How Social Software Can Improve Democracy

Geek Satire writes "Politics breeds cynicism; politicians seem to pander to contradictory focus groups to get elected, then break their promises to everyone. Mass mailings and faxings overwhelm their staffs, and who knows if you can tell your representatives what you really think? Experienced techie and political consultant Silona Bonewald (creator of the Transparent Federal Budget) believes that simple software solutions can fix these problems and more. O'Reilly News recently discussed with her how social software can improve democracy and leadership."

Comments

How Social Software Can Improve Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

By providing manifold opportunities for first post.

Re:How Social Software Can Improve Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

THEN WHO WAS PHONE?

Re:How Social Software Can Improve Democracy

[Lachlan Hunt]

Also, people don't seem to realize there are hardly any real democracies in the world, only republics.

Either you must be using some strange definition for the word republic that I'm not familiar with, or you're excluding countries which certainly are not republics, like the UK, Australia and other countries in the monarchy, and many other countries around the world which are not republics.

Re:How Social Software Can Improve Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

darn it, where are my troll points when I need them?

Re:How Social Software Can Improve Democracy

[Curunir_wolf]

Also, people don't seem to realize there are hardly any real democracies in the world, only republics.

Either you must be using some strange definition for the word republic that I'm not familiar with, or you're excluding countries which certainly are not republics, like the UK, Australia and other countries in the monarchy, and many other countries around the world which are not republics.

Uhh... No. The Magna Carta swept away the monarch's power and made the UK a Republic - that is, requiring the monarch to recognize the rights and powers of Barons and leading to a Parliamentary government. Today, members of the Parliament are voted into office by the citizens, clearly making the UK a Republic. The title of the head of state doesn't matter. Whether there is a King or a Prime Minister or a President, if there is a body of representatives that make laws, and an instrument to hold the head of state as subject to the law (like the Magna Carta or the US Constitution), then you have a Republic.

Australian government is very similar to the US' - they have a parliament made up of a House of Representatives and a Senate, with representatives popularly elected by citizens of the six states. The only difference is in terminology, as they call the head of state the "Queen", not the "President".

These countries often call themselves "Constitutional Monarchy", but in a true monarchy, everything is owned by the monarch, and the monarch provides leases and allowances. That's not how these countries operate. So they are not really monarchies at all - they are Republics.

Re:How Social Software Can Improve Democracy

[neverutterwhen]

Umm, did you really just say that? First, the UK didn't exist in 1215. Second, there is absolutely no way in which you can argue that England has been a republic since 1215.

Re:How Social Software Can Improve Democracy

[Curunir_wolf]

Umm, did you really just say that? First, the UK didn't exist in 1215. Second, there is absolutely no way in which you can argue that England has been a republic since 1215.

But you claimed the UK was not a Republic, which I refute. The Magna Carta was the end of any true Monarchy for England, and lead to the current republic-style government of the UK.

The point is, the GP was correct: most countries are actually organized as republics. Your claim about the UK, Australia, et.al. being monarchies is fallacious, because they are MINOs (Monarchies In Name Only).

Re:How Social Software Can Improve Democracy

[neverutterwhen]

I didn't say that. I just don't think the Magna Carta had the effect you think it did. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 on the other hand was about when power shifted from the Crown to Parliament, legally anyway. Obviously the Civil War etc had huge practical effects before that. What Magna Carta did was to introduce the concept of the rule of law; it did not arrogate the powers of the monarch to the barons/representatives or whatever it is you're trying to say. I see your point, but you can't keep repeating the phrase 'Magna Carta', especially as we got rid of it just now.

Re:How Social Software Can Improve Democracy

[ps2os2]

Well *IF* this article is anywhere close to being true then the judges of the legal system (and the Congress) have got to keep up with it. There are far too many judges (etc) that are so far behind the times they can't even comprehend on how to handle this (or the INTERNET for that matter).
I just can't wait for a Supreme court ruling that says because the framers of the constitution meant "this". That means that either they will ignore the issue or let the local governments handle this. This will mean KAOS in every city in the nation.

I wish

[$RANDOMLUSER]

If we could use all this technology to make a real direct democracy, we could get rid of this two-party representative democracy. Imagine, government of the people, in real time.

Re:I wish

[MindlessAutomata]

Lynchmob justice?

Re:I wish

[Aerynvala]

But then we'd need to have a BuSab and I just don't see that happening in reality.

Re:I wish

[Anonymous Coward]

It wouldn't at all be restricted to lynchmobs. Notice how fast people change ideas. There would be no coherent policy at all. Never.

The media would rule, not the people (in other words, think the RIAA is bad now ? Just wait until "ordinary citizens" told how to vote by cnn get involved. It'd carry the death penalty). And given how popular fox news is, it would get outlawed quickly.

A government like that would be worse than muslims. It'd force everyone at the point of a gun to be of a certain undiscussable opinion.

A government like that would be unsinkable ! Like the titanic.

Re:I wish

[azgard]

Actually, the practical experience with direct democracy (for example from Switzerland) says the exact opposite.

People are _very_ conservative and don't like the change, even if it's for better.

It's funny that you are talking about media influence, but at the same time parroting the power elite's propaganda about why the direct democracy cannot work.

Re:I wish

[kdemetter]

You underestimate how easy people can be influenced by the media.

This direct democracy would only work if everyone was very politically involved , which is just not the case.

Also , pure direct democracy , if everyone would really from their own opninion , would slow everything done , because there is always someone who disagrees with it , resulting in endless discussions and debates , and no real solutions.

As a goverment type , i think a good idea to try might be technocracy : decisions are made according to what the best solution the problem is , based on scientifical approach and simulation models , that can veryfied by everyone.

Sure , this isn't completely flawless either , i'm sure , but it may solve some of todays problems ( for instance , by solving the problem of global warming rather than endlessly debating it )

Re:I wish

[Richard W.M. Jones]

Actually, the practical experience with direct democracy (for example from Switzerland) says the exact opposite.

Yes and no. Switzerland, clearly yes, their practical direct democracy works well. However for the "mother of all direct democracies" you have to look at the ancient Greek city-states, Athens being the prime example. Direct democracy in Athens resulted in the legalized slaughter and enslavement of many Athenian enemies.

Interestingly in Athens, every government position was directly elected except for the really important ones like military commanders.

Rich.

Re:I wish

[azgard]

I am not underestimating anything, I am referring to empirical experience with direct democracies. It's you who are making things up.

I recommend this book as a source of information. It answers all your misconceptions.

About technocracy - it would not be good at all. In the real world, the main issue is power. If you would give power to small elite, it would quickly degenerate. In my country, communist party tried to run a country based on such a system (planned economy and society), and it spectacularly failed.

Direct democracy could solve global warming quite easily. For example, Switzerland was always a leader in ecology-oriented legislation.

Re:I wish

[Richard W.M. Jones]

As a goverment type , i think a good idea to try might be technocracy : decisions are made according to what the best solution the problem is , based on scientifical approach and simulation models , that can veryfied by everyone.

Good luck getting the religious know-nothings to agree to that.

Rich.

Re:I wish

[azgard]

Well, as I already pointed out, direct democracy is not a cure-all solution. I don't think Athenean democracy (as any other society from that era) can be really held to today's society standards.

But this is not an issue. The issue is if the direct democracy (or semidirect, which is actually what I mean when I talk about it) is better than representative one.

Re:I wish

[Oligonicella]

Good luck getting the techno know it alls to agree with any model.

Re:I wish

[Neoprofin]

Switzerland is a representative direct democracy, the only benefit they have (and it is a nice one, I think) is that they can choose to try to override federal decisions with a popular vote, they do not however vote on everything or even most things.

I don't know how well the system would scale given the lengths our system has gone to to try and prevent larger groups from gaining unquestionable power, I can see it making it very hard to make necessary but unpopular moves.

Re:I wish

[ReedYoung]

As a goverment type , i think a good idea to try might be technocracy : decisions are made according to what the best solution the problem is , based on scientifical approach and simulation models , that can veryfied by everyone.

That is such a terrible idea, the ancient Greek word for that political philosophy now means a vapid, mentally incompetent person! "Idiot" originally referred to a person who willingly relinquished decision-making power to the state. Even if the state is composed of elected, hired representatives, turning over the basic power to any ruling class is plain stupid. Democratically deciding to hire experts for very complicated problems can be smart in cases that it's necessary, but voting on whether to enact their proposals should still be up to the citizens.

Re:I wish

[azgard]

Switzerland is a representative direct democracy, the only benefit they have (and it is a nice one, I think) is that they can choose to try to override federal decisions with a popular vote, they do not however vote on everything or even most things.

Yes, but there is also a feedback loop that arises from that. When politicians can be kept in check directly, then they don't try to cheat so much. Therefore even the legislation coming from government is usually agreed with by the majority.

I don't know how well the system would scale given the lengths our system has gone to to try and prevent larger groups from gaining unquestionable power, I can see it making it very hard to make necessary but unpopular moves.

I am not sure what country do you refer to, but I don't see why there should be any scaling problems. And if you are referring to USA, I don't think it quite succeeded in preventing "larger groups from gaining unquestionable power", despite having explicitly written such attempt into constitution.

I also consider "necessary but unpopular" moves a bit of oxymoron. In our country, when politicians refer to something like that, I know for sure it will go against my interests.

Re:I wish

[ReedYoung]

Also , pure direct democracy , if everyone would really from their own opninion , would slow everything done , because

... which we have already decided is so overwhelmingly a Good Thing that it is the reason we have three separate branches of government, as well as a bipartate legislature. A system of checks and balances is not a flaw, it's a feature, and one that is wise to retain regardless of the details of how the responsibilities of governance are divided up. We want enough time and enough inertia, meaning tendency to resist change, that we can realistically identify the results of the changes we make so as to repeal the stupid changes. The same technologies that allow more direct, more truly democratic participation in government also allow more rapid feedback in the process of distinguishing the desired effects of our changes from undesirable side effects. We'll all keep an eye on it of course, but your basic assumption of inherent inefficiency is disproven.

there is always someone who disagrees with it , resulting in endless discussions and debates , and no real solutions.

That is in fact a greater problem with government by an elected few than a direct democracy, and I can prove it to you right now on one page, using your own example!

You underestimate how easy people can be influenced by the media.

No, azgard is correct, and underestimated nothing. You have underestimated the propensity of people to ignore their job descriptions to collect easy money. It is not true that all politicians are crooks, but it is certainly true that some people are crooked, and likely that some can fool enough of the people enough of the time to be elected. The question, therefore, is whether a republic of elected representatives or a direct democracy is more susceptible to corruption from the interests of the populace. When we represent ourselves, our tendencies to corruption cancel one another out to a degree not possible with a representative few, or class, or elite. It is the republic model itself which is the problem, the very source of institutionalized corruption.

Sure , this isn't completely flawless either , i'm sure , but it may solve some of todays problems ( for instance , by solving the problem of global warming rather than endlessly debating it )

In fact, in a direct democracy, doing "more to address global warming" would pass with a veto-proof majority: 68%. Furthermore, we would do so despite the (false) impression that significant doubt exists among competent, reputable scientists. "Almost seven-in-ten (68%) Americans think the government should do more to address global warming, according to the poll; however, 64% think scientists disagree with one another about global warming." Although study and refinement of the models continue, legitimate debates are on the periphery, not the basics, and anybody who tells you otherwise is a liar or a moron. It's a fact beyond dispute that carbon dioxide tends to retain heat by not radiating photons in the infrared range. Arrhenius discovered that in the 1800's! Another fact beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have increased since the beginning of the Industrial, and in proportion to the industrial combustion of hydrocarbons. Thus we know, not guess, that increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the resulting increase in thermal energy are the direct result of combustion of petroleum and other hydrocarbons. Ergo, it is a fact, not an hypothesis or theory, that use of gasoline and other hydrocarbons for vehicle fuel and to generate electricity for power grids are causing the measured observables increased mean atmospheric temperature; increased mean ocean temperature; increased severity and frequency of tropical storms; increased polar melting and de

Re:I wish

[VomitInc]

It's funny how conservatism (keeping/cherishing good things) is criticised and mocked as "people don't like the change, even if it's for the better". Isn't democracy about the majority deciding what's for the better of said majority? And if their decision is that the change doesn't benefit enough to compensate risks, then the best decision can well be to keep the tried recipes. Any company will also avoid risky changes "for the better" before they know damn well that they *will* be. So no matter if the losing ("progressive"?) side thinks their view is "for the better", you have to define the will of the majority as the best choice. Any other choice would be an oligarchy of self-appointed "screw the majority, I know what's best" dictators.

Re:I wish

[azgard]

I didn't want to mock them, however, there were certain cases in Switzerland that took quite long to be voted for by popular vote, and that we now consider granted. Two examples come to mind - voting rights for women and some rights for disabled people. So such cases certainly do exist in direct democracy, and it would be dishonest to claim the opposite.

Anyway, my point still stands and I agree with you - people in direct democracy tend to avoid risk, even to the point they will refuse legislation which is undoubtedly at least partly good.

That's why I believe that the competition of states (or legal systems in general) is necessary to complement direct democracy. Both Switzerland and US have such a system. This allows some experiments to be made on smaller level (local, cantonal/state) first and then, if the law gives positive result, it can be enacted in the whole nation.

Re:I wish

[ReedYoung]

Actually, the practical experience with direct democracy (for example from Switzerland) says the exact opposite.

Yes and no.

Wrong; it's just "yes."

Switzerland, clearly yes, their practical direct democracy works well. However for the "mother of all direct democracies" you have to look at the ancient Greek city-states, Athens being the prime example. Direct democracy in Athens resulted in the legalized slaughter and enslavement of many Athenian enemies.

No, Athenians voted for severe military action against actual enemies, not as a result of their democratic form of government, and for comparison, not because of an incompetent Executive Office of the republic, so blinded by ideology and paternal disappointment that even a source named "curveball" was called "credible" and "slam-dunk" when it said what he wanted to hear. The invasion of Iraq for the petro-military complex could only happen in a dictatorship, or a secretive republic subverted by an Executive who never had any intention to stick to his promised "non-interventionist foreign policy," ie, a totalitarian republic such as immediately preceded the fall of the Roman Empire. Representative DeFazio was denied access to information he has the legal right to review, just not to share, by virtue of his membership on the House Homeland Security Committee. I think a respectably active republic would be sufficient to prevent this particular abuse by the White House of the privilege of classifying some information as crucial state secrets, but certainly the legal grey area in which the White House is maneuvering would never stand a chance in a direct democracy, nor would the invasion of a foreign power on a false pretext. Obviously, the invasion of Afghanistan on a true pretext had popular as well as Legislative and Executive support, so there is no reason to believe that legitimate self-defense would be impeded by more direct democracy.

Re:I wish

[Curunir_wolf]

Switzerland has probably the most Democratic system in the world, but it's not all mob-rule like you're advocating with a real-time, everybody-votes-on-everything system.

Switzerland has a legislature of representatives, and executive, that make most of the laws, which must follow the country's constitution. If people don't like a law that is passed by the legislature, they *can* call for a vote to have it repealed, but they need 50,000 signatures in 100 days, and then there is a rather lengthy process for getting it onto a ballot and having a vote.

The important part is the Constitution that maintains the rights of the people. It can be amended, but it is difficult to do.

That's a good thing. Because the most important role of government is to protect people's rights from other people. A direct democracy without those protections is still tyranny, it's just tyranny of the majority. When people can vote to decide what rights to take away from which group, no one is safe.

Re:I wish

[badkarmadayaccount]

Did I mention we techies love the right and simple solutions when they are there. The religous freaks would allow a technocrasy over their dead bodies only. So we arrange it. Enginiers are just as good making AK-47s as they are motors.

Re:I wish

[badkarmadayaccount]

http://www.junkscience.com/

Re:I wish

[FLEB]

Ahh, but then who... err... simulates the simulators?

Re:I wish

[azgard]

I don't know what you argue with me about, I agree with you. And I already said the exact same things in other posts.

Re:I wish

[FLEB]

To be honest, I've never looked into such things, nor do I know about the Swiss method, but from the description it sounds like a rather good implementation-- representative by default, but direct democracy readily available as an option if the representatives counter a significant population. I think the key is to require a certain amount of participation, as well as majority, for the popular vote to be legitimate.

The greatest problem I could see with complete direct democracy would be that of every fringe or special-interest groups packing their own particular interest vote, while the majority of the electorate, while they might end up affected by the results, can't handle both their own workaday lives, as well as the responsibility of being-- essentially-- a legislator. Requiring significant interest to call a vote would be key, and some manner of representation would still be required to run any organization which makes any significant number of day-to-day decisions.

Re:I wish

[FLEB]

That's why I believe that the competition of states (or legal systems in general) is necessary to complement direct democracy.

It's a completely fanciful idea, of course, but I've always wondered what political system would actually win if every nation could have the political system of its choosing (which is to say, similar to now, whatever method can take power), with any laws it could enact, with the single universal restriction that no nation could refuse emigration. That would seem to be the true test of a given political system-- let those who don't like it... leave.

Re:I wish

[azgard]

Yes, there is a certain small limitation (about 1%?) of signatures on the petition they need in order to get referendum about the issue.

However, I don't think having a condition like "majority of voters has to vote in order vote would be legitimate" is a good thing. This is an obstacle in democracy. I as a voter should have a right to leave decision on others. Moreover, this opens the voting susceptible to manipulation with phrasing of the question. If the turnout is expected to be low, then the question can be phrased so that the desired result is when the vote is invalid. Therefore, real democracies, such as in Switzerland, avoid these stupid limitations.

Re:I wish

[anaesthetica]

Being a Digg user and an admin at Wikipedia has destroyed my faith in any kind of internet-based social governance.

Re:I wish

[azgard]

For what reasons exactly?

Actually, I don't like what happened with Wikipedia either, but probably for a different reason. The people who have power there don't want democracy, and they instead prefer this fuzzy notion of consensus which allows them to pass anything anytime. There are no real rules about decision-making, so the result is anarchy.

Re:I wish

[kdemetter]

I have no misconceptions : It is easy to convince people that don't care about politics , by controlling the media. I don't need to read a book for that , i know out of experience.

But i will take a look at it , as it does interest me.

In Technocracy , there's no ruling elite , only ruling models, with the most viable being used.

Sure, it could be a problem, as how do you determine wich is good ? That would be the job of the people , who will verify the models , run them themselves to see if there is no fraud , etc. A bit like peer review in open source.

You have a point that it takes away power from the people who no nothing about technology. But we are evolving in a more and more technological society, so that problem will dissappear over time.

You could say that it takes power away from the media , and gives it to the more technologically involved.

Re:I wish

[kdemetter]

We do, offcourse

Re:I wish

[kdemetter]

And then how do you solve this problem , with your direct democracy :

There is an airport , and people living there. The planes have to lauch over a specific part of town. The people off that part don't like it , so they vote to get it flown over a different area. So then those people complain and vote for another area. Everyone wants to get it over a different place, and everyone wants to keep the airport.

In a technocracy , this is solved easily : a model is defined to determine wich approach generates the least noise , and is best for the planes.

Re:I wish

[azgard]

Actually, I believe this is a problem that can be easily solved in general, but I don't know if it has been tried yet. You can auction off the place. The town parts that do not want the airport will pay some amount of money to the part that will have the airport. The part that now has the airport can now spend the money for improving other things.

Re:I wish

[secondhand_Buddah]

In fact, in a direct democracy, doing "more to address global warming" would pass with a veto-proof majority: 68% [time.com].

The answer to this is of course, that in a direct democracy, we would have more influence (votes) in the areas of our specialization. I would have a much greater say in IT, especially software, than would say for instance a doctor. This would enable the focused expertise of the general populace to be utilized in making informed decisions.
This is obviously a very simplified example. There would need to be layers of voting and decision makers. These layers would ideally be based upon levels of experience in the world. With this approach we could get back to a situation where the wise are making the important decisions
The democracy of old was conceived to work in much smaller groups of people. where participation was possible. Today, voting once every 4 years for some individual to represent you, is an insult to the spirit of democracy. We have been fooled into thinking that we live in democracies, when in fact we no longer do in the spirit of the concept

Having said that I do believe that technology can re-enliven democracy in its truest sense. With networks and uniquely identifiable devices we can openly and continuously vote on issues that effect our every day lives.
For example, in the case of open document standards: do you think for one moment that we would not have decided 10 years ago that all public records would have to be stored in an open format? Instead we have this public circus that we continually discuss on Slashdot, while microsoft bribes its standards into existence while we stand around and watch helplessly (for the most part). This is one simple example, but extrapolate this by 10 000 times and you can begin to get a feeling for the scope of the magnitude of the problem facing us today. More importantly there are those who would seek to stop true democracy from happening, and they are the ones who would be willing to sacrifice (your) freedom for personal gain. these people are the real enemy, and they are amoung us

Re:I wish

[dkleinsc]

A real argument against that:
The only people who would vote on an issue in that sort of direct democracy would be those who (a) know that the vote is going on, (b) are able to cast their vote, and (c) have an ax to grind.

For an example of how well that would work, look at the recent history of obscenity enforcement by the FCC. The Parents Television Council organized a few hundred thousand people to complain, and the FCC all but has to act because no one is willing to get up and say what Tom Lehrer said:
"I do have a cause: obscenity. I'm for it."

Re:I wish

[ikeman32]

"Actually, the practical experience with direct democracy (for example from Switzerland) says the exact opposite.

People are _very_ conservative and don't like the change, even if it's for better.

It's funny that you are talking about media influence, but at the same time parroting the power elite's propaganda about why the direct democracy cannot work."

I tend to agree, the founding fathers considered democracy rule by the rabble and nowhere in the constitution will you find the word democracy. The US is in fact not a democracy at all, it never has been. The US is a Republic, Article IV Section 4 of theUS constitution state that the United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a Republican form of government. If one remembers the pledge of allegence, I pledge allegence to the flag, of the United States of America. And to the "Republic" for which it stands.

Despite the trend of considering a Republic just another word for Democracy it is not so. There are countries that call them selves a Republic and are nowhere near Democracy: The peoples Republic of China, The former USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republic, The Republic of North Korea.

Re:I wish

[quincunx55555]

My way is easier. Tell the folks that bought property near the airport (or didn't move in the several years it took to announce, plan, and build the airport; etc) to be responsible for their own decisions.

Re:I wish

[ReedYoung]

In a technocracy , this is solved easily : a model is defined to determine which approach generates the least noise , and is best for the planes.

Nothing in a democracy prevents the discovery of that or any other information. It only prevents the appointed or self-anointed technocrats from imposing their will on the populace. And, we'll decide what's best for the persons, not what's best for the planes. QED again.

Re:I wish

[ReedYoung]

The answer to this is of course, that in a direct democracy, we would have more influence (votes) in the areas of our specialization.

"The answer"? That obviously hybridizes technocracy and democracy, but I am not convinced that such a compromise is valid, morally or pragmatically. Instead of having more votes of your own, every time your "area(s) [determined by whom?] of specialization" [and, I assume, competence, which also, too begs the same question again: determined by whom?], democracy allows us to exercise such specialized competence as [we believe] we have, to present our opinions and their basis in fact to the electorate. If the difficulty of doing so to voters less educated in our specialties exceeds our interest in the referendum at hand, so be it.

If I cannot, or will not bother, to convince the majority of affected voters, all they would have as justification of the rule of what then would be dictatorship, is my "assurance" that I'm right. As I think I said already, and certainly intended to say already, the transition from democracy to republic, and the conflated premise that some are more suited to self-govern than others, is the first step on the slippery slope to tyranny. In every society, some megalomaniacs will exist, urging us to make that compromise in some form, thus the price of liberty really is eternal vigilance. The danger of demagoguery and consensus in mythology is far greater than the danger of an entire populace making the same technical error. Explaining the technology in simplified terms is a relatively small price to pay. I stand by democracy over technocracy based on the arguments presented so far.

I would have a much greater say in IT, especially software, than would say for instance a doctor.

Possibly, but only in proportion to your ability to convince voters, one referendum at a time, that what you say about each measure is technically correct and in the best interests of the most voters. In other words, only if I, + at least 50% of the other voters, agree that you know as much about IT as you believe you do, shall we effectively "give" you our votes. But we will never do so officially. Never expect nor assume any kind of blank check, including that inherent in technocracy.

With this approach we could get back to a situation where the wise are making the important decisions.

With direct democracy we can do better still. We offer those who believe they have superior wisdom the options to put up or to shut up. [literally, to prove it or be ignored, but retain their right to embarrass themselves by the ongoing exercise of free speech] We then get the rule of wisdom instead of the rule of "the wise," and a government of laws [potentially at least, objective and just] instead of a government of men [always suspect of corruption and never trustworthy, any farther than throwable].

Re:I wish

[secondhand_Buddah]

Imagine the scenario where there are 10's of millions of voters, reading about, discussing, and voting on issues, at all levels of society, every single day. This has become a very real possibility for the first time in the history of our species.

Our current democratic systems are pretty much a farce of what Plato envisaged. Voting every four years and hoping for the best is simply idiotic if you actually think about it. Sure there are processes to contest issues, but who, apart from the corporations, can really afford to do so? The odd individual who takes up cause is hailed as a hero.

We have the very real possibility today to enable and allow every single individual to participate in our democracies on an ongoing basis. Do I think people will participate? Sure I do, once we remove the feeling of helplessness that the current democratic processes have instilled in us. Today we vote every four years, and hope for this best. When you actually spend some time to think about it, this is totally idiotic. In what other areas of your life would you act in this absurd manner?

The spirit of democracy encompassed the freedoms and the rights of each individual being able to participate. the principals of democracy work fine in their current form in much smaller groups, where debate is possible. In our current national implementations of democracy, the concept has become a joke, and the joke is on us. I see it on a continuous bases how peopleâ(TM)s rights are steam-rolled by those with the big cheque books. This is not democracy, and this is certainly not freedom. It is in fact an enslavement of peopleâ(TM)s minds.

What we are going to build is an electronic platform for democracy where individuals can participate on a daily basis in a modern democratic system. Issues will be able to be tabled, discussed and voted upon every single day. We are going to build this system, even if it takes 10 years to iron out the details. While it is technically very feasible, what we are ironing out is HOW it will work in practice.

These details include how we vote, and what our votes count for. Looking at the scale of what we propose, it becomes obvious that there will be areas where our specialization will be of more use to society. How do we manage this? Well the only way is if our votes become public record. We register for our area of specialty, where we get more authority, and we get general votes for other areas of interest. There will also be areas, for example constitutional or rights issues where we all have an equal say (i.e. a vote on an issue, like the current system). This will enable referendums to be called frequently, with maximum participation by all citizens. These however are the details of implementation. They are the ideas that currently have consensus generally within the groups discussing these issues. Iâ(TM)m sure that they will evolve over time as we further explore how we can enable citizens to participate in the running of their countries. The purpose of the exercise at hand is to build the platform, through its increments until it gains acceptance. What this system could very well bring about is total change in democracy as we know it. Who knows, party politics may even one day be a thing of the past, as the democratic process becomes fluid. I certainly hope so, and will contribute as much as I can to ensure that this does happen.

Re:I wish

[secondhand_Buddah]

I think that in a direct democracy, where each individual has the ability to participate and vote on issues every single day, the role of the media will begin the change dramatically, especially television

I can envisage a whole new increment of media arising as well, around the interactive platform of the internet. I can see people spending more time online, in public virtual debates, watching video clips on all issues, listening to sound bytes and viewing documents. I see our media platforms changing to accommodate this change.

Right now citizens are generally complacent and listless because they vote every four years and hope for the best. If they were in a situation where they could actively participate on a daily basis, a lot of this lethargy, disinterest, and general state of helplessness will disappear from our populace, That change will bring about radical improvements in our societies

only you can make a difference

[Anonymous Coward]

as long as we think that material wealth is the hallmark of success, we will be ruled by the corrupting effects of greed and power

in truth, first-worlders have more than we deserve and it has corrupted us

in fact, we're so corrupt, we can't accept the simple truth of it

Re:only you can make a difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Those are words of wisdom. I totally agree with you.

Re:only you can make a difference

[gadabyte]

douchebag: i don't believe in private property.
me: ok, give me your shoes.
douchebag: no, they're mine!

(i actually had this conversation irl)

Improve, not fix

[slysithesuperspy]

In a democracy you vote once every two years and get a vague "promise" about a vague set of rather awful services, and everyone knows it sucks but they just go and vote anyway. On the market you have much much more power, rather than writing a letter or ticking little box you can voluntarily make an exchange for a good or service and one person doesn't deliver they can be taken to court. It is such a disgusting double standard, political democracy sucks.

Re:Improve, not fix

[azgard]

This is solved by direct democracy. In direct democracy, you vote about the laws directly, so you directly control that the laws you want are passed.

Note this is simpler (thus superior) solution to having court decide if the politician kept his promise. In such a system, whoever would control the court would control the politicians. Then you would have to vote about people in the court, and you couldn't rely on them either. So in comparison with direct democracy, you would have an additional set of people and you couldn't completely rely on them anyway.

So it's a simple matter of fact that if you want direct control over the issues, you actually want to decide them directly.

Re:Improve, not fix

[TheRaven64]

In a direct democracy either every person needs to devote a lot of time to understanding every issue related to proposed laws, or a lot of uninformed people get to enforce their opinions. The entire point of representative democracy is that most people have better things to do with their time than study all of the issues behind every piece of legislation, so we pick people with a similar world-view to ourselves to do it for us. If you want an idea of how direct democracy would work, go for a ride in a taxi and listen to all of the uninformed opinions the driver has, then remember that his vote on every law would have the same weight as yours.

Re:Improve, not fix

[azgard]

In practice, this is not a problem for several reasons:

1. If you are not interested in the issue, you just don't vote - it's as simple as that.

2. If you are interested, you are going to get the information. And there are simple solutions to this problem too - for example, in Switzerland, every voter receives a summary which contains details and debate points about the legislation they are voting about.

3. If someone is completely ignorant, then he votes randomly, and effect of such people in voting will cancel out.

4. If someone is manipulated (so he votes against his interests but not randomly, as in point 3), then there exists a manipulator. This manipulator thus can be exposed, and, moreover, to manipulate large amount of individual people, albeit stupid, requires more resources than to manipulate individual politicians. So even in this case, direct democracy is superior.

Re:Improve, not fix

[TheRaven64]

A lot of people are interested but not informed. Consider nuclear power. The vast majority of interested people get their information from Greenpeace, and other similarly-biased sources. People have strong opinions on a wide variety of topics that are not based on a rational assessment of the issues.

Re:Improve, not fix

[azgard]

In fact, that's not clear at all. For example, our country has been building a new nuclear power plant. There was a question whether we should build it or not. Most people (about 70% IIRC) supported building it. The negative voices were mostly (financially) supported by Austrians, because they have hydrodynamic energy from Alpine glaciers and don't need nuclear power.

Anyway, now it's actually questionable if it was good or bad. CEZ (the energy firm that built it, which has almost monopoly on energy creation and distribution here) insisted that if the power plant gets built, it will switch off some of the coal power plants. That was their major argument for building the nuclear plaint. It didn't happened, and we now export the excess energy.

Note: I am not against nuclear energy, just saying that things are not always black and white.

Re:Improve, not fix

[Anonymous Coward]

Democracy is supposed to be rule of the people. If the people want to make uninformed choices, that's their prerogative. Maybe you don't like democracy?

Besides, DD would nurture a culture of more informed voters.

Re:Improve, not fix

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, uninformed popular interest may prevent direct democracy from replacing coal with nuclear, but the same factor has had the exact same result in representative democracy anyway (e.g., last Australian election). Direct democracy today would have coal replaced by solar (thermal), and for all the technical appeal of nuclear, would it really be so bad to just go solar instead?

Besides, if you're so worried about your uninformed public, how do you trust them to judge the character of their representatives? The current system is not far from combining a genuine monarchy with a regular referendum deciding whether to permanently disqualify the current monarch (in favour of the next in succession). It avoids outright tyranny, but does little else.

Re:Improve, not fix

[secondhand_Buddah]

One of the aspects of a direct democracy, is that I would for instance would contribute within my field of expertise. The voting would be weighted accordingly. The weighting of votes could be designed for instance, so that people with more experience, social responsibility, education in a field, and age experience, would have more say.
This way we have people with understanding voting on relevant issues. The whole voting system would need to be well structured, but the whole concept certainly is feasible, especially in with an open managed platform.

Re:Improve, not fix

[secondhand_Buddah]

With a weighted voting system, your votes would count more within your area of expertise, so doctors would have a larger say in public health issues, while having very little influence in say energy or transport.

Re:Improve, not fix

[secondhand_Buddah]

This may be the case, but I would expect a nuclear physicist to have more say (votes) on issues relating to nuclear power than myself who has only a general understanding of the subject. This is possible in a direct democracy run on an open voting platform.

Consider your example, of nuclear power. Your average man with general knowledge on the subject (including most politicians) would possibly not even know about thorium reactors that could offer a clean nuclear solution. It would not be in anyone best interest (in the altruistic sense) for these votes to have much say in considering nuclear technologies.
I would rather have someone who understood that we could actually have clean nuclear energy for the next 10 000 years with a weighted vote making the decisions in this area of our societies.

More importantly, I would like these votes to be public, so that we can begin to measure levels of responsibility, accountability, and expertise within any given area. The secret ballot would simply not cut it any more in an open and truly democratic society.

Re:Improve, not fix

[anti-pop-frustration]

If you want an idea of how direct democracy would work

Come to Switzerland. We're doing ok, I promise.

Despite all the uninformed taxi drivers.

Re:Improve, not fix

[azgard]

This wouldn't be a good system. Quickly, a power-grabbing elite would appear, and they would care about no issues. They would then give themselves more power. To give each voter a different weight is a way to tyranny.

Unless the weight given to the experts would always be in the hands of the voters. But this is just more complicated system than direct democracy with no real advantage.

Instead, each voter has right to vote, and if he doesn't understand the issue, he can decide what expert opinion he wants to hear, or he can decide not to vote at all and thus leave the decision on those who believe they are experts themselves. That's as fair as it can ever be.

You just don't understand the basic problem: Someone has to decide at the end of the chain. It must be the voters themselves (with everyone equal), or this will lead to tyranny of minority. If the voters themselves are let to decide at the end of the chain, they can as well decide directly, and having all the intermediate steps as advisors only, as this results in a simpler system.

Re:Improve, not fix

[secondhand_Buddah]

What I am talking about is a form of franchise voting. There are obviously limits to how many votes one can have in a system like this.
the system that I am proposing would by requirement need to be totally computerized - the votes would be counted electronically

With regards to tyranny, one could only get more votes in ones area of specialty, which would limit the overall threat of tyranny, while encouraging participation by voters within their area of specialty. In this regard, the experts themselves would have to vote along with everyone else. This system has the advantage of encouraging voters to focus within their area of specialty, by contributing to society in this manner. This is a new concept that could only be implemented electronically. As you may notice by my tag-line, I am more interested in a participatory democracy than a direct democracy, although the two have a fair amount in common

Re:Improve, not fix

[kabocox]

In a direct democracy either every person needs to devote a lot of time to understanding every issue related to proposed laws, or a lot of uninformed people get to enforce their opinions. The entire point of representative democracy is that most people have better things to do with their time than study all of the issues behind every piece of legislation, so we pick people with a similar world-view to ourselves to do it for us. If you want an idea of how direct democracy would work, go for a ride in a taxi and listen to all of the uninformed opinions the driver has, then remember that his vote on every law would have the same weight as yours.

I read slashdot. Folks on slashdot have voting rights... That usually scares the hell out of me. I kinda think every taxi cab driver has just as much right to vote as any one on this forum. Have you actually listened to what other people have to say?

I'm kinda mixed about 98% of how our so called government is run and picked. I think kids should all vote. What age limit? I don't know maybe 6 years old. There are days that I don't trust how elections are run in this country. What do I think needs to be done? Why simple... we should combine the voting crap with the IRS. Just think of it as paying or turning in your tax forms at the same time you vote every year. I guess to really make it complete we'd also combine the census crap in there and make it a yearly thing.

Re:Improve, not fix

[azgard]

Ok, let's say we are voting about increasing patient rights. Why should doctors have more say in this than patients? Who will decide what area of specialty is touched by the given law?

If the general public decides, it may as well see that the doctors would vote "no" to this proposal, so they may decide to mark it outside of the area.

If the doctors decide, they would mark it inside they area and decide, against the will of the patients.

You still don't understand. You just added another decision in chain I talked above - decision whether a given "expert category" is touched by the law or not. Whoever controls this decision can control (in some cases) whether the law will be passed or not.

Re:Improve, not fix

[azgard]

Yes, it's interesting that people, who normally are interested in individual freedom, or say so, begin to be interested in what other voters can and cannot, instead of concentrating what other advantages direct democracy would have for them personally. And it would have, because they personally would have more control over politicians.

Re:Improve, not fix

[secondhand_Buddah]

Well, as I said previously, there are some areas where we would all have equal votes, and one of those areas would relate to our rights & constitutional issues.
Universal health-care would be one of those areas that would need to be decided by the whole group/nation.
Policy within the area, for instance what would be the most effective way to deal with obesity (hopefully within a Universal health-care program :-)), should rather be left to those with the knowledge to debate and consider.
Another option that I thought about last night, would be for each person to have a certain amount of floating votes, for a given period, outside their area of expertise. that they could use to vote on any other issue that they may choose to vote on. This would encourage participation on areas that may be close to heart, but where I don't necessarily have much more than common knowledge on a subject.

With regards to participation there would need to be some framework where issued could be raised, and heard. Like the internet, an electronic platform would enable all potential participants to have an equal platform on potentially a national scale. What options do I have right now to raise issues. It is a really difficult and costly exercise at the moment. On a public platform, it would be very difficult for those who currently act as the gatekeepers to simply sweep these issues under the carpet because they would be visible to all. One could get national groundswell on an issue overnight on an electronic platform, where currently your local politician could simply bury it if it was not in their best interests.

Anything which threatened the current system

[elrous0]

...would immediately be crushed by Congress in an act of self-preservation.

Re:Anything which threatened the current system

[azgard]

I believe that it's a lot more subtle than that.

There are certain issues that can make people really angry, and could be in principle used to pass more democratic laws. However, what happens in such cases is that the current powers will much rather compromise on the specific problem than to allow more democracy (which could cause them more problems in the long run). So it's not impossible to fight for, but democracy itself needs more awareness among people not to be satisfied with such compromises.

Re:Anything which threatened the current system

[Toe, The]

Have you seen Metagovernment? It is completely international and has no formal organization, no leaders, and no physical presence. How is the American Congress going to shut down something like that?

Re:Anything which threatened the current system

[Alarindris]

I wasn't aware that you could shut down a fake government.

Re:Anything which threatened the current system

[secondhand_Buddah]

Like anything that can intrinsically and fundamentally change anything can really be stopped. Consider it a force of nature - the collective will of a general population. In the end true democracy will prevail.

Those in power will object, and there probably will be some levels of civil unrest, and attempted suppression. But in the true spirit of democracy, freedom will prevail, and the taste real freedom will be sweet.

At the moment we are ruled by groups of those who wish to preserve their self interest by sacrificing our freedoms. It is time to change this.

Improve the Republic .. not the democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Thankfully, the United States is not a direct democracy, and hopefully never will be. Such an abomination was the fear of the framers - a government by mob rule. At the very least the changes in technology can help educate the voters on the issues far more than 50 years ago. It will ensure their elected representatives do what they say they will do (screw ups and scandals are reported in near real time).

BTW, for those who are now red-faced about my first statement, go read the Constitution. See if you can find any reference to the word democracy.

Re:Improve the Republic .. not the democracy

[azgard]

I don't understand your objection about direct democracy. If you don't think voters are rational or worse as leaders, why have democracy at all? I think people who don't want direct democracy actually don't want democracy at all, they just either don't say it in open or don't realize there is a logical inconsistency in their statements.

By the way - I am from Europe and believe that the reason why USA was so much advanced is really the fact they had very advanced democracy (in some cases direct) on national and local level. If you had direct democracy on federal level, maybe you wouldn't have any problems you have now with war and debt.

About your constitution - your founders may have been wrong. They were just people, anyway (they also didn't consider women and other races equal to white males). And at the time, there were no practical results with direct democracy. But they are now, and show very good results (increased happiness, better budget management, higher voter turnout, etc.).

Re:Improve the Republic .. not the democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

> By the way - I am from Europe

Which country?

Re:Improve the Republic .. not the democracy

[azgard]

Czech Republic. Our country is much less democratic than the US (or most of Western European countries), and it shows a lot. Even though the situation got a lot worse in recent years in the west too.

Re:Improve the Republic .. not the democracy

[TheRaven64]

If you don't think voters are rational or worse as leaders, why have democracy at all?

Voters may be intelligent and rational, but they are not informed. They don't have time to be informed on every issue. Most of us don't have time to be educate ourselves about every single thing that a modern government needs to understand, so we pick representatives who don't have to do anything other than learn about them and then make decisions.

Think how many people believed Iraq was behind the World Trade Center attacks. Would you want the average man on the street making decisions about foreign policy? About the environment? About banking regulation?

Re:Improve the Republic .. not the democracy

[gbutler69]

If we had direct democracy, Iraq would now be a giant sheet of glass!

Re:Improve the Republic .. not the democracy

[azgard]

It's actually amazing how many Americans don't understand the roots of their foreign policy. If you would have direct democracy, Osama bin Laden would never plan 9/11 - he wouldn't know who the Americans are.

Also, people believed connection between 9/11 and Iraq because George Bush lied and emphasized it. And you are going to blame common people, rather than him, for that.

So instead of doing something with the leaders that give people incorrect information, you argue that people who were deceived by incorrect information are the danger. This "sleight of mind" is getting really old and boring.

Re:Improve the Republic .. not the democracy

[TheRaven64]

People who believe incorrect information are the problem. Whether it's from elected representatives, media personalities, people they met in the bar, someone will always be feeding you an incorrect view of the world. As long as people are believe what they are told, without applying critical thinking and seeking multiple sources then they should not be directly involved with running the country.

Re:Improve the Republic .. not the democracy

[azgard]

As long as people are believe what they are told, without applying critical thinking and seeking multiple sources then they should not be directly involved with running the country.

Who should run the country then? Surely not the people who are feeding other people with incorrect information?

And of course, the basic question remains - why would you allow such stupid people to vote at all - when they cannot decide the issue, how can they decide who decides correctly?

Also, this poses another interesting problem. There are people who are critical thinking in one area and not in another. What would you do with them, can they decide or not?

Re:Improve the Republic .. not the democracy

[Daimanta]

"I am from Europe and believe that the reason why USA was so much advanced is really the fact they had very advanced democracy (in some cases direct) on national and local level."

I am also from Europa and I believe that the reason why the USA was so much advanced is really the fact that they are a country with over 300 million people, vast amounts of land, leader of one camp in the Cold War and the fact that they are able to amass massive amounts of debt because oil is mostly traded in us$. But that's just me.

Re:Improve the Republic .. not the democracy

[sigzero]

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.

"From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:

"From bondage to spiritual faith;
  from spiritual faith to great courage;
  from courage to liberty;
  from liberty to abundance;
  from abundance to selfishness;
  from selfishness to apathy;
  from apathy to dependence;
  from dependency back again into bondage."

Re:Improve the Republic .. not the democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Populism (which I assume you mean when you say, "direct democracy") is theoretically broken. Basically, while an individual's preferences may be transitive (a prerequisite for rationality), a group of people voting in a populist setting can have intransitive (i.e., irrational) preferences.

Take the following example, where people are voting on what vegetable should be served in school cafeterias:

Person 1 prefers Asparagus to Broccoli, and Broccoli to Carrots (A > B > C)
Person 2 prefers Broccoli to Carrots, and Carrots to Asparagus (B > C > A)
Person 3 prefers Carrots to Asparagus, and Asparagus to Broccoli (C > A > B)

Each one of them has rational preferences. However, together they vote irrationally. If cafeterias are currently serving asparagus, people will object because there are more that would prefer carrots. There would be a vote, and now carrots are in. But now there are more people that prefer broccoli; we'd have a vote, and broccoli is in. But now we have more people that prefer asparagus; we have a vote, and asparagus is in. But now we have more people that prefer carrots....

This is called a "voting cycle," and it's why populism (or direct democracy) doesn't work very well. Society can iterate through a bunch of different configurations without making real progress. When I took an experimental economics class in college, they talked about how things like a bicameral legislature, if structured correctly, can prevent these cycles from happening. True, they're no longer serving, "the will of the people" (if they were then they'd have to enter into these voting cycles), but then again, the "will of the people" doesn't really know what it wants either.

Re:Improve the Republic .. not the democracy

[azgard]

Just to clarify, I meant advanced with respect to our country (Czech Republic), not Europe in general. In many respects I consider some west and north European countries more advanced today. However, it's also true that lot of states in US have implemented direct democracy on local or state levels a lot sooner than many European countries. Unfortunately, the progressive movement wasn't able to implement these measures on federal level (it was hindered by involvement of US in the first World War); if they would, maybe US would be another Switzerland today, and direct democracy would become a western standard.

Re:Improve the Republic .. not the democracy

[azgard]

And where would you put Switzerland on that scale?

Re:Improve the Republic .. not the democracy

[azgard]

Well, in a real world, if such situation occurs, a person with common sense would immediately solve it by serving all the 3 meals. So this only proves that economists are missing it.

Anyway, even if you would came up with more practical example (one where compromise is not possible), how can you say what is "real progress" in society? This is a very elitist statement in itself. Is better society with no "cycles" where all the people are unhappy? Or society where everybody always does the most optimal thing, even in their "free time", but some are unhappy because such society is soooo boring?

Such statement however doesn't surprise me from someone who studied economics, since these schools are intentionally made to produce elitists.

Re:Improve the Republic .. not the democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

I did not mean for those statements to sound elitist or harsh. When I said, "lack of real progress," I meant, "it may appear as if new legislation is being passed, but it's really just a re-hash of old stuff."

Serving all 3 vegetables could get around this problem, but what if they can't? Not all situations are ones where compromise satisfies everyone.

Take a different example: imagine a discussion on where we should invest our energy source infrastructure: oil drilling, nuclear plants, or wind farms.

Person 1 prefers oil to nuclear, and nuclear to wind: O > N > W
Person 2 prefers nuclear to wind, and wind to oil: N > W > O
Person 3 prefers wind to oil, and oil to nuclear: W > O > N

We have the same problem as before. If we're currently doing oil drilling, society would prefer wind power to it. But if we're using wind power, society would prefer nuclear power to that. But if we're using nuclear power, society prefers oil drilling. But if we're doing oil drilling...

We could try to compromise and build a little of everything, but the oil drilling will piss off the environmentalists, the nuclear plant will piss off those scared of meltdowns, and the wind farm will be laughed at by those who think it's insufficient.

Note that all three people could really exist. There are people who think wind is silly, and our power is realistically either going to be oil (or coal), or nuclear. Person 2 could be represented by an environmentalist not afraid of nuclear power. And person 3 could be an environmentalist who is scared of nuclear power.

Please note that this isn't meant to cover all the different situations. I'm sure someone could object and say, "what about hydroelectric!" Lump it in with the wind power then. You can still imagine a situation like the above easily occurring.

Re:Improve the Republic .. not the democracy

[azgard]

OK, even if I would consider this infinity low probability event that this would go on forever, this really isn't an argument against direct democracy, it's argument against anything that isn't a dictatorship. The exactly same thing can occur if you have 3 people in the government.

Since the disadvantages of dictatorship with respect to democracy are well known, I wouldn't consider it being a big deal.

The influence of Arrow's theorem in practice is really overstated. I don't see that anyone could point out an example in the history of democratic countries of these things occuring.

It's a lot more likely that cycles will arise from some small power gaining group over others, and society regresses in the legislature that prevented certain bad things to be done. An example could be negative results from banking deregulation in the recent years in the US.

Re:Improve the Republic .. not the democracy

[Fastolfe]

Who should run the country then? Surely not the people who are feeding other people with incorrect information?

In the US at least, and in theory, the ability of one branch to totally fuck up is limited by the other two branches. In a direct democracy, however, you have one branch (the people) with seemingly absolute power.

And of course, the basic question remains - why would you allow such stupid people to vote at all - when they cannot decide the issue, how can they decide who decides correctly?

It's all about balance, right? On one extreme, you have mob rule. On the other, you have an oligarchy. An oligarchy of qualified, benevolent elite wouldn't be such a bad thing, IMO, but you have no way of guaranteeing that this elite won't become less qualified or tyranical over time. So, it seems prudent to give people the power to oust a tyranny, while keeping the decision-making that requires rational thought and study in the hands of an elite. That's effectively what we have today, but the balance seems to be shifting toward a direct democracy (mob rule).

Also, this poses another interesting problem. There are people who are critical thinking in one area and not in another. What would you do with them, can they decide or not?

IMO, decisions should be made by those qualified to make them, and input from the public into those decisions should be weighted on qualifications as well. Imagine environmental policy being made by an order of environmentalists? Or economic policy being made by economists? Put one guy in charge, but put the weight of the professionals behind them. This introduces tremendous complexity, though, and it's not clear that it would work (eliminate politics). So letting the general public provide input seems best, so long as those listening to that input can weed out the poor arguments from the good ones. The mob can't do that.

Re:Improve the Republic .. not the democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

To quote you:

"""OK, even if I would consider this infinity low probability event that this would go on forever, this really isn't an argument against direct democracy, it's argument against anything that isn't a dictatorship. The exactly same thing can occur if you have 3 people in the government."""

You misunderstand my position. It is an argument about direct democracy. You can solve this problem many different ways without a dictatorship. Like I previously mentioned, a well structured bicameral legislature solves it (for larger groups of people). For smaller groups of people, one way to solve it is to introduce a "leader" position that, although everyone has equal voting, decides on what legislation can be introduced in the first place. Note that having a leader that requires approval from others is not the same as a dictatorship, which may operate without approval. Some asymmetry is introduced, giving some more power than others, but then again, so does a representative democracy.

My goal was to show that direct democracy doesn't work at a theoretical level. There's a lot of political study done on referendum (i.e., populism) voting and their flaws. If you're interested in seeing how it manifests in practice, to look into this. It's been a while since I studied it, but the basic conclusion I got from it is that it's manipulable.

Re:Improve the Republic .. not the democracy

[azgard]

People are no "branch". People are just people. It's their responsibility. If they fuck up, they'll fuck up. And they will also bear the consequences of such fuck up.

The qualified decision problem can be easily solved. People ask experts about their opinion, but the ultimate decision is in people's hands.

The other things you are talking about have been empirically proved as false.

But, I don't believe you can be convinced otherwise, if you are talking about your fellow citizens as of "the mob".

Re:Improve the Republic .. not the democracy

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>And at the time, there were no practical results with direct democracy.

There were historical examples, from Classical civilization. The founders of the US were familiar with that era, and the Federalist Papers are full of examples of how some specific idea played out in some Greek city-state.

Now that we have universal literacy and an awesome information network, direct democracy has more of a chance of working. But there are still issues, two of which are:
1. Who sets the agenda? Who decides what questions go to the voters, and how they are phrased?
2. There needs to be a buffer against transient passions. If the US had been a direct democracy, the entire Middle East would have turned into a sheet of glass on 9/12.

Re:Improve the Republic .. not the democracy

[Fastolfe]

If they fuck up, they'll fuck up. And they will also bear the consequences of such fuck up.

I think you're being naive here. You seem to be under the delusion that (a) everyone researches all of the issues, or has the capability of identifying a non-biased, non-partisan expert that they can use to guide their opinion; (b) that everyone is capable of acting rationally instead of emotionally; and (c) people won't be selfish when it comes to public policy. What do you think a direct democracy would have done after 9/11? What do you think people would do in a direct democracy when gas prices become unbearably high? Once people realize they can loot the treasury, it's all over.

People ask experts about their opinion, but the ultimate decision is in people's hands.

No, people don't ask experts. They consume what they watch on TV, or they allow their social circle to define their own beliefs. It's "truthiness" that matters, not reason. If you have enough influence (cash), and can spin things the right way, you will convince people to vote with your side. Talk to enough random people about some issue, and, with a few exceptions, they will do nothing but regurgitate biased propaganda, or they will say they plan on voting a certain way, but will be unable to justify that decision rationally. This is not the way to effect public policy.

Yes, they will fuck up, and you're right: they deserve what they get when they do. But the effects of those fuck-ups will be absolutely catastrophic. The people would be far worse off in the end, and ultimately, that should be the metric by which we judge any system of government/society. (IMO.)

Consider that in the US, we had an elite craft some restrictions and guarantees in the US constitution. Time and time again, the majority has attempted to pass laws, frequently on an emotional basis, that conflict with those guarantees. Our system of government can prevent these things from doing any damage, but only because we have another elite (a judiciary) keeping things consistent. The "tyranny of the majority" is a very real threat.

The other things you are talking about have been empirically proved as false.

Care to elaborate on that? What things?

Don't get me wrong here; I am not advocating for an elimination of democracy. I just think that any vote posed to the public should be about a subjective issue (or a vote to change the government itself). Some questions are simply value issues, and could easily be posed to the people. Some require careful study to understand the risks and costs. These are better left to people qualified and hired/elected to do that job (with as much input from those with rational arguments as they can stand). Others don't require value judgments at all and can be answered scientifically, or have clear best practices (medicine), which shouldn't even be decided by politicians or the general public at all. Sometimes the right decision is the unpopular one, and with a direct democracy, you will rarely get people to vote for something that's unpopular, especially if you have someone else that's selfish and well-funded capable of spreading misinformation. A qualified representative should be able to see through that and make the right move anyway. (In fairness, elected officials have an incentive to side with the majority anyway if they want reelection, but fortunately, it doesn't always come to that.)

Re:Improve the Republic .. not the democracy

[azgard]

Well, I have already answered the above objections in other my remarks around here. My main point essentially is that direct democracy has been already tested for a long long time and it has been proven to work better than representative democracy, contrary to your hypotheses. If you want more details (and references), read this book. Also, if you want some proof that it works better, I recommend this study.

Sorry for being so harsh, I have some 30+ replies under this article and it's becoming boring to repeat the same arguments (which most people don't know and thus cannot refute single-handedly) over and over again.

Re:Improve the Republic .. not the democracy

[azgard]

And if they won't approve the leader, then what? Practically, the result is the same. Either you get deadlocked, or you have to pick one possibility. You may also use a coin, which is about the most fair method there is. But still, it's all very theoretical situation. It's like saying that mathematics is complete failure and nothing can ever be proven, because of Godel incompletness theorems.

Re:Improve the Republic .. not the democracy

[azgard]

Oh, ok, that's right, there was classical Greek example. I am not sure if they really knew that such a system was worse than some other system of the era, or they just believe Plato.

About your questions:

1. In Switzerland, if you gather certain amount of signatures under a petition, then you get the binding referendum about the issue. There is also a way to vote retroactively on certain issues, so the government can decide quickly. I don't know the details, but I know it works. If you are American, you should know better since some states have system similar to that. Apart from that, there is normal political system in Switzerland, but it's in general more consensus based (not so partisan), because people have so much power to influence the result.

2. If U.S. would be direct democracy, it would probably be a neutral country and 9/11 would never happened. 9/11 happened because you were meddling in the Middle East. Under direct democracy, people wouldn't allow that in the first place, and there would be no reason why terrorists would attack your country. That's how it works in most European countries.

Re:Improve the Republic .. not the democracy

[azgard]

Consider that in the US, we had an elite craft some restrictions and guarantees in the US constitution. Time and time again, the majority has attempted to pass laws, frequently on an emotional basis, that conflict with those guarantees. Our system of government can prevent these things from doing any damage, but only because we have another elite (a judiciary) keeping things consistent.

And you seriously believe that this system works, in the light of recent Bush's scandals (which are too many to list, and I don't really care about your president, but for example, secret emails, government spying program, lies about WMDs in Iraq, etc.)? Who is then being naive?

Re:Improve the Republic .. not the democracy

[dcam]

By the way - I am from Europe and believe that the reason why USA was so much advanced is really the fact they had very advanced democracy (in some cases direct) on national and local level. If you had direct democracy on federal level, maybe you wouldn't have any problems you have now with war and debt.

Of course the abundant resources and rich farmland clearly had nothing to do with it...

Re:Improve the Republic .. not the democracy

[Fastolfe]

I think the heart of our disagreement here is that you seem to believe a government should do nothing but reflect the will of its people, which is what a direct democracy is good at. I think a government should make reasoned, rationally defensible, public policy. In an ideal world, these are the same, and both goals are possible, but the US is far from an idealized country. We have a huge polarization of views, and our most heated disagreements are about issues that center around faith and religion, not reason. (The US also has 40 times the number of people of Switzerland.)

I'd absolutely be in favor of an increasingly direct-democratic approach at local levels, but I'm already nervous enough at what my home state (California) has done and continues to do with its referendum process, that I'd be scared to death if we took that to the federal level.

Re:Improve the Republic .. not the democracy

[azgard]

The polarization of political views is due to your party system, which emphasizes differences between people and neglects the similarities. It is also generally useful for people in power to divide population as much as possible. You (as citizens) have to realize and fight that division.

It's true that DD doesn't solve all problems, but it solves all problems at least a bit better than representative democracy. The same arguments you have could be raised at representative democracy, and for any irrational decision made by referendum one can find an irrational decision made by a representative (in fact, I even shown you a study which proves that).

In the book I pointed out it is also shown that the good educated citizens are result of direct democracy, and not the other way around, as you seem to think.

Re:Improve the Republic .. not the democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

"Who should run the country then? Surely not the people who are feeding other people with incorrect information?"

I think the point of our representative democracy is that we can focus on who our representatives should be, including whether or not they're worth our trust and respect.

If they're deceitful and feed us incorrect information (that we can verify is incorrect) we replace them.

Re:Improve the Republic .. not the democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Your statements apply to other large countries that have not been nearly as "advanced" (which we're obviously being ridiculously vague about).

The USA was just another large country until WWII. Much of the world was in the process of beating the piss out of each other while we sat on our hands. Eventually we geared up, whooped some ass, and never really sustained any damage to our homeland.

All of this happened with the SUPPORT of a very large share of land away from both theaters of war, tons of natural resources and manpower.

Re:Improve the Republic .. not the democracy

[azgard]

It surely helped, but the key there is something called "social capital", described in the book I mention in other replies. It is basically general trust of people with each other. The countries that have larger social capital tend to be more advanced, because cooperation is the cornerstone of human society.

Of course, this trust must be supported by an efficient legal system, which quickly deals with cheaters of any kind. Unfortunately, in the last 30 years or so, this legal system deteriorated in the US, so US started losing this advantage of social capital. But I believe that during the most of the last century, US was a real world leader with huge amounts of social capital.

Direct democracy is one of the things that promotes creation of social capital (because it keeps lying politicians more in check, and so increases trust).

Re:Improve the Republic .. not the democracy

[Fastolfe]

No system of government has been shown to be perfect. I would go on a limb here and say that Bush's criminal actions here are an unusual failure of the system. I don't think it's appropriate to use one example to suggest that every representative democracy is a poor alternative to a pure, direct democracy.

Re:Improve the Republic .. not the democracy

[Fastolfe]

(in fact, I even shown you a study which proves that)

I disagree that the study proves what you assert it proves (see previous discussion).

In the book I pointed out it is also shown that the good educated citizens are result of direct democracy, and not the other way around, as you seem to think.

I skimmed the book, and while I think it's entirely plausible that a generation raised in a direct democracy could conceivably make, on average, good, perhaps even rational decisions within it, I have strong reservations about the generations in the transition period.

I have to look at my personal experiences here in California. In the last election, we had several propositions voted on by the public, which include new laws and constitutional amendments. With few exceptions, most people I asked who supported these propositions were completely unable to justify their support rationally. And a few (such as the ban on gay marriage) evoked entirely religious arguments. California is also notable for 1978's Proposition 13, which drastically cut property taxes. People voting for this were voting for it because it lowered their taxes. After it passed, it became clear that the same people couldn't accept cutting services, so the legislatures had to pick up the pieces by raising sales tax, and creating numerous "special" taxes to restore most of the lost funding for police and schools (including "fees" on new home construction). And despite those measures, they still had to cut funding for schools, dropping California's public school system from among the best in the nation, to among the worst.

But maybe all of these are just learning exercises? Maybe this form of semi-direct democracy isn't direct enough yet for the people to snap out of their selfish, irrational ways? Who knows?

Re:Improve the Republic .. not the democracy

[azgard]

They are not an unusual failure, they are a common failure. In our country, the system fails precisely the same way. The same goes for most of European countries.

Re:Improve the Republic .. not the democracy

[azgard]

Well, as I note elsewhere, this is about social capital. If people don't trust each other, they will have to find out hard way that it's not a good thing.

However, I really doubt that elected government would do any better. There is a general ideological trend everywhere in the world to decrease taxes now. Our government also decreases taxes without any reason.

Re:Improve the Republic .. not the democracy

[sac13]

why have democracy at all?

Very good question...

But to elaborate a bit more, I think the argument comes down to scope. Should every uniformed person, which unfortunately is the majority, have the ability to decide what everyone else's rules are?

The whole point of the US founders was that political power should be localized. People who live together and know each other by name are much less likely to engage in the tyranny of majority. When we nationalize power, we get to remove the face from our opposition and are therefore more likely to abuse that power. Instead of Joe and Susan, we now talk about "the rich" or the "deadbeats on welfare."

When we know these people by name, that changes things. We're less likely to make decisions that would severely hurt those that we know than we would those anonymous evil people that can easily be demonized.

There's no problem with democracy as long as each person is familiar with the others. It works great in smaller groups. It just doesn't scale very well. Because, as soon as you can create an imaginary boogey man for people to focus on instead of the real people, you will start getting irrationality. And, unfortunately, even without pure democracy, our system has already begun down that slippery slope.

Re:Improve the Republic .. not the democracy

[azgard]

In practice, in Switzerland, direct democracy scales well up to 7 million of people. If it scales up to millions, it will scale to 100 millions without other big issues.

Also, they have a rule that local or cantonal level is preferred, but still decide some stuff on federal level too. I don't see why such a rule couldn't work in the US too (and it often works there, in fact).

Also, common people do not create bogey men. Only politicians do. This argument is completely backwards - politicians use fear for control. If the power is in hands of the people, there is no need for irrational fears.

Re:Improve the Republic .. not the democracy

[ReedYoung]

Also, common people do not create bogey men. Only politicians do. This argument is completely backwards - politicians use fear for control. If the power is in hands of the people, there is no need for irrational fears.

I would have modded you up higher, but I felt compelled to put similar ideas into my own words. Has anybody ever felt that legal recognition of homosexual marriage cost them anything before a craven, manipulative politician manufactured that issue?

Nice to see someone thinking along these lines...

[azgard]

..as I have been thinking about such system too.

I wanted to map laws that are passed in Czech parliament to simple statements (such as "increases taxes", "limits freedom of speech") and then anybody could create their own profile and test this profile against all the laws that have been passed, and this would be connected to parliament voting data to select which party he should vote for. And all the data would be publicly available (except for the personal profiles, of course), so anyone could reproduce the result.

Also, I have been thinking about social networking. It would be cool if we could get past the reputation systems that just have a reputation as a single number, and we could also measure reputation depending on how the reputation is connected among people; so it would be impossible for an isolated group of people (connected to single entity) gain high reputation by giving high reputation to each other.

I like what these people are doing, and I applaud them for trying to make the system more democratic.

Of course! Cross Hollywood with Silicon Valley!

[David Gerard]

Yeah, I'm sure Arnie would have done even better on Facebook. "Join 'Amend der constitution for me.' 100,000 members. Dis time it's personalized."

Re:Of course! Cross Hollywood with Silicon Valley!

[Colin Smith]

"Join 'Amend der constitution for me.' 100,000 members. Dis time it's personalized."

"Constitution" (Einrichtung) is feminine (die), and german speakers tend to fake "th" with "s" when speaking english rather than d, though equivalent german words tend to replace "th" with "d". e.g. to think becomes "denken".

HTH
 

Re:Of course! Cross Hollywood with Silicon Valley!

[David Gerard]

Arnie's from country Austria. His German-speaking accent is equivalent to a stereotypical hillbilly hick accent would be in English.

Re:Of course! Cross Hollywood with Silicon Valley!

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny you rag on Arnnie for supposedly wanting to change the constitution when he has never (that I have heard of) expressed plans to run for president. Sure people have accused him of such plans, but ive never heard a foundation.

Obama, on the other hand, well nigh admits to it. How about such groups as "100k strong to ignore the 2nd Amendment" and "Petition to abolish freedom of speech"?

Inherent dangers

[Anonymous Coward]

The authors are well meaning and I tcongratulate them on their patriotic devotion. However, a grave threat overshadows their quasi-utpoian plans. We have just "elected" a new president who may very well be an agent of the Italians. Do you want their nefarious ices spirited into every base ball park and bedroom? Do you want government agents confiscating your hot dogs and issuing welfare-approved salamies instead? I didn't think so, because America is my dream and yours too. Any software must have safeguards against Italian influence, especially in these dangerous times.

Software can't fix human nature

[Colin Smith]

You simply have to understand that the more power you give politicians, the more corrupt they will become.
 

Re:Software can't fix human nature

[sac13]

You simply have to understand that the more power you give whomever, the more corrupt they will become.

There, fixed that for you...

We can, but...

[impaledsunset]

Sure, I see many ways you can use software means to improve democracy. Hell, I also see many ways to do this by using social-only means, using the currently established online communities... I can even develop a perfectâ software solution that fixes all known problems with democracy... And let's us do what you mention.

There is one simple problem, all of these might work in theory, but in practice the systems that would keep all of these running would be set up by people and will be run by people. And the people who will take the decisions about them will be the ones in the government, or exactly the part of the current system that requires improvements. It is not of much use to try and prove the axioms of a system within the system itself, likewise you can't rely on the system to provide you the means to fix its mistakes...

Let's say someone designed and wrote the perfect software that fixes all of the world's problems (which is absolutely doable in theory), it won't work. Enough mistakes will be made during the implementation that would render it absolutely useless. Enough mistakes will be made on purpose to make it work against its purposes and have a negative effect in the end. And only Slashdot would notice! You would be more successful if you tried to give that someone the full executive power...

Saw that new site that this new president launched? It's a great example of something you can do to improve the democracy, and it seems to be done correctly. Do I need to tell you that it won't work that way at all?

To improve democracy we should put more effort in what we've already been doing. Expressing our freedom of speech, or launching campaigns, participating in everything that can lead to improvement. And that lately happens online, through software, "social" software, if you like. It doesn't seem to work great, but it's all we can do.

I wish this lady good luck with her ideas, though. It doesn't matter how much you think something won't work, it might be worth trying. I don't know what exactly she wants to do, I tried to RTFA, but couldn't, too much text and nothing of substance in the first few paragraphs, and lots of occurrences of words like "twitter", "social" and "web 2.0", which only confuse me, so I don't know whether she's doing something worth, but it's good that's she's trying to do something about it. Maybe we all should, in case she's doing it wrong. :)

Re:We can, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're trying to defend the idea that every last man is imperfect to a "liberal" ... good luck.

These people believe THEY (and no one else) are so perfect they ought to be dictators. They don't care about specific policy points, just that they "made" them. In reality it's beyond obvious that any policy formation on the web like that would be very discriminatory against older people, or poorer people.

But they don't care : it's their policy. After all it would advantage ... them. Or so they think (obviously some community organiser from between them would stand up, threaten the lot of them, and actually become the dictator, after which they'd whine and cry and "we didn't see it coming" idiocies).

Barack Obama got elected without having a single policy point or speech point other than "Bush is icky". How is that possible ? He has NO energy policy. He has NO co2 policy. He has NO military policy (and what he's doing now is letter-for-letter the same as Bush did). He has no economic policy. He is nothing.

If someone could explain to me why on just about every campus accross the country, people hate america. America, which built those campuses, made it possible to raise them, fought and died for their freedom ... and now they hate it.

When's the last time you heard a "liberal" talk about liberty ? Personally for me it's been a few years. All "liberal" governments everywhere (like in the UK) are killing every last bit of liberty the second they get the power. This WILL end in tears (and in blood). The only thing liberal policies are going to do is first cause WWIII, then get america into that war, just like they did with WWII.

Then again, the same happened in the Roman empire. Look how that turned out.

Re:We can, but...

[secondhand_Buddah]

I'm glad that you are at least taking the time to think about this. A voting system of this magnitude would be fairly simple when compared with say for instance a cellular network switching system.
Also a system of this nature could only work if it was open source. That way, in the spirit of democracy, the best developers in the world could ensure that it was virtually error free. and yes it is possible. All it would take would be a dedicated group of people to make it work. The implementation of a system with today's network's in place would be fairly trivial.

If we implemented a true democracy where we all voted all of the time, the party based democracy that we know today could possibly become redundant. Democracy as we know it today is a far cry from the spirit of democracy that Plato envisaged. when democracy was conceived every body could participate. Today we vote every 4 years and hope for the best. What we have today is a worn out husk that still call fruit. With technology as the enabler, we can re-enliven the true spirit of democracy, and implement this platform throughout the world.

Democracy as we know it today has made us complacent and helpless because we no longer participate in the collective well being of our cultures. This truth is self evident in the the social ills that plague the democracies of the world today.
Change is possible. and we have the opportunity to do so. All we have to do is take it

What I wish is...

[Colin Smith]

I wish I was the guy paid to implement it.

Imagine, government of the people, in real time.

Imagine, government of the people, in real time...

 

The real question...

[darekana]

Can software solve the human problem?

Sarah Connor might say yes.

Democracy and charities supporting OS license

[barwasp]

I wrote such `charity open source license` three years ago. The main idea is to donate OS software to charities who license it free of charge for individuals and schools, while corporate users would need to make *donate* for their selected charity organization.

That ChOS license also speaks very strongly for democracy, freedom of the press and fair elections and against dictatorship. I considered an OS license speaking against dictatorship to be an convenient way for spreading forbidden pro-democracy *propaganda*. After all, software finds it's way to anywhere in the world and naturally open source license must travel along the software. Thus people in any hell-hole could be passing software for each others, along with a democracy promoting license as a payload.

In fact, most of the charities have indicated being positive for the charity open source license. Too bad no-one of you has never heard about the license - maybe you will, maybe not. Anyway here it is for the curious: http://www.tele3d.com/ChOS/ChOS_beta1.pdf

Re:Democracy and charities supporting OS license

[TheRaven64]

Have you had a lawyer look at this license? It is incredibly badly written. It fails to meet the Free Software Foundation or the Open Source Initiative's conditions. I would be very uncomfortable about using any software released under this license and would definitely not use it for any of my own code.

Re:Democracy and charities supporting OS license

[barwasp]

As it states, it's a just draft - or a proof of concept of something that could be created

The objectives of ChOS license would be just using the open source software and community for supporting the objectives of charities. Not (focusing in) guaranteeing the openness of software - as appears to be the objective of Free Software Foundation or the Open Source Initiative.

Have you had a lawyer look at this license?

Couple of charities used lawyers in checking it briefly. Yes, the text and information content could be improved a lot. But hey, remember all the difficulties in the preparation of GPL3.

I think there's room for (some kind of) charity supporting OS license (- or is there?). After all, now everyone is just donating software (for FSF for donating it) to everyone. Why not donate it to everyone, but have companies paying some(in a form of donations), for their right to do business with software made by "their" non-paid co-workers.

Think, if for example Greenpeace or Amnesty International would one day officially launch their own OS license. It would certainly attract some coders and ultimately even good products would be made. Think, if one of those products would become popular like Firefox or eh. Linux. It would certainly get them lots of visibility and tools for achieving their primary objectives. If the charities had their own popular tool, they would be even able to use it in broadcasting their message efficiently, even locally and for free. Therefore, I think there is lot enough to gain for the charities. And I think they should really investigate the chances for launching their own license.

Re:Democracy and charities supporting OS license

[TheRaven64]

Such a license would not be Open Source and would not be Free Software. It would be a proprietary, non-commercial, license. There are already numerous licenses along these lines. The Open Source community would not benefit from a new license that was not Open Source, it would not be affected by it in any way.

There are open source projects which aim to support charities, such as Vim, which takes money to help Ugandan children but is released under the GPL. What you are describing isn't really charity either - it's commercial work where the proceeds are given to some humanitarian cause. You don't need a license for this either, you can get people to donate their time to work on a commercial project where the funds are used for a specific purpose - there are even corporations with this kind of mission statement.

Think, if for example Greenpeace or Amnesty International would one day officially launch their own OS license. It would certainly attract some coders and ultimately even good products would be made

If they used a license anything like what you propose (i.e. corporations are required to pay) then it would be very unlikely to get any support from the Free Software community and it would prevent the code from being used by any Free Software project, even as an indirect dependency.

Charities are not software development companies. Your license is, effectively, creating a software company which gives all of its profits to a charity (although the way you seem to be doing it, you are trying to make other people do the actual work for you). No charity wants to set up its own software firm.

Re:Democracy and charities supporting OS license

[barwasp]

Such a license would not be Open Source and would not be Free Software.

Yes and no, my suggestion would take it into a gray area. In practice, all software would still be (almost always) available "free" as in "free speech," not as in "free beer"; exactly as FSF states in The Free Software Definition. The only real exceptions for software being free, would only be if...

• Charities decide to close a piece of software, e.g. for donating it into a property of some third world company or selling the software for a substantial amount of money they need for their charity operations
• Charities approve a company to temporarily (max 5 years) run their product as a closed source product. After 5 years product would need to be re-opened

And as the license draft states:

Allowing this much power to charity organizations is of cause a matter of trust i.e. whether you trust them to carefully consider the consequences of their actions.

Thus, it is quite certain that everyone realizes the need for charities to do good balanced decisions (if any) regarding software, in order to remain supported by the coding community.

Yes, you are right the license is effectively, creating a software company which gives all of its profits to a charity. But the practical role of charities, would almost always be in just selling the licenses. But hey, most charities are already today selling something from first aid kits to X-mas cards.

Company X: We need to get 50 ChOS licenses
Charity Z: The price is 20EUR each
Company X: Here you are, 1000EUR
Charity Z: Thank you and we hope you like your products-what ever they are :)

If my license suggestion would one day facilitate launching a 'real' charity open source license - mission complete! And I would not want to be in any leading position in that organization just to mark that the license is not for me, but its a donation in itself.

Besides is there really that much difference to e.g. Sun/MySQL's GPL lisenced free software? MySQL has been selling commercial licenses for "corporate users" for years. Charity open source license just has that as a build-in feature.

If they used a license anything like what you propose (i.e. corporations are required to pay) then it would be very unlikely to get any support from the Free Software community and it would prevent the code from being used by any Free Software project, even as an indirect dependency.

Yes, that might be the case, but consider that tens of thousands are already volunteering for doing some physical work for the charities. And there probably are and will be even many programmers among them. The apparent incompatibility of licenses is an unfortunate thing, but most often even companies manage to produce software without accidental OS license injections.

Thank you for taking the time to think, analyze and post.

Re:Democracy and charities supporting OS license

[TheRaven64]

No, you are quite wrong. No Free Software or Open Source license is per-user. They are distribution licenses, not end-user licenses. It is one of the fundamental principles of F/LOSS that you do not need a license to use the code, only to distribute it.

Besides is there really that much difference to e.g. Sun/MySQL's GPL lisenced free software? MySQL has been selling commercial licenses for "corporate users" for years. Charity open source license just has that as a build-in feature.

MySQL is not selling end user licenses to corporate users. They are selling commercial licenses to people who want to distribute their software and make derivative works but who do not wish to abide by the GPL. No one requires a license to use MySQL for any purpose - it says that right in the preamble for the GPL.

Re:Democracy and charities supporting OS license

[barwasp]

Ok, ok there might be *minor* philosophical differences e.g. I find GPL lacking the very important "pro-democracy propaganda"-part almost completely :)

And by the way, thank you (Monty or Richard) for correcting my vision regarding the MySQL's licensing policy for their enterprise product ;)

Re:Nice to see someone thinking along these lines.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a similar thing for UK parliament here. Seems they've opened up the source too.

Should a statesman lead or follow?

[Mandrel]

The article has a definition of statesman I like:

It's also an important function of government to be a statesman and that's one of the things I think that's lacking in modern government these days is very rarely do you ever see a politician actually being a statesman anymore, being the middle ground that several different groups come to when they're diverging on topics to find a middle ground. One of the things I've been working on is tools to help enable that.

Often strong leadership is identified with a politician forcing through what they think is best, despite opposition. However in a democracy I see the role leadership as arguing strongly for you believe in, but then letting the people have the final say.

I'm actually in favour of having each (lower-house) representative run regular referenda within their electorates to determine their vote in the legislature. In each referendum the representative is given one proxy vote for each constituent who didn't cast a ballot, preventing control by a vocal minority.

To allow constituents to debate and be informed about issues, without the information overload talked about in the article, a system like my Make the Case site could be used to build and preserve a closely-argued community memory on important topics.

Re:Nice to see someone thinking along these lines.

[Yetihehe]

Also, I have been thinking about social networking. It would be cool if we could get past the reputation systems that just have a reputation as a single number, and we could also measure reputation depending on how the reputation is connected among people; so it would be impossible for an isolated group of people (connected to single entity) gain high reputation by giving high reputation to each other.

I think Meta Government is good answer. It's not too advanced yet, but worth mentioning.

Optimist

[Anonymous Coward]

So, we would need an educated and informed electorate that is willing to continue monitor the actions of their government.

Or, they'll sit in front of their TVs, video games, and other electronic entertainment.

I wonder which will happen.

Re:Optimist

[azgard]

Monitoring is not an issue. Monitoring does happen (thanks to free speech). The problem is power. People don't have power to change things easily when something goes wrong.

real life example

[Anonymous Coward]

California legalized gay marriage some months ago by a ruling. The definition of marriage was then put forward on a peoples plebiscite, a direct democratic vote, and it just lost. Now there are mass protests by the gay and supporters community. Which is it, support democracy or not there?? You have to get people to be able to accept views other than their own after a clear cut vote result without "mass protests" all the time for direct democracy to work like that.

* personally, I am a none of the above supporter of state marriage licenses, hetero, gay, poly-multiples, I don't care, that's your business. I think all aspects of marriage should be private, and by signed contract if you want to go that far, and keep the state out of it past enforcing the provisions of the contract. I don't believe in "licenses" to engage in social interaction with other people. As regards spousal benefits and so on, one of the big issues with gay marriage, again, keep the state and other people out of your personal affairs. You work that out with your insurance provider/ pensions scheme and your relevant partner(s). (and I don't want any tax money to go to pay governmental workers pensions either, let them save their own loot) The answer to that whole marriage issue is not more government intervention and rules and definitions, just completely remove the government from it..problem solved (to a much greater degree). Any disputes can be mediated by default in the contract or run through the normal court system, but with good enough pre association contracts, everything should be pretty clear cut. Blah blah, and if we separate, we both get equal custody of the kids on alternative months or whatever..blah blah..no one pays the other partner child support, they get their own job blah blah..along those lines. Figure it out, work at it.

Re:real life example

[azgard]

Direct democracy _cannot_ go beyond the issues the society has. In particular, it cannot solve problem with religion. But neither can representative democracy. And gay marriages are (unfortunately) a religious issue in the US.

There exists similar examples like this from Switzerland. However, in general, people are happier there and trust each other more. There exist excesses both in representative and direct democratic systems, but there is less of them in the latter.

Ways to get involved in civic-technology projects

[taubz]

There is a growing but now well-established community of techies focusing on this at the federal level, especially for the U.S. Congress. There are open-source projects like my GovTrack.us http://www.govtrack.us/getinvolved.xpd and oGosh!: Open Government Open Source Hacking http://wiki.opengovdata.org/index.php/OGosh and on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=45606565313.

There's no end to what techies can do to work on improving civic life. I really encourage you to check out any of those links to get involved.

Why not expand scope?

[grendian]

This could be expanded to include a whole lot more. I have considered something I call CRISP: Community Resources & Information Services Protocol. It's a yellowpages of everything under and organized data api, around which social networks can be formed.

Prior art?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought Diebold already had software to "improve" democracy installed on their voting machines?

I'd rather be without democracy...

[jopsen]

Direct democracy would be unimplementable as most people wouldn't want to vote on most issues... And even fewer people would know how to vote in their own interest...

Personally I'm not having a hard time seeing that indirect democracy is not perfect either. But on the other hand it's probably the only thing that really works.
As it make people think their vote matters and that they rule... When in reality it's probably almost completely random who gets elected... and the ones that does get elected feels a great responsibility and wont screw things up...
That said I think my vote matters in my country, and I do like our democracy even thought there's things I strongly disagree with (I'm European too, Denmark).

IMO, in perfect world people would only vote on ethics and ideology, not concrete issues... The concrete issues are what's destroying democracy...

Re:I'd rather be without democracy...

[azgard]

Well, when direct democracy supporters (like myself) talk about "direct democracy", they mostly mean "semidirect democracy" ala Switzerland. Still think it cannot be implemented?

Re:I'd rather be without democracy...

[jopsen]

Could probably be implemented... But I don't like the idea that people can vote for or against a particular law... Sometimes a tax raise is needed, sometimes we need to make decisions that the majority strongly disapproves of, but that doesn't make such decisions less needed.

Re:I'd rather be without democracy...

[azgard]

There exist examples like that - some of the states with direct democracy in the US, I believe - had the taxes increased with referendums.

Moreover, it has been shown statistically both in US and Switzerland that direct democracy enforces a better balanced budget, and budget savings of 10-15% have been reported.

The references can be found in a free book I already mentioned somewhere else in this discussion.

This is underway

[Anonymous Coward]

I invite you to explore the Metagovernment project.

Or if you'd like something a little less sweeping of a change, there are also a number of smaller projects listed there.

Re:This is underway

[azgard]

I looked there, it was mentioned already, but honestly, I don't believe that consensus is going to work better than majority voting. I have several reasons for that:

1. I believe consensus scales a lot worse than majority voting.

2. If there is no consensus, then a status quo is preserved, which may be minority opinion - thus, in effect, enforcing minority rule over majority. This I consider worse than the dreaded "majority rule over minority".

3. There are no clear rules when the consensus has or has not been established. On the other hand, in voting, the winner and rules are obvious.

4. Making a compromise among parties can be solved by having consecutive votes about more and more compromising proposal. If a new compromising proposal is acceptable to more people than the old proposal, more people will prefer it.

5. In general, I have a bad experience with Wikipedia system of consensus decision-making. I have seen it fail so that the minority enforced their view over majority.

Re:This is underway

[Toe, The]

The third and fourth basic principles are designed to address these concerns.

Without consensus, there is no law. Yes, that means that a minority can stop a majority from imposing tyranny of the majority onto the minority. That sounds like a good thing to me. But it only allows a minority to have a negative impact, not a law-making impact. In the status quo, we often see minorities getting laws passed in their favor (by gaming the system). Here nothing gets to be law unless it can attain a consensus.

Also note that Metagovernment is intended to develop as a replacement system, not an adaption of the status quo. So it does not use current laws, but rather creates new laws. So only laws which can garner consensus have a chance of making it in this system. That means existing laws which cannot achieve a consensus would not make it into the new system.

Consensus through synthesis. This addresses not only problems with traditional consensus-making, but also is vastly superior to the compromise system of the status quo. Why settle for compromise, the lowest common denominator, when someone out there in the vast network of the internet probably has a synthesizing idea that can actually bring people together? Metascore software uses a system of active synthesis promotion (in the form of "synthesis scoring") which enables synthesizing ideas to replace the proposals they subsume.

As for Wikipedia's system, well Metagovernment is no Wikipedia. The latter has no mechanism for mediating disputes other than plain-text wiki entries. Metagovernment intends to evolve that concept considerably (and fluidly... intending to adapt to real-world experience) in order to make a system that does work. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a policy-making mechanism. Metagovernment is entirely driven by the motivation to make an effective policy-making system.

Re:This is underway

[azgard]

Well, while it maybe addresses some of my concerns, it is still very vague. If the rules are vague, then there always exist a possibility that some group will game the system. The fact I can't predict (and I am quite smart, I think) how much decision power each person will have in this system really repulses me.

On the other hand, maybe the system really is just majority voting, with some additional precautions taken so that greater majority can be reached in certain special cases.

Re:This is underway

[azgard]

Yes, that means that a minority can stop a majority from imposing tyranny of the majority onto the minority.

I thought about it and here is a problem with this idea: You are basically giving minority more power just on the basis that it is a minority. The problem is, the average person from minority can also be more powerful than the average person from the majority. If we would assume that everybody has the same probability of being powerful in the society, then the optimal level of power we should give to a minority would be proportional to its own size. Which is majority voting.

So, to sum up, I don't think giving minority more powers on the basis it's a minority alone is a good idea. The fallacy here is IMHO that minority has always somehow less power in the society than it should. This can be true for minorities such as racial, but it doesn't have to hold for ad hoc minorities that will form during decision of some issue.

I actually believe that laws that protect (weak) minorities are somehow orthogonal to the democratic framework and cannot be provably attained in direct democracy. Not all hope is lost however - it is usually practical for people to cooperate (to guard against people who divide them to stay in power), which means to help minorities as well.

Re:This is underway

[Toe, The]

(from previous post) Well, while it maybe addresses some of my concerns, it is still very vague

The software is in early alpha. We intend to have a demo out in the next couple of weeks. At this point, it is not surprising that it is vague. We expect it to solidify very gradually as we make inroads into other communities. We are in no rush to impose our view of how the world should work, but rather want real-world communities to adapt the software as seems workable to them. You (and everyone else) are quite welcome to join us.

I thought about it and here is a problem with this idea: You are basically giving minority more power just on the basis that it is a minority.

Sorry, that's how I stated it and that's one one way of looking at it, but minority-power is simply the flip-side of consensus. To restate the third principle: without a consensus, there is no law. (And why should there be?) And note that instead of just hoping for consensus, we actively work to create consensus through synthesis. This process transforms the groups of minority and majority from static groups into components of the synthesis process. One may start out as a member of one opposing group, but our software actively works to combine those groups.

I actually believe that laws that protect (weak) minorities are somehow orthogonal to the democratic framework and cannot be provably attained in direct democracy.

Again, while consensus prevents tyranny of the majority it most certainly also prevents tyranny of the minority. In the Metagovernment system, in no way can a minority make a law. Nor can a majority. Only a consensus.

Re:This is underway

[Anonymous Coward]

Do now, please!

Fix, not vote

[Toe, The]

That is precisely the philosophy driving the Metagovernment project.

Mutual Democracy, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

with the advances in technology there is little reason to have representative government. if we can collaborate to write code, what stops us collaborating writing legal code? http://www.wikigress.com/

depends on point of view

[Anonymous Coward]

For some gay marriage is a religious issue, for others, primarily in the pro gay marriage camp, they want the "benefits" the state provides with a legal marriage contract, it is way more economic than the other, because no one is stopping them living together in the first place. See? It's 99% economic because of economic laws. The religious folks-some of them-don't want their tax money going to support it. And why should they? Get the state out of the picture. Let people get their own pensions and insurance and workplace "benefits" by allowing them to keep a LOT more of their money and not ship it off to be abused and re distributed in washington DC or the various state capitols. Then it *doesn't* matter how people come to their views or not. The folks who want hetero and one on one relationships have them, gay, they can have them, and etc.. You really don't have to make this any more complicated than it needs to be. The folks who have a religious objection, again, it is primarily economic, they don't want their tax dollars going to support gay marriage, through insurance plans and pensions, that is one of the big issues they say, and they have a point, and vice versa applies as well, an equally valid point.

      If there were NO state marriage "licenses" the whole matter would evaporate, because no laws would apply then. They are arguing over some "laws" passed that restrict some, benefit others, and I say it is way easier to neither restrict nor benefit anyone's relationship with another, just remove all the dang laws associated with "freedom of association", it is right there in the Constitution. Get rid of state funded pensions and insurance, make it all private, that's it, no one can complain that they are being ripped off or their views discriminated against because no one would get special treatment based on which orifice turned them on, or what color they are, or what their accent or choice of clothing and culture was, none of that. Government should be strictly neutral when it comes to freedom of association. No laws for or against any class or group of people.

  At the private workplace, people are then free to negotiate what sort of insurance benefits their employers provide, or they go get their own, perhaps through a co-op arrangement with similar like minded people. There are numerous and more free possibilities out there than attaching the governments force of law at the point of a gun to them.

As to switzerland, yes, I am fond of their nation and in particular I like how they have a more sane policy as regards personal privacy, freedom of personal self defense and the ownership of self defense tools, etc. Nice place, I can't afford to move there or live there or I would consider it. I actually think the founders had a modern-day switzerland style setup in mine when they finally signed off on the constitution and bill of rights and so on. Pretty much trade with anyone, don't interfere with others, mind your own business, "don't screw with us ever or we will stomp you flat" sort of national defense. Sounds good to me!

What do you mean which country?

[Anonymous Coward]

He said he was from Europe.

There a phrase for what you describe...

[macraig]

... that was coined by one of the "founding fathers": tyranny of the [simple] majority.

There are very good reasons not to have a "pure" democracy. A pure democracy is an ideal concept that can't be wholly applied in practice - much like socialism and libertarianism - because it relies on a peculiar breed of Homo sp. - an educated, aware, and engaged population - that does not exist... or at least doesn't yet exist in sufficient numbers.

Re:There a phrase for what you describe...

[azgard]

I think I already answered this elsewhere, but (semi)direct democracy in Switzerland and some US states have been implemented, about a century ago, and there are still no significant problems you describe. So I am not sure I get your argument - are you somehow suggesting that people are less educated and engaged in politics than they have been 100 years ago? It's nice that "founding fathers" thought about this, but I think their point of view was rather limited, in light of these facts.

Re:Switzerland?

[macraig]

Perhaps the population is actually educated and aware in Switzerland. I can't comment on it, because the only experience I have is with the distinctly ignorant and unaware population of the United States. I hope you're not gonna try to argue that point, because the jury's verdict was in on that one a long time ago. If you know of some secret island of intellect and sanity in this sea of stupidity, please do share and be specific, because I'd like to move there when the housing market rebounds and I don't have to lose my shirt in a sale. I have a book titled Getting Out: Your Guide to Leaving America, but I'd rather not use it if I can avoid it.

Who cares about democracy!?

[Orig_Club_Soda]

Democracy put a constitutional ban on gay marriage in California. Democracy would have banned abortion, women voting, and kept slavery legal.

The US is a democratic republic - someday you'll have to accept that.

Re:Switzerland?

[azgard]

If we would take current issues you have with federal government aside (which are IMHO caused by the fact that you don't have direct democracy on federal level), trust me, you live in one of the best managed countries in the world. Just come to a visit to any post-communist European country (like ours), talk to local people, and you will be glad you live where you live.

Political harrassment pander

[lennier]

"politicians seem to pander to contradictory focus groups to get elected"

Can we PLEASE stop using the content-free scare word "pander". When 'they' do it, it's 'pandering'; but when 'we' do it, it's 'remaining true to our core values and not selling out'.

The real word is "represent". That's what a representative does, you know?

Shock, horror: there are groups of people *who hold different political views to you!* Oh noes! And they have *political representatives*! Noooo! Pandering! Obviously their representative is completely devoid of a moral compass and is only cynically using those people with their silly beliefs. They can't actually *hold* those beliefs, surely.

Actually, no. That's not how it works. People have concerns; they elect representatives who share those concerns, and speak to them. When that happens, that's democracy *working*.

If you don't like a certain group of people's polical views, by all means attack those *views*, but don't attack their elected representatives for correctly and honestly representing the differing views of their constituency.

Re:Political harrassment pander

[chromatic]

Can we PLEASE stop using the content-free scare word "pander".

Is the word "pimp" more accurate? Read your Chaucer (Troilus, not Canterbury).

Not like this is a new idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you seen how many websites there are for this already?

http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://www.democracylab.org/
http://www.mysociety.org/
http://zelea.com/project/votorola/
http://www.govit.org/
http://www.freegovernment.org/
http://usavotes.org/
http://www.senatoronline.org.au/

And more. Look around, people.

Re:Switzerland?

[macraig]

Most days I perceive my corner of the world like Melvin Udall... the un-medicated Melvin. I have this fantasy that there is another pasture somewhere that is greener - and less populated by mindless farting bovines - than the one in which I've chained myself. I hope you're wrong, because I need that fantasy to come true some day.

The fact that this country is "managed" is not, in and of itself, a good thing: it happens to be managed for the primary benefit of a small minority . The rest of us get "trickle-down" scraps and picked-over bones. I taste sour grapes perhaps only because I'm not part of that particular minority and never will (and don't entirely want to) be. I'm well aware that NOT "all men are created equal" and that our founders got that wee bit seriously wrong - or were just humming what they knew the unequal ones wanted to hear - but we should be able to manage something more egalitarian than this. Call me picky.

Re:Switzerland?

[azgard]

Few paragraphs above you are complaining that direct democracy would lead to "tyranny of majority". And now you complain that it is managed for "benefit of minority". So make up your mind. What do you prefer? Because there really is no other option - always, either majority or minority will win (though - there is also a 3rd possibility, that you would become a dictator, but you probably don't want that, because it means everybody is your enemy).

I would prefer rule of the majority over rule of the minority anytime. It's better probability I will end up as majority.

And the last and best thing. Direct democracy is no "rule of majority". It's true that majority always wins, but each time, the majority that wins is different. So statistically, with direct democracy, majority of the time you will win too.

Re:Switzerland?

[macraig]

Republican democracy is intended to put immutable safeguards - in part the legendary "checks and balances - in place to prevent abuses, abuses either by a mob-like majority or a manipulative minority. Sadly, many of those safeguards have been eroded or removed outright, and this republican system has been compromised. Part of the trick with a republican system is actually keeping those immutable safeguards immutable, from one cast of ambitious self-centered bureaucrats to another. What's needed to do that is an educated, aware, and engaged citizenry... and that's exactly what the United States no longer has, if it ever did.

I wasn't playing with paradoxes; I just did a poor job of explaining my reasoning. If Switzerland is doing so much better, I'd like to know what they're doing that we should be adopting... assuming we won't be violating their intellectual property and risking a lawsuit, that is. ;-)

Is democracy ....

[soporific16]

... having a say in the running of your country or is it voting for someone else to have a say?

Is it a democracy when 150,000 people are represented by one non-recallable politician, or is it when 500-2000 people (ie a community) elect a person who best articulates their wishes and who can be instantly recalled.

Social Software won't do jack to improve the first kind of democracy (the bullshit one we are forced to live with today), but i can imagine that it will help with organising the second type.

Re:Is democracy ....

[Anonymous Coward]

See post directly above yours. Specifically: http://www.metagovernment.org/wiki/Main_Page

direct democracy + expert government

[ztcamper]

Citizens do not need to decide everything. One of the serious problems in current democracy is lack of accountability. Politicians (in most cases I suppose) get voted in on promises that they do not (or never intend to) deliver. Lets say mayor is accountable to the town. If town doesn't like what mayor is doing, people should have the power to strip mayor of the status. If governor of state doesn't do the job, state votes and takes him or her out of the picture. Same goes for president except president is accountable to entire country. The good thing about system like this is that in the end you get people who realize that they must do their job or loose power. This naturally creates an expert government. Anyone else simply will not make it.

That leads to...

[ztcamper]

... the conclusion that the only way for politicians to be honest is to not exist. Anarchy FTW :)

Amazingly Enough...

[Bones3D_mac]

AltaVista's Babelfish never did set off World War III as many feared it might, due to it's horrifically bad translations.

Re:Switzerland?

[azgard]

I don't believe in your safeguards. The problem with them that careers of people in those safeguards depend on each other, so once they are all placed with cooperating people (against the common citizens), they will fail (which is what happened under Bush).

If you really want to know what Switzerland is doing, read the book about direct democracy I mentioned in other posts.

And you can do it with any citizenry. It has been shown that engaged/educated citizenry arises from a good democracy, not the other way around.

Improve the Republic .. not the democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

It would not be surprising if come January we again must swear in a president who did not win more votes than his rival. Again we would face a mini-crisis of democracy. Having convinced us that âoeevery vote counts,â our civic leaders would be hard pressed to explain why the winner is not headed to the White House.
=============
Kyle
Quick SEO

Re:Switzerland?

[macraig]

I will investigate the book. I have a copy of it now.

Re:Nice to see someone thinking along these lines.

[secondhand_Buddah]

One of the most friendly voting examples that I have seen is Ubuntu's Brainstorm project http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/ where people can vote on new features for Ubuntu. Something utilizing a platform along these lines would be very easy and friendly to use.

A system would ideally be split into silos of expertise, but would also have areas of general interest. My votes within my area of expertise would count for more (weighted voting), and in certain areas we could all have the same vote (e.g. constitutional issues).

If you're lucky, they'll get a release out...

[wild_berry]

I have funding for a research project I would like you to do: spend 10 years reading the mailing lists and identifying the highly-successful organisational methods used by the direct democracy of the Debian project.

Thank you.

[ReedYoung]

I won't turn down some easy money.