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."
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.
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.
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
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...
"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.
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.
God spoke to me
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
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.
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
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?
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.