents only herself and her husband, though no one seems to care. I doubt putting up yet another website will change matters much. California is much changed from the days I grew up with Governor Reagan at the helm.

Senators are pretty much tenured for life, unless they do something really stupid like Larry Craig themselves. Wide Stance's "crime" was being registered Republican not Democrat and NOT just for playing footsie in the bathroom ...

Power broker?

[Gothmolly]

You know, I'd like to be a power broker too, but I'm just as irrelevant as this douche.

Re:Album title: Oval Office Party - Chiefs and Squ

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Republican, I am happy to agree with that last statement.

Online Government Open Accountability Ledger

[mybecq]

This is what I have proposed in OnlineGOAL - the Online Government Open Accountability Ledger.

Opening up the (massive) pocketbook ledger of any level of government is going to significantly improve accountability for where the taxpayer's money flows (both in and out).

Contact your local representative and find out when they're going to support this proposal (for whatever country or level of government they are in).

Just like...

[sgriffin_usa]

it will be the year of the Linux desktop.

Not if McCain wins!

[Simonetta]

The last thing that the neo-cons want is for more government-citizen interaction and less secrecy in their more 'sensitive' actions. The less that the citizens know, the better! All this government-citizen interaction just gets in the way of what they believe a government is supposed to do: give away hundreds of billions of dollars to sleazy corrupt hedge-fund managers and mercenary corporations, and to then just disappear when it's completely broke (along with everyone's pensions and 401-K plans).

    Would anyone want to be entrusted to have to try and explain anything technical to Sarah Palin? The first DAZ-MO president (dumb-as-shit mommy)! God, I've got hundreds of them trying to drive their space shuttles (huge SUVs) around town, occasionally flipping them over and crashing into poles because they haven't quite mastered the art of feeding the kids, dialing the phone, changing the DVD, and driving a huge truck-sized vehicle in dense highway traffic.

    And a Palin presidency? Just tell her that "this is what America wants and needs", make a huge payoff to the people who are really deciding the policies, and walk off with the billion-dollar no-bid contracts. Two months of a Palin presidency and even the staunchest liberals will be begging the military to take over the country. Just don't shoot us, please. Shoot them, instead. You know who we mean.

    Jeez.

i should have known

[circletimessquare]

my comment would bring out the partisan hacks

Re:i should have known

[Orne]

Did you even read it?

Correction

[Capsaicin]

When simply voting the incumbent party out of office (or convincing oneself that the party, with its new candidate, has seriously reformed itself) would be a much more civilised response.

I'm sorry, I miswrote. "Convincing oneself" could have negative connotations that are best avoided in this political season. What I should have written is "satisfied oneself." I don't want to say "Bush sux, vote for Obama," in fact I want desperately, not to say it. What I do want to say is that we have in place mechanisms with which to express our political frustrations without resorting to joining a lynch mob.

OMG!

[circletimessquare]

Obama is a tool of foreign money!

zzz

Re:OMG!

[crenshawsgc]

Wow, by restating his argument you sure have done a lot to counter his argument

Re:OMG!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Well gee, the first article is a meaningless single case of credit card fraud, if that's the best they could dig up, then they suck at digging up credit card fraud stories because such are just the nature of the beast when accepting credit cards online and the system already has mechanisms for dealing with it - as in the person who was fraudulently charged calls up and disputes the charge.

The second link to a blog was typical blog bullshit - lots of hysteria about how the website doesn't immediately puke when you enter bogus data but what is glaringly missing is any specific mention of charges actually being processed for valid CC numbers with invalid names and addresses. The fact that no comment is even made about that most important step says to me that the blog owner knows quite well that those charges were never processed and just decided to leave out that fact in order to make his point. Partisanship before truth, so common among the blogs and radio shows that purport to be the news but are really only opinion pieces. The real irony is that these types are the ones ones who constantly complain about how the 'MSM' is misleading.

The third link is actually a fairly good news article, but consequently it doesn't support "Orne's" supposition as it indicates multiple times that both campaigns have had problems and that both campaigns have taken steps to improve compliance with FEC regulations as the problems have presented themselves.

Seems like circletimesquare's summary was pretty accurate - Orne contradicted himself with his own links, no further comment should have been needed as any critical reader would have come to the same conclusion.

I can see it now

[Anonymous Coward]

Prez52 writes: lets invade Iraq! lol

Cheney11 writes: lolololo, teh weaponz of mass detruktion r in mah ass!

Prez52 writes: lmao!11!

Concerned_Citizen writes: But is there probable cause? Will the UN approve this unilateral action?

Prez52 writes: newb!!1!

Cheney11 writes: This iz SPARTA!! lolz

JSON Please

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 for JSON please :)

Bush...

[md65536]

Bush: I was already an E-President. At least that, maybe a D-President. I made full use of more than one Internets, like the time I checked my e-mail on the one in my office, or that time Dick was showing me the google.

And then what?

[BitHive]

We must all come together and reset society by not organizing or legitimizing candidates who reflect our values in any way with our votes. The more obsequious the populace, the more threatened the ruling class. Am I doing this right?

Patents...

[EddyPearson]

Yeah, because what the world needs now is more fast track patents...

Did Monsanto ever get their patent on the Pig?

That UK site...

[QJimbo]

a UK site that aims to improve government-citizen interactions,
Hahahaha. Have you ever read any of the replies to the petitions on the no.10 e-petitions site? I don't know of a single one that actually worked. Usually it's either "we're already doing this, honest" or "you don't understand the benefits of what you're signing against!"

It really serves no other purpose other than to make people think they're doing something when really they're not.

Re:Electronic referendums are -VITAL- next step

[ajdecon]

That's right, let us kill any policy >50% dislike! Like civil rights, or gay marriage, or taxes....

Barac Is Likely to Use the Internet, not John

[yura13]

Since Obama has successfully used the Internet to raise money, surely he'll use the Internet afterwards. At least it'd be a smart move, indeed. However, I totally not see McCain to make anything widely available to the public. If you don't expect anything like this from the current administration, don't expect it from McCain.

What I want is E-candidates

[alispguru]

People who run for office by saying:

I don't need hundreds of millions of dollars to run for national office. Communicating via the internet is much cheaper than buying media time, and doing it this way doesn't leave me obligated to rich donors. Choose me based on my policy ideas, not how many times you saw my face on TV this week.

Every time you see a billboard, a full-page ad, or a TV spot, you should be saying "Who paid for that, and how much of the candidate do they own as a result?"

Maybe this will be possible by the next presidential cycle, when the major networks and big news outlets are all bankrupt.

internet = modern wategate tapes

[peter303]

We've seen people like Cheney and Palin intentionally avoiding email and other traceable electronic records. Plus dubious claims of "losing white house backup tapes". (No IT shop is perfect and some mistakes happen.) The internet is seen as the modern version of the watergate tape recording system. It could return to haunt politicians operating illegally.

Obligatory

[neoprog]

The year of the Linux Deskt...E-President!

Missing items: spam, public access, OSS, secure it

[dwheeler]

If they really want to use the Internet to move us forward:

1. Make unsolicited bulk email (spam) a crime, and require that people OPT-IN to receive messages sent in bulk. The current 'opt-out' system in the U.S. is silly, and always was. Europeans have the more sensible opt-in system, so far more spam is U.S. in origin. It's not that hard to define; if more than 1000 people (say) receive it, and they didn't sign up for it (e.g., by signing up for a mailing list), it's spam. A law will not solve everything, but it would help. The current "CAN-SPAM" law is a joke - and aptly named.
2. Put all federally-funded unclassified research papers on the web, with no fees or sign-ins, so that a Google search can find it. NIH is already doing this, see its public access policy: http://publicaccess.nih.gov/ Why should the public pay for research, then pay again to read it?
3. By default, if the government funds unclassified software development (e.g., via research), that part should be released as open source software. Again, why should the public pay for software, then pay again to use it? Exceptions will be needed... but they should be exceptions, not the rule.
4. Increase funding on efforts to protect the network and network-connected components. Some is done now, but it pales compared to the problem.

A politically correct profession

[mi]

sleazy corrupt hedge-fund managers

Like Chelsea Clinton? Absolutely, the only respectable professions are either a teacher or a museum-worker (with the possible additions of working with AIDS patients in Africa).

I wonder, what you think of fashion designers, though... Are those Ok?

Irrelevant...

[mi]

Does anybody remember the first telephone President? Or the first steam President? Or the first TV one? (Clearly, Joe Biden doesn't).

Using/not using the Internet should not be the criteria...

Electronic President ...

[PingPongBoy]

In the modern era we will have a paperless tiger!!

Re:"Will 2009 be the first year of the E-President

[vidaddy]

The "E" or "digital" or "IT" or "cloud" president is a fractional representation. We are living in the "age of videography" [Miller Freeman publishing - 1996] & all media count. 95% of all information today worldwide is conveyed through "video" monitors. Mahaloha !!! - Bob Kiger - seminal author of the word "videography" [OCT 1972 American Cinematographer magazine] - Videography Lab - www.videographyblog.com [Rated page 1 on www.live.com, on page 2 of Yahoo search and buried on page 6 on a google search for "videography". Referred to in Wikipedia under "videography" definition but not linked because of "E-vanity" BS.

The coming Palin Presidency

[Randym]

Two months of a Palin presidency and even the staunchest liberals will be begging the military to take over the country.

Anybody got a link to the ifPalin==President Futures Market? Because -- given voters' short memories -- I predict she'll win a hard-fought contest in 2012 against a struggling President Obama, using Middle East tensions as a wedge issue. After assuming the Presidency, she'll try to intercede there -- and ignite Armageddon, much to the delight of her base. The only question is: how long will it take? I predict a time, two times, and half a time: say, about June 2016.

Think that's unlikely? I'm listening to the radio (93.9 The River) and they just ran a story that said, basically, "Sarah Palin is considering running for President in 2012 if Obama wins in 2008." Yes, a chill did run up my spine.

Remember, you saw it on /. first.

Re:Album title: Oval Office Party - Chiefs and Squ

[Orion Blastar]

Sorry I got appeal confused with Aquitted.

They voted for acquittal not appeal.

'The Senate voted on the Articles of Impeachment on February 12, with a two-thirds majority, or 67 Senators, required to convict. On Article I, that charged that the President "...willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury" and made "...corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence" in the Paula Jones lawsuit, the President was found not guilty with 45 Senators voting for the President's removal from office and 55 against. Ten Republicans split with their colleagues to vote for acquittal; all 45 Democrats voted to acquit. On Article II, charging that the President "...has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice"..., the vote was 50-50, with all Democrats and five Republicans voting to acquit.'

The perjury charge was from the Paula Jones case, not the Monica Lewinski case. It was Sexual Harassment not Sexual Relations.

I am sorry for the confusion, I had a bit of a rough time in the late 1990's as my best friend killed himself and the stresses of my job were getting to me during that period in time.

Re:Album title: Oval Office Party - Chiefs and Squ

[Orion Blastar]

Yeah even Nixon's own party wanted to throw him under the bus, after the Deep Throat incident.

Re:Album title: Oval Office Party - Chiefs and Squ

[techno-vampire]

That's OK, we all make mistaques. BTW, I've read somewhere that one of the reasons Nixon resigned is that Goldwater told him, "Mr. President, I've been taking a poll: you have seven votes, and mine isn't one of them."