Slashdot Mirror


Chinese Legislature Conducts Large Online Vote

hackingbear writes "In a bid to reform the tax law and raise person tax exemption to 3000 Yuan per month (or about US$5000 per year,) from 2000 Yuan per month, the Chinese legislature has conducted a massive online vote on the pending legislation. The [National People's Congress] Standing Committee, China's top legislature, on Wednesday publicized suggestions and opinions on amending the Law on Individual Income Tax that were submitted online from April 25 to May 31. Among all 82,707 citizens who commented on the proposal, [only] 15 percent of them favored raising the exemption to 3,000 yuan. However, 48 percent suggested to further raise the exemption to 5,000 yuan per month. While the online votes are not binding, the outcome likely shape the final bill. We'd hope the US Congress would dare to collect real citizen input on its legislation, rather than just doing lip service or useless political arguments."

103 of 152 comments (clear)

  1. What a concept! by msobkow · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually making use of technology to drive government.

    I believe the only way a true democracy can be run is if individual citizens are allowed to vote on legislation proposed by their representatives, rather than having the representatives do the voting. It would encourage the reps to actually engage their voting populations, otherwise their legislation dies.

    Power to the people!

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:What a concept! by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful

      California has destroyed my faith in direct democracy. See Proposition 13: "I want the windfall from housing inflation to go straight into my pocket!" Congratulations to the folks who voted themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars in unearned income, but now the state is broke, people living right next door to each other pay VASTLY different burdens in supporting schools and other social services, and the housing pyramid scheme eventually collapsed anyways. Instead, they should simply have deferred some portion the property taxes until the next transfer of ownership.

    2. Re:What a concept! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah and online voting is never abused

      I worked for a company where there were *maybe* 50 people in the entire company. They put up a poll. After about 200k of votes they shut it down.

      You mean power to the few who know how to abuse the system.

    3. Re:What a concept! by rolfwind · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's why we're not a pure democracy but a republic.

      Individual people might be smart, but crowds are reactive, mirroring and stupid.

    4. Re:What a concept! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I remember the bill passed in CA which seriously limited the ability for the state and towns to levy taxes. Combine that with areas that voted themselves Maybach-level services on a Kia-level budget, and it is no wonder why California hit the skids. Take Santa Cruz with all the college students. They vote for all these amenities, but they are long gone when it comes to shelling out tax revenue for it.

      Now all these CA refugees are heading to other places. Austin is being rendered unlivable by this, for example the city is blowing 50 million dollars on a single bike path, while plans to expand/fix roads are nixed. The bus system has essentially been ignored and is now bedrooms and outhouses for the vagrant population (indigents get a free bus pass), so is essentially unusable for most of the citizenry. Seattle and Portland are also getting hit too by people who want to vote all these amenities, but want to not worry about taxes until it is too late. By then, they skip to the next town to abuse that place.

    5. Re:What a concept! by Jeremi · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I believe the only way a true democracy can be run is if individual citizens are allowed to vote on legislation proposed by their representatives, rather than having the representatives do the voting.

      This is a terrible idea. What we'd end up with is a situation (like now) where 99% of the population doesn't have the time (or interest) to read the legislation or vote on it, but also a situation where the remaining 1% would control what gets passed and doesn't get passed. That remaining 1% would be composed largely of trolls, unemployed busybodies, single-issue-firebrands (using their vote as leverage to promote their unrelated pet cause), and people who are getting paid under the table to vote for/against the bill by, parties who would profit from its passage or failure. There would be much less accountability than in our current system.

      Be careful what you wish for!

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    6. Re:What a concept! by djh2400 · · Score: 1

      I would like a system here in the U.S. — or anywhere, for that matter — to opt-out of various things my political representatives would otherwise vote for. In other words, I would like them to, by default, represent me by voting as they normally would, but if I can't trust them to vote the way I want them to on some particular bill/issue/whatever, I would like a way to override my small portion of their vote by voting for myself.

      I suppose it would be similar to how stockholders can vote on corporate decisions, so long as they hold at least one share of stock. It wouldn't count for much, but at least the person can be represented exactly how they choose.

    7. Re:What a concept! by dragonturtle69 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Some context about Prop. 13's start, IIRC, your property value was not necessarily assessed fairly, and you could be taxed out of your home, the home that you actually owned the deed to. Wikipedia lines up decently, Prop 13 .

      Like many of the silly things in CA, Prop 13 happened as a reaction to an abuse of power, which of course led to new abuses.

      --
      "What luck for the rulers that men do not think." - Adolph Hitler
    8. Re:What a concept! by mlts · · Score: 1

      There are some fair ways to do the voting, and decently secure too. However, it depends on how much anonymity you want in the voting process. If anonymity doesn't matter, you can have the government send each citizen a form with two scratch-off blanks. One is for yes, one no. Then the person goes to a Web page that asks for a number, and the person types in the number matching yes or no. Said pair of numbers are random and unique, so only the vote counters would know what the numbers actually meant (yes or no). Anyone between the voter and the vote counter with the reference list would have zero clue, and because the principle behind this is essentially the same as a one time pad, there is zero way to figure out which number meant what vote, unless the random number generator was not truly random.

      If being anonymous is a concern, maybe the simplest ways are the best... have polling booths and after identifying that the user can vote, have the user be given a key. He turns it in one lock, it releases a black ball into a big pile. The other lock releases a white ball. The key is turned back in, the "voting booth" is reset so the voter's key can be used again, and the next person is handed the key. The only information that a voter leaves is if a white or black ball was dropped signifying yes or no, and barring cameras, there is really no way to show who voted for what.

    9. Re:What a concept! by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      What the hell does this have to do with China's congress? Everything's about America, isn't it?

      Tell you what, I'll ask some Chinese people if they want to trade places with you, and live in that corrupt pyramid scheme of democracy. You like Chinese food?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    10. Re:What a concept! by Gordo_1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well it's certainly implied. If citizen's vote on every single piece of legislation, then it's majority rules. Having lived in many places and now residing in California, where 'the people' are given a chance to vote directly for all kinds of weird legislative proposals, I can tell you that the majority here make plenty of bad decisions.

    11. Re:What a concept! by Gordo_1 · · Score: 1

      The main problem with prop 13 was that it wasn't tied to inflation, but capped annual increases at something like 2% (not sure the exact number). It basically assured that over time property taxes would tend to zero for those in their homes for a long time and anybody who purchased a home would end up with an unfair burden of the social services that the old-timers could then vote in for themselves.

    12. Re:What a concept! by rodarson2k · · Score: 1

      That remaining 1% would be composed largely of trolls, unemployed busybodies, single-issue-firebrands (using their vote as leverage to promote their unrelated pet cause), and people who are getting paid under the table to vote for/against the bill by, parties who would profit from its passage or failure.

      This is different from congress in that the busybodies in question are not collecting a paycheck. Sounds strictly better to me.

    13. Re:What a concept! by anagama · · Score: 1

      Maybe true. But what we have, i.e., purchased legislation, is equally bad if not worse because only the most fabulously wealthy can afford the sticker price.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    14. Re:What a concept! by anagama · · Score: 1

      Of course, what we actually have is a plutocracy because all legislative power resides in those who can buy politicians ... and they don't come cheap. Well, maybe a city councilperson could be had for a few grand, but if you want (or don't want) some particular Federal legislation -- the purchase price is way beyond the means of the average American.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    15. Re:What a concept! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      What the hell does this have to do with China's congress? Everything's about America, isn't it?

      One person mischaracterized this survey in China as a vote and offered the hypothesis that direct voting by the population was the way to go. Another person posted a concrete real-world example of where such a thing went wrong, this example happened to come from California. Does that clear things up for you?

    16. Re:What a concept! by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      The interesting question to explore is why a concept that seems to work pretty well in Switzerland does not work in California. I, personally, have no idea.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    17. Re:What a concept! by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 3, Informative

      You people ought to really read the Federalist papers, instead of repeating what someone else said. A republic is a form of government where the head of state is not an inherited position. You're actually comparing a direct democracy (the federalist papers never mention a pure democracy) to a representative democracy (the republic in the federalist papers).

      Furthermore, the Federalist Papers actually warn explicitly about having too many representatives (which leads to its own form of herd mentality) and having too few representatives per voter (which leads to a distant representative and a clustering of votes around special interests). Yes, we're fucked, but the Founders knew we were going to be fucked no matter what they set up, and merely tried to set things up in such a way that it minimizes the amount of stupid that goes around.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    18. Re:What a concept! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As a Chinese, I could tell you this is far from true democracy, for following reasons:
      1. Chinese government often uses so called single-candidate election or single choice vote. While it may not necessary mean that there is only one choice, it is highly likely all choices are in favorite of the ruling class. For example, you could have a vote like:

        Do you agree with government's decision on XXX:
          A. Agree
          B. Strongly Agree
          C. I don't care

      2. Online polls in China are infamous of being manipulated, due to lack of supervision.

      3. Polls are useless when the ruling class has absolute control over all branches of the government. They could just ignore what they don't want to see.

      4. Your IP is logged when you vote. I'm sure you know what that means.

      So American friends, please treasure what you still have (constitution and elections), and exercise your right to protect your country from your government before it is too late!

    19. Re:What a concept! by bluemonq · · Score: 1

      The most likeliest explanation has to do with one's upbringing concerning the welfare of others.

    20. Re:What a concept! by caitsith01 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well it's certainly implied. If citizen's vote on every single piece of legislation, then it's majority rules. Having lived in many places and now residing in California, where 'the people' are given a chance to vote directly for all kinds of weird legislative proposals, I can tell you that the majority here make plenty of bad decisions.

      Yup, which is why a parliamentary democracy (which the US sort of has) is based around the idea that the people vote for a responsible government, who then governs as they think best. Accountability comes in the form of tossing out bad governments, not by the public having a right of veto over every piece of legislation. A central idea is that the government is able to make short term decisions which are unpopular but in the medium or long term best interests of the nation.

      The type of "democracy" which would result from the masses voting on every piece of legislation would be horrendous. With non-compulsory voting you'd get enraged special interest groups making laws left right and centre to suit their agendas. No-one would pay taxes. Difficult problems would be ignored, and anything which could be subjected to FUD tactics would be defeated instantly. Most significantly, minorities and fringe groups would be brutally repressed.

      As for the suggestion that China is democratically superior to the US, or any country outside of North Korea - don't make me laugh. Yes, 'the West' has problems. But China is about as close as we've got to Orwell's nightmare state in the modern world.

      --
      Read Pynchon.
    21. Re:What a concept! by icebraining · · Score: 1

      According to some, the best way to achieve the greater good is if every person only thinks about himself when voting.

    22. Re:What a concept! by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Probably. Don't want to rant about this right now, I am not feeling zealous enough... ;) For the benefit of the doubt, I offer the concept that Switzerland is just smaller.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    23. Re:What a concept! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Democracy - direct or not - is only as good as the people are willing to make it. There's California, and then there's Switzerland. Representative democracy is not a panacea - it just takes a while longer for idiocracy to permeat the upper layers, but if the voter base is not responsible, they will simply elect populists.

    24. Re:What a concept! by quenda · · Score: 1

      What we'd end up with is a situation (like now) where 99% of the population doesn't have the time (or interest) to read the legislation

      And how is that any different from the legislature?

    25. Re:What a concept! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Actually, the remaining 1% would be composed of Anonymous.

    26. Re:What a concept! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      On a more serious note, it could actually work if the citizens were to delegate the duty of monitoring laws and suggesting votes to people they trust. Everyone still votes on their own, but they get directions on those votes from whatever feed(s) they subscribe to, and those sources would then generally mirror party orientation.

      There are a bunch of obvious benefits here, though, compared to traditional party/representative approach. For one, the choices are far more varied - a party doesn't have to get into parliament, it just has to get enough subscribers to make an effect (even if small), so you'd see all kinds of interesting combos, and not just the old and boring "guns bad, abortion good" vs "guns good, abortion bad" etc. Furthermore, every person can still review their feed to the extent they have the time and desire, and vote how they personally think is best on issues they deem most important.

      This all can be made even more smooth if you can make the system where people can grant the right to vote in their names to another, and revoke such grants at will, or override them for specific measures.

    27. Re:What a concept! by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Actually making use of technology to drive government.

      I believe the only way a true democracy can be run is if individual citizens are allowed to vote on legislation proposed by their representatives, rather than having the representatives do the voting. It would encourage the reps to actually engage their voting populations, otherwise their legislation dies.

      Power to the people!

      Engage the masses? That would imply actual work for the fat cats that sit up there. And besides, the public probably isn't going to vote for them to receive their massive raises each year. See the level of greed and corruption that goes on within our legislation isn't something that the average person can stomach. Few know that the palm grease used in most agreements is actually a powerful psychoactive drug, capable of numbing the parts of the brain that revolve around honesty and integrity. And everyone eventually gets some on their hands.

      As far as making use of technology, well I can only assume at this point that the #1 contender based on mass use would be Farcebook. Not quite sure I want my future laws and regulations, especially those centered around privacy, to be controlled by people who post and twit their entire lives for the world to see.

    28. Re:What a concept! by wisty · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Conservatives (in Australia, not the US) have a reputation for being good economic managers (cutting wasteful spending), while liberals (in Australia) have a reputation for being good economic reforms (improving the tax and currency systems). They both make unpopular decisions, trading short term unpopularity for a better reputation in the long run.

      Except the current PM, and worse, the one before, who seem obsessed with short-term poll results.

    29. Re:What a concept! by glwtta · · Score: 1

      Actually making use of technology to drive government.

      A fairly poor concept actually, it falls into the fairly broad category of "applying a technical solution to a non-technical problem".

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    30. Re:What a concept! by Internetuser1248 · · Score: 1

      the public having a right of veto over every piece of legislation.

      Are you mad? No one said that.What is being argued for is that the people are able to voice an opinion on the legislation and then the government decides. Also the argument that people are stupid and shouldn't be allowed to govern is a total fallacy. Where do you think politicians come from? A special magic land called politicia? No, they are people too, and therefore by this reasoning too stupid to govern. What this whole argument amounts to is saying "All the people are too stupid to govern, therefore governing must be done by the smallest group of people possible" To be honest in many countries the politicians seem to be the stupidest of all.

      you'd get enraged special interest groups making laws left right and centre to suit their agendas

      And that would differ from the current reality how exactly? I know the answer to that: the special interest groups would be able to influence laws without being extremely wealthy which would be just like the status quo except that big corporations wouldn't be the only ones with a vote. If you genuinely think that the political leaders should govern without being answerable to the people, why don't you just move somewhere where that is the case, like North Korea or Saudi Arabia. Leave those of us who approve of Democracy to govern the democratic countries.

    31. Re:What a concept! by JustinFreid · · Score: 1

      Except that in this case, any non-party member who participated in this, let's say, survey hasn't had their vote counted for solvency in their lifetime.
      In the case of China, unless the technology to count these votes was proven anonymous, I'd bet this was intended to root out potential dissidents rather than to give power to the people.
      Besides, look at the results of the actual vote versus the surveyed votes to get a sense of how important people's opinions are.

      --
      Hey, how's it going?
    32. Re:What a concept! by cavreader · · Score: 1

      The Chinese government figured out a clever way to collect information on all the potential trouble makers.

    33. Re:What a concept! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      According to some, the best way to achieve the greater good is if every person only thinks about himself when voting.

      Those "some" being drooling Ayn Rand devotees presumably, although I don't supposed they'd be too thrilled at the idea of voting along with the plebs..

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    34. Re:What a concept! by psm321 · · Score: 1

      Are you mad? No one said that.What is being argued for is that the people are able to voice an opinion on the legislation and then the government decides.

      Umm... while that's what the article was about, the OP of this thread very clearly was advocating a direct vote on legislation.

    35. Re:What a concept! by marnues · · Score: 1

      Completely agreed. Not only is the monkey-sphere of Switzerland a tighter web, but the power disparity in the country is low, leading to a tighter mono-culture. Of course, I'm proud to live in a country that hasn't outlawed minarets.

    36. Re:What a concept! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, the real problem with prop 13 is that it's a bad solution to the problems it was supposed to solve. The problem was that seniors on fixed incomes were being taxed out of their homes.

      This was a short-term problem, since the cost of housing was rising along with inflation in the late 70s and early 80s. Seniors on fixed incomes couldn't handle the increased taxes that came with it.

      A proper solution would have been targeted at seniors, and seniors only. They could have had their taxes capped, and the temporary load could have been born by a modest increase in other taxes, or even bonds. Remember--this was a short-term spike due to high inflation.

      Instead, they capped taxes on everything including commercial real estate. Initially it's no problem, but 30 years on you have some people paying ridiculously low tax rates while services suffer. But wait, it gets better. Since everybody knows the tax rates are capped, they're willing to pay more for the house. Very few people can buy a house for cash.

      Thus, you end up paying more mortgage interest and less taxes. Prop 13 represents a direct transfer of tax revenue to bankers. It's the "3rd rail of CA politics" because bankers will never let go of that revenue stream.

      Now. All of this because helping granny stay in her house would have been "socialism". Socialism is looking better and better every day.

    37. Re:What a concept! by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Yeah everyone wants the legislation/projects with good sounding titles[1].

      BUT when the time comes to pay for it, hardly anyone wants to pay for it :).

      [1] Whether they are good or not is a different matter.

      --
    38. Re:What a concept! by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      I don't get the point of this gotcha post. So the term "republic" has changed meaning. I'm using 21st century vocabulary because, wait for it, I live and communicate in the 21st century.

      Dictionary.com's first definition is:
      -a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

      and merriam webster's definition of pure democracy (vs direct democracy) is:
      -democracy in which the power is exercised directly by the people rather than through representatives

      If you read the Federalist Papers, you must have also read lots of Thomas Jefferson's own writings where he basically thought the Constitution should be abolished every 20 years and a new one made up for those times and that generation.

    39. Re:What a concept! by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      That's why we're not a pure democracy but a republic.

      Individual people might be smart, but crowds are reactive, mirroring and stupid.

      Oh, God, not this again.

      The US is a democratic (people get to vote for their representatives and some other things) republic (the country belongs to the people, not to a monarch.) The UK is a democratic monarchy: technically, the country "belongs" to the crown. North Korea is a non-democratic republic. Got it?

    40. Re:What a concept! by cavreader · · Score: 1

      It's easier to find a smart or at least somewhat knowledgeable person then trying to find a smart or knowledgeable group. As the number of people in the group increases the IQ level decreases proportionally. Working for the greater good is overrated. You need people to actually define what the greater good actually consists of before you run off to support it.

    41. Re:What a concept! by cavreader · · Score: 1

      What would help would be the ability to short stop our elected representatives when they obviously show a pattern of malfeasance or an inability or unwillingness to fulfill the promises they made to get elected. Why allow someone a full term if it becomes obvious they are doing a bad job and not honoring the promises they made when running for election. We need to put pressure on those elected to perform as advertised. Maybe with the possibility of losing their job mid-term hanging over their head they can focus a little more clearly on the issues at hand. This would also encourage more honesty when campaigning because they know if they don't at least try to honor their promises they can be booted out. They are no different than anyone else who gets fired because the are not satisfying their employer. In the private sector even contracts specifying a mandated length of employment have escape clauses. Our elected officials today do nothing but run for elections. They rarely commit themselves to any action or decision based unless the election polls look favorable. ie. If I do X I might not get re-elected but if I do Y or take no definitive stance my chances of being re-elected go up.

  2. what? by decora · · Score: 5, Insightful

    China has just locked up a large number of dissidents, including Zhao Lianhai, who ran a website about the poisoned baby-milk scandal after his own son became ill.

    A few months back, they put a girl in a labor camp for posting a sarcastic comment on twitter.

    A good portion of the stories on slashdot would probably get you a jail sentence if you posted them in China.

    I may not get 'online voting', then again maybe online voting is just a way to track who the troublemakers are - like Mao's Hundred Flowers campaign.

    1. Re:what? by artor3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I recall that during the Beijing Olympics, they set up a protest zone where would-be protestors could apply for a permit. They then arrested those who applied and sentenced them to several years in a forced labor camp. So China's government certainly does have recent history showing a willingness to set traps for undesirables.

      All the same, this particular action may be legit, and it would be nice if we could have something similar in the US. However, it runs into the problem of how you phrase the questions. Push-polling is a well refined art. Congress would spend as much time arguing about the wording of the poll as they ultimately would over the bill itself.

    2. Re:what? by msobkow · · Score: 1

      People should be voting on the proposed legislation, not on a biased summary question.

      Yes or No question -- do you support this bill?

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    3. Re:what? by artor3 · · Score: 1

      But when they vote no, what next? Did they say no because they wanted the bill to do more, or to do less? One of the benefits of a representative government is that they'll negotiate and find some middle ground.

      Theoretically at least. The present-day GOP seems to have realized just how effective brinksmanship is, and if they manage to retake the White House, I'm sure the Democrats will be happy to turn their tactics against them.

    4. Re:what? by hackingbear · · Score: 1

      So you believe the Chinese government does all these to catch 82,707 * 85% people into prison? It just show how much biased information you have received on your favorite free media. If I were you, I would learn Chinese and go visit Chinese forums for half year before I post another comment about China.

    5. Re:what? by BenJCarter · · Score: 1

      Amen.

      --
      For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. - Publius
    6. Re:what? by diegocn · · Score: 1

      [CITATION NEEDED]

  3. Interesting idea... by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    But how do you ensure that each persons gets one vote and nobody can steal your vote? And how do you check that the results weren't tainted or pre-determined like Honduras almost had? And then there's the issue of privacy. Lots of people don't want any kind of national ID card.

    1. Re:Interesting idea... by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      How do you ensure those things using offline methods? Their are only preventative measures for either of the alternatives and as far as I can tell neither is fundamentally a great or a horrible solution.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    2. Re:Interesting idea... by malsbert · · Score: 1

      All in all e-voting == paper-voting with only one little exception.
      The anonymous vote.
      With paper-voting; you get a piece of paper, enter a "voting box", submit your vote. the fact you have voted is known but WHAT you voted are not.
      With e-voting; you get the "virtual" equivalent BUT you properly login from HOME, that is your IP will be connected to your vote! and dos the idea
      of anonymity is lost.
      needless to say, there will have to be foul play involved but personally i consider anonymity to be so vital for a "true" democratic vote that even
      the possibility is a show stopper.
       

      --
      "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot.
    3. Re:Interesting idea... by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      It's China, it doesn't matter if you vote more than once or if someone steals your vote. Since your vote doesn't count for anything anyway.

    4. Re:Interesting idea... by icebraining · · Score: 1

      If a friend decided they didn't like you because you voted yes to legalised abortion then how much of a friend are they really?

      Now what if every company in the region refuses to hire you because you voted for the guys who want to raise their taxes?

    5. Re:Interesting idea... by malsbert · · Score: 1

      If we speak of friends i would agree.
      I however am not concerned with family, friends or even employers.
      you use abortion as an example so I ask you; what if the "pro-lifers" was to gain power, would you care then?
      Germany was a democracy until they elected Hitler ( i am sure he would just have loved a list of those who voted against him ).

      but yes "in a perfect world" all would be good.

      --
      "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot.
    6. Re:Interesting idea... by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

      Not everybody has a unique IP address (IPv6 notwithstanding) let alone access to the net and how easy would it be to write software to filter out votes from a red state (or a blue state)? How easy would it be to write software to change just enough votes to ensure a particular outcome without raising eyebrows. What you need is a way to generate a large enough unique number (to prevent brute force hacking or such that would take far longer to crack it than it would to certify the vote), and this number would work into a one-way encryption system such that it's validity is ensured yet anonymity is maintained and also the result of that person's vote can't be pre-determined and filtered out.

    7. Re:Interesting idea... by polymeris · · Score: 1

      Encryption? Think usual mail-voting: double-envelopes, the outer envelope contains your name and a smaller envelope with the vote.

      Analogously, you use 2 keys: 1 to sign, 1 to encrypt. Party A holds only the key to verify your signature, party B only the key to decrypt your vote.

      So you vote, encrypt the vote and sign it, then send it to A, who verifies you haven't already voted. A removes the signature and sends the encrypted vote to B, who keeps the count.

  4. Online polls?! by BenJCarter · · Score: 2, Funny

    I definitely want to choose our leaders using online polls. I mean what could go wrong?

    Vote early vote often...

    --
    For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. - Publius
    1. Re:Online polls?! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Indeed, phone polls are much better - you could have ended up with President Osama for real!

  5. Re:Overthrow The Chinese Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Are you fucking serious? Damn neoconservative nutjobs.

  6. Re:82,707 citizens? by sixteenbitsamurai · · Score: 1

    I think it's reasonable to assume there is at least that many citizens in China who could vote on this. Don't quote me on this, but I heard there's a lot of people in China.

    --
    Yeah, that just happened.
  7. I wish... by Professr3 · · Score: 2

    Unfortunately, we couldn't trust our government to post the real results, much less make the voting process secure enough to avoid virtual ballot-stuffing. Not that it'd matter, since our representatives seem pretty content to vote completely opposite any form of public opinion...

    1. Re:I wish... by Monty845 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, I wouldn't worry about the results not getting released. Instead we would get loaded questions designed to influence the results. A skilled pollster could move public opinion pretty far based on how they ask the questions, and there is no way they would be unbiased. "Do you support closing the gun show loophole" vs "Do you support the ban on the sale of guns between private citizens without requiring a gun shop as an intermediary" Same outcome, but will get very different results.

    2. Re:I wish... by Professr3 · · Score: 1

      Good point, and there's already a whole science devoted to this. I'm not sure how to mitigate it - even an independent organization that writes the questions would be subject to bias or bribery. We already see mass media using leading questions like this, so it makes sense that the government would do the same thing...

    3. Re:I wish... by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      You mitigate it by making the elected polticians debate the questions and the exact format of them that will be put to the people.

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
  8. They do by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    We'd hope the US Congress would dare to collect real citizen input on its legislation, rather than just doing lip service or useless political arguments.

    Really, this is just a poll, and an extremely poor one at that. It is non-binding, and it excludes huge segments of the population (rural voters who don't have internet, or those who don't self-select to vote in online polls).

    In the US, politicians do listen to polls. It used to be that politicians followed the polls so much that 'poll chaser' was a typical insult of a politician. In the US, politicians follow polls, and the ones who go too far against the public will get voted out (when they public isn't watching, they can do whatever they want).

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  9. Correction by beefsack · · Score: 1

    3000 Yuan is close to $500 USD, not $5000.

    1. Re:Correction by hackingbear · · Score: 1

      Notice the "per month" vs "per year"?

    2. Re:Correction by beefsack · · Score: 1

      My correction stands corrected.

    3. Re:Correction by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      3,000 Yuan per month is close to $464 dollars per month or $5,568 dollars per year.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  10. "We'd hope the US Congress would dare to collect by makubesu · · Score: 1

    real citizen input on its legislation"
    It's called representative government, and the Chinese citizens would love to have it.

  11. No thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - Kay, Men In Black

    Direct democracy can be a terrifying thing to behold. Just as the unregulated free market works great until people discover how to exploit negative externalities, direct democracy works great until people discover that they can vote themselves all kinds of short-term benefits and leave the long-term costs to the next generation.

    The idea behind representative democracy is that the people can make their will known to their representatives, but it's the representatives who will consider all aspects of the issue and balance short-term and long-term considerations so that they choose the best possible alternative. That's the theory, anyway. Unfortunately the system is only as good as the quality of the representatives, and in an age where our representatives seem to be chosen more for their entertainment value than their intelligence and statesmanship it's not much better than direct democracy. Sometimes it's even worse.

    1. Re:No thank you by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - Kay, Men In Black

      I'll be really happy when people stop using a quote from a 90s science-fiction comedy as evidence for social theories. Do you realize that is the only evidence you presented in your entire post? The rest was just your opinion. Your post would have been 500% better if you had come up with even a single real-world example to back your point. Like this guy. His facts aren't quite right, but at least he has something.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  12. One of you smart guys should make a website. by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 2

    My theory is Democracy works well, but you need an educated voter, so make a site that educates voters instead of just makes them angry.

    On the website do the following:
    Allow people the ability to write petitions to the senators.
    Allow people to upvote/downvote comments factionally. This means a republican won't be drowned out by a democratic hivemind for example.
    Allow people to see their elected official's voting record vs his campaign promises.
    Allow people to see the campaign promises and views of the candidates
    Verify people online to be registered voters IRL(Biggie)

    If you could do even just a subset of the above things, you could force hyperdemocracy upon Washington DC whether it wants it to happen or not. The people who will not listen to your website might get voted out if you have a large enough user base.

    1. Re:One of you smart guys should make a website. by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 1

      If one of you wants to organize with me to make a website like this, let me know. I don't know CGI, but I know Flash. I have another person who would like to do this. We tried this once back in 2007, but we chose Ruby on Rails as our webserver, and it was very difficult to learn.

      Seriously, I'd love to organize with a few people and make a hyperdemocracy website. I don't know how to start an open source project and stuff. So no matter what you know, we could get together and figure out how we're to do this. There definitely is a market for a dominant political website that organizes information instead of being chaotic or hard to sort through. It is a lot of work to do factional voting and get something like Reddit.com online, but that is just one of many problems involved. How do you solve linking registered voters to online IDs?

      So seriously, if you want to get involved, we can have an email think tank. Email: James_Sager_PA@yahoo.com Subject: HyperDemocracy Website

      And we'll start an email think tank. Then probably start an open source project. Then we'll see if an open source project could lead into having a website like Reddit.com but with factional voting so the hivemind doesn't run the show. So yeah, email me, even if you just wanna get caught in the flurry of emails that might start up the website which could cause hyperdemocracy to happen in the USA. It'd sure make my buddy encouraged as I haven't done anything in years, but I keep telling him we'll do it again down the road

  13. A different idea... by nebaz · · Score: 2

    Direct democracy has it's drawbacks as people here have already stated (California). But what if we went back to the original representation ratio of people in congress as prescribed in the Constitution to "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand", that would require something like 10,000 representatives. That would be enough people to keep most individuals out of the limelight, so maybe they would actually try to do work rather than pander to their constituents.

    --
    Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
    1. Re:A different idea... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      And then, we'd be right back into the equivalent of a direct democracy, except it'd be one step removed from the actual voters.

      Face it, Democracy is a messy business. It sucks, but all other forms of government are even worse. We're stuck with this until we actually get better people.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  14. The free money bill by brainzach · · Score: 1

    Let the citizens vote for our policies that are obviously popular, while we decide we find new ways to censor the Internet behind closed doors. Democracy in action.

  15. "Vote" by poity · · Score: 1

    Submitter claims a non-binding poll constituted a vote, while also implying that no such thing happens in the US
    Conducting a poll is in no way equal to holding a vote, and if anything US politicians are far too caught up in polling numbers.
    Two points in the summary -- both falsehoods.

    The only things we can learned from this story is:
    1. hackingbear is now a confirmed troll
    2. timothy needs to be made aware that if he intends to promote troll submissions, he better be prepared to explain to his employers the future decline in Slashdot viewership.

    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    1. Re:"Vote" by jlusk4 · · Score: 1

      He's not a troll. If you search on "hackingbear" you can see that he's (probably) just some Chinese adolescent who's fallen for the nationalist line that problems in the U.S. mean China is no worse off.

      Anthony Wiener's shens ==> it's ok to lock up dissidents in China. QED.

  16. Re:"We'd hope the US Congress would dare to collec by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    As it is, the actual government of China is free to ignore what this almost pointless organ of state decides at any time it desires. The actual rulers of China are not bound by the rules of law.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  17. This could be interesting by Undead+Waffle · · Score: 2

    The big difference between this and a normal poll is that it is one "official" poll that everyone can be directed to. I would love to see that sort of thing in the U.S. so it isn't as necessary to question the source and methodology of the poll results. If it were done right we could even tie the representative's voting record to the poll results and make it easy for people to identify whether a candidate is really representing their citizens, though that has a lot of potential for abuse.

    1. Re:This could be interesting by TubeSteak · · Score: 2

      The big difference between this and a normal poll is that it is one "official" poll that everyone can be directed to.

      The difference between this and a normal poll is around 81,707 samples.

      Most polls have a normalized/standardized sample size of about 1,000.
      This Chinese poll has a sample size of 82,707.

      Even if you normalize away ~25%* of the sample. it's still more than enough to figure out where the public's thoughts lie.
      *around 25% oversampling is a decent rule of thumb if you want to end up with 1,000 representative respondants

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  18. Its a survey not a vote. by perpenso · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Actually making use of technology to drive government.

    This seems to be a survey, not a vote. So it is pretty much what occasionally happens in the US too. Suveys and focus groups are used to get feedback and to craft legislation and/or how the legislation is presented.

    I believe the only way a true democracy can be run is if individual citizens are allowed to vote on legislation proposed by their representatives, rather than having the representatives do the voting. It would encourage the reps to actually engage their voting populations, otherwise their legislation dies.

    Many wise men have characterized such a system as mob rule. Legislators would simply pander to the mob, its not terribly different than what happens today. Why are the NRA and AARP so powerful, its not money, its their ability to deliver voters to the polls. In short big money donors may have less influence but special interest groups will gain influence.

    The real solution is to elect representatives that have intelligence, ethics and character. An extreme example from history, Cincinnatus:
    "... an invasion caused him to be called to serve Rome as dictator, an office which he immediately resigned after completing his task of defeating the rivaling tribes of the Aequians, Sabines and Volscians. His abandoning of his work to serve Rome, and especially his immediate resignation of his absolute authority with the end of the crisis, has often been cited as an example of outstanding leadership, service to the greater good, civic virtue, and modesty"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnatus

  19. California has accomplished more than that ... by perpenso · · Score: 1

    California has destroyed my faith in direct democracy.

    California has accomplished more than that, it has also destroyed the faith in representative democracy as well. The silliness of the public is exceeded by the stupidity of the state legislature.

  20. Don't need it by emt377 · · Score: 2

    We already have freely elected governments in the west and don't need stunts like this for legitimacy. If we disapprove of our politicians we replace them the next elections. If I were a Chinese party official I'd be very concerned over this: what if people get a taste for democracy and start demanding more of it?

  21. And that is the problem by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    True democracy has never existed and never will. The ancient greeks has no true democracy and the modern greeks are showing why.

    Greece is bankrupt, the country has since WW2 spend its life on a money drip from the EU and totally mis-managed its own economy. There is virtually no tax collection and corruption is a way of live. Now they find out that if you collect no taxes and spend a fortune as the state on pork projects there will be an imbalance.

    The country needs 100.000.000.000 euro in a loan, after they already got one. This from greece which has nothing anybody wants except a tiny island the Turks want. They can never pay the loan off even if the greeks suddenly started paying taxes, stopped the excessive spending and actually started working for a living.

    So what are all the greek protesting about? About having to pay taxes, cuts in spending and actually having to start working... because going bankrupt as a nation will make things so much better. The greeks know they got no alternatives left and still they protest.

    Democracy, true democracy requires that each voter not only knows about the issue but votes for future, not the now AND not just for his own benefit.

    Take this chinese proposal. gosh, the people voted to be able to earn more before having to start paying taxes... good, did they also at the same time vote to have their favorite government spending cut? To have to road in front of their own house to be no longer repaired? For police and other emergency services no longer to service their neighbourhood?

    I do not think so. Cut taxes, no cut in spending (and most likely an increase in spending).

    The Iceland banking scandal? All those EU people who wished the promised high return on banking there and wanted the freedom to bank anywhere in world and not have the state look into their account? Gosh, when it all went belly up, they sure wanted the state to refund the money they didn't pay taxes from tax money didn't they?

    How many american industries always bitching about taxes said no to a tax handout? Wallstreet sure didn't mind going on benefits when it was them doing the benefits? But a family living on the street? No money for them.

    We like to think that we humans are a social creature. We are. So are zebra's and a zebra who sees an other zebra stumble and be torn apart by lions thinks only "glad it was not me" and will happily vote for some other zebra to be devoured tomorrow, as long as it isn't him.

    True democracy would require a better class of human beings then we are (and yes, that includes me).

    The real issue is that representative democracy ALSO requires a better class of human beings then we got.

    What type of system we can run with the human beings we got? I am afraid from history, that it ain't much. See the holocausts that just keep on happening. See the vote in California against gay marriage. A vote that cost nobody any money, didn't require any taxes and yet was voted against just because a lot of people don't want some other people to have the same rights.

    All you can hope for with the human race is that someone else stumbles before you do when it is feeding time.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:And that is the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Only 15% voted for that. Did you even read the summary?

      However, 48 percent suggested to further raise the exemption to 5,000 yuan per month.

      Did you?

    2. Re:And that is the problem by icebraining · · Score: 1

      So 52% didn't vote for any of the raises, and parent claims "the people" voted for a raise?

    3. Re:And that is the problem by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      So 52% didn't vote for any of the raises, and parent claims "the people" voted for a raise?

      I read it as 15% agreeing the $3000 plus a further 48% going for $5000 making 63% in total in favour of raising the limit.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    4. Re:And that is the problem by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I think amongst all that i have found the solution:

      Sell Cyprus.

      Last I heard, Cyprus didn't belong to Greece.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    5. Re:And that is the problem by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Maybe that's what they meant, but it's not what it says. Nowhere is it stated that the two sets of voters are disjoint.

    6. Re:And that is the problem by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Democracy, true democracy requires that each voter not only knows about the issue but votes for future, not the now AND not just for his own benefit.

      And a TRUE Scotsman only eats HAGGIS!

      But no, pure, true, the-real-deal-democracy is simply one where everyone gets to vote on an issue.It could be a boat full of murderous pirates or a group of ignorant idiots.

      The masses always don't go your way, but that's no reason to ditch democracy.

  22. Lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We'd hope the US Congress would dare to collect real citizen input on its legislation

    Yeah, its called voting your leaders into power.

    We'd hope the Chinese Politburo would dare collect REAL citizen input.

  23. Take that with a grain of salt by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    The internet isn't as present in China as it would be here. We're still talking about a tool for the rich and intellectuals. And that THEY want higher exemption was to be expected. I somehow don't think the Chinese government would allow any input that they can't rely on to be what they planned it to be.

    Direct democracy can also be a quite fickle thing, since people tend to be short sighted, uninformed or (worse) misinformed and egoistical. Not that politicians weren't, but it gets way worse when you put laws in the hands of people who then get bombarded by ads from various special interest groups (or, in China, just one), scaremongering the general (and generally dumb and gullible) population into believing the sky is falling if they don't vote "right". For reference, see elections.

    Then there's also the egoistical streak in every one of us. People will hardly agree that taxes are to be raised but they'd gladly vote for spending. Now how's that supposed to work out? If you want government to spend money on something, government first of all has to have money to spend. No income, no money, no spending. It's simple as that. But nobody wants to pay for it! Everyone wants good schools for their kids, well kept roads, enough police to keep everyone safe and a fire department that arrives a minute after the call to a greasefire, preferably with at least ten firetrucks. But tax me for that? Nooooo way, Jose! Tax my neighbor!

    Direct democracy works in a world of honest, sensible, socially inclined people. But if you have that, you can as well stick to representative democracy, because your politicians would be honest, sensible and socially responsible too. I mean, where do you expect them to come from but the population, these people don't come from out of this world. Even if their ideas sometimes sound a bit like they never spent a minute living here...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Take that with a grain of salt by Myji+Humoz · · Score: 1

      Are you serious? Have you ever been to China? You can walk into an internet cafe and get high speed internet for a few yuan an hour. The younger generation (high school to around 35ish) are all on the internet, or did you fail to notice the news stories about how almost everyone in Chinese cities uses the internet now?

      Also, raising the exemption to $5000 a year wouldn't matter a bit to the rich or the intellectuals, or are you saying that earning $30,000 a year in China makes someone rich?

      Even assuming that only the rich and the intellectuals form policy decision in China, isn't that better than what we have in the USA where only the rich and/or the loud affect policy?

      --
      Signatures are the new names.
  24. 'Homer Simpson Moment' crisis happening.... by rts008 · · Score: 1

    Furthermore, the Federalist Papers actually warn explicitly about having too many representatives (which leads to its own form of herd mentality) and having too few representatives per voter (which leads to a distant representative and a clustering of votes around special interests).

    *Head asplodes at built-in contradiction*

    Yes, we're fucked, but the Founders knew we were going to be fucked no matter what they set up, and merely tried to set things up in such a way that it minimizes the amount of stupid that goes around.

    "D'oh!"
    Thanks NC. I've went from a high-IQ, confident, educated and considered intelligent person...to a bumbling moronic idiot in 30 seconds, just from reading your comment! :-)
    No, I'm not hostile towards you, and rather thankful instead.

    Let me explain further.
    Until now, I have been effectively brain-washed in the belief that our 'Founding Fathers' were close to omnipotent in their foresight in forming our gov't., and the current problems were caused by 'professional politicians' feathering their respective nests.
    Really, sad to say.

    Even though I have perused the Federalist Papers, I can't claim to have read them all thoroughly. (need to do that ASAP)
    While reading bits of them, I now realise the filtering that was going on mentally by me.
    That last sentence of your comment was like a slap in the face with a frozen mackerel. Damn.

    Thanks a bunch. It was an important eye/mind opener for me about politics and more importantly, political systems, and the way I think about them.

    Right now, that 'little voice in my head' is shaking it's finger at me and saying, "Lucy, you got some explaining to do!", while simultaneously, Ralph is shaking his fist at me, shouting "To the moon, Alice, to the moon!".

    I think I've some rethinking to do....

    BTW, please pardon the ambiguous tone...I really am rocked hard by this revelation, no sarcasm, no hostility intended.
    As /. is my witness[at least those that haven't filtered my sorry ass out], I humbly thank you, and credit you for instigating a profound event in my life. :-)

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  25. Talk About Hypocrisy by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

    We'd hope the US Congress would dare to collect real citizen input on its legislation, rather than just doing lip service or useless political arguments.

    We'd hope the Chinese government would dare allow citizens to speak their minds, protest, and vote freely without fear of being sent to a labor camp, tortured, or held indefinitely as a political dissident.
    This sounds more like opinion polling anyway, and yes there is polling in the US. It is just as binding (aka not at all). The biggest difference seems to be the scale.
    The final nail in the coffin is the phrase "doing lip service or useless political arguments". Democracy is chaotic, and those arguments - whether one finds them useful is itself political - are at the center of being a truly democratic state.
    I'm not saying the US is perfect, it is deeply, deeply flawed (look at the role of money in elections just as a start), but we don't jail members of the opposition parties as a matter of policy, censor the internet for purely political content, or crack down violently on peaceful religious organizations.

  26. WTF???? by xednieht · · Score: 1

    China's Communism beats the hell out of American Democracy. The difference between Communism and Democracy? The spelling.
    Having worked there for a while, as well as other foreign countries I've come to the conclusion that freedom and democracy span about 6 feet. Or about as far as you can stretch your arms. If you believe America has so much freedom try raising chickens in your suburban yard.

    --

    Hope is the currency of fools
    1. Re:WTF???? by jlusk4 · · Score: 1

      You're an idiot. I know some people who do exactly that.

      How about if I raise hogs next to YOUR suburban house?

    2. Re:WTF???? by xednieht · · Score: 1

      Be my guest, I love pork chops.
      The only idiots are those who look but can't see.

      --

      Hope is the currency of fools
  27. In other news by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    China has managed to locate 82,707 dissidents trying to overturn their government.

  28. Conscience + Altruism by unsolicited · · Score: 1

    Direct Democracy sounds rational when people are altruists and will vote as per their conscience.