Ask Candidate Jeremy Hansen About Direct Democracy in Vermont

We mentioned yesterday Jeremy Hansen's run for the Vermont Senate. There are a lot of political races currently active in the U.S.; what makes Hansen's interesting (besides his background in computer science) is his pledge to use modern communication technology to provide a taste of direct representation within a representative democracy. He makes a claim not many candidates (and probably even fewer elected officials) ever will: "A representative should be elected who would work strictly as an advisor and make all policy and voting decisions based on the will of his or her constituents, regardless of personal opinion." To that end, Hansen says that if he's elected, he'll employ "an accessible online voting platform to allow discussion and voting on bills" for his constituents. He's agreed to answer questions about how such a system could work, and the nature of democracy in today's ultra-connected world, in which distance and communication delays are much smaller than they were even 20 years ago, never mind 200. So ask Hansen whatever questions you'd like about his plans and philosophy; as always, ask as many questions as you please, but please separate them into separate posts, lest ye be modded down.

Comments

Security?

[eldavojohn]

To that end, Hansen says that if he's elected, he'll employ "an accessible online voting platform to allow discussion and voting on bills" for his constituents.

How are you going to stop someone from hacking this system? How will accountability be implemented while protecting voter's anonymity (so that employers or other interested parties with leverage can't influence their vote)?

Re:Security?

[Anonymous Coward]

"How are you going to stop someone from hacking this system?"

On that note, what do you do when Anonymous turns their prodigious energies to it?

What Is Right but Unpopular

[eldavojohn]

So ask Hansen whatever questions you'd like about his plans and philosophy;

Throughout history many leaders -- Abraham Lincoln, Harry S. Truman and even George W. Bush -- have made decisions that they felt were "right" but were definitely unpopular. Post hoc, we can see the effects and judge those actions. Now these were all high level actions but similar things do happen at the state and county level. Example: Your county's schools are failing horribly and need money but the only place you have money is vehicle tax that is supposed to go to your roads. You propose (if you are even going to take such actions) to move some money from the road fund to the schools -- sacrificing potential traffic problems in the name of education and staying above backwater Mississippi standards. Your populace (who have completed high school and already make long commutes) disagree with you when their vote fails to pass the proposition. What do you do? Maybe an example closer to home: With soaring copper prices, someone proposes to reopen The Elizabeth Mine but the EPA warns you that clean up from 150 years of abuse hasn't even concluded yet. Unfortunately your populace votes for their jobs and temporary income over the environment, what do you do?

Re:What Is Right but Unpopular

[dBLiSS]

Sure these particular examples could lead to short to gain over long term gain, but how is this different then when leaders make discussion that ARE popular for the same reasons. Like, getting re-elected. I fail to see how giving the people the power to make bad discussion is any worse then letting leaders do it.

Re:What Is Right but Unpopular

[operagost]

Do you mean "decisions"? To answer your question, it's because in the USA we have checks and balances to avoid a tyranny of the majority. It's funny how people who say they are so much in favor of human rights want a direct democracy. We have a Senate composed of 2 representatives from each state regardless of population and a nine member Supreme Court in part to protect the rights of the minority. We also have a chief executive who is expected to make informed, moral decisions and if he doesn't, has to answer to the other two branches.

Re:What Is Right but Unpopular

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you do the right and unpopular options (rather than the left and unpopular option): Close down all the schools and tell parents they need to educate their own children rather than leech off the state.

Re:What Is Right but Unpopular

[Tailhook]

your populace votes for their jobs and temporary income over the environment, what do you do?

Have pressure groups file suit and direct the case to a friendly judge who issues an indefinite injunction. No stink on you. Then, call your broker and put your money in foreign manufacturing where your wealth grows unimpeded by such problems. Then, have the 'community' where your mcmansion is being built zoned for a nice high brick wall all the way around so working class riff raff the use to do stuff like mine copper don't bother you or yours. Finally, attend lots of "non-profit" dinner parties and bask in the environmental kudos of your fellow wealthy politicos.

Re:What Is Right but Unpopular

[dgatwood]

The thing is, the people of the county have a right to decide whether their education or their roads are more important. The purpose of indirect democracy is not to protect the people from bad decisions, but to ensure that no group of people can unjustly oppress another merely because of their quantity. In order for such an unpopular decision to be appropriate, you would have to show that there was a group of people who were going to be severely harmed by the continued operation of the schools in such a manner who did not agree with the decision, and that those people had no other options (private schools, homeschooling, etc.). That's actually a pretty high bar because it only takes one stay-at-home parent out of said group of households to provide an alternative for the kids whose parents want them to learn.

Regarding the mine, operating under modern regulations, I wouldn't expect the mine to pose substantially greater threat to the environment while operating than it does just sitting there idle. The burden of proof should be on the environmentalists that this is not the case. This is a relatively high bar, because if reopening the mine were not relatively harmless, the environmentalists would have pushed for (and gotten) more regulations over the proper operation of mines years ago.

In other words, both of those are poor examples of why we should not have direct democracy. Good (recent) examples include California's prop 8, where the majority clearly denied the rights of significant minority groups.

Finally, although I agree in principle that tyranny of the majority is not that much better than our current plutocracy, in the absence of limits on paid political speech, it will inevitably devolve back into a plutocracy eventually anyway. The problem is not the form of government, but rather the fact that campaign finance laws have not been enhanced to mitigate the power imbalance caused by the growing disparity in wealth between big corporations/unions/PACs/political parties and the average member of the general public.

Re:What Is Right but Unpopular

[pixelpusher220]

You are correct, but recent history shows us that the design of our system was based on the assumption of people doing the 'right' thing and not playing to the crowd.

It doesn't work so well when you have people in all 3 branches doing exactly that for their respective 'crowds'.

Re:What Is Right but Unpopular

[0111 1110]

Well technically only the constitution protects the rights of the minority or anyone else. The supreme court is supposed to enforce the constitution to protect human rights. Unfortunately that rarely happens. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate are just forms of indirect majority rule. Instead of voting directly on issues and proposed laws we vote for someone to represent our interests in those matters. It is still supposed to be an indirect will of the people kind of thing. Senators don't win elections by arguing for unpopular positions. Of course politicians aren't known for their honesty. So in the end they may simply vote however they want or however a corporation will pay them to. Which is why, in the real world, representative democracy is horseshit. No matter how you do it democracy is still two wolves and a sheep deciding on what's for dinner, but at least with direct democracy citizens really do have a direct vote on every issue. The idea that some aristocrat is better able to make intelligent decisions is very 18th century. I certainly don't believe that rich people or attorneys make better decisions than, say, construction workers. The damage that the majority can cause is supposed to be limited by that piece of paper that the supreme court seems to prefer to toilet paper, but otherwise ignores.

Re:What Is Right but Unpopular

[MightyMartian]

I wonder if every generation thinks that they're the first ones to ever have substantial political or social problems. The way people talk, you would think that the last 200 hundred years have just been clear sailing, and our problems or sooooo huge that no other generation has ever had to face them.

Give it up, people. We lead a pretty charmed life compared to most folks who lived even a couple of hundred years ago.

Re:What Is Right but Unpopular

[Anonymous Coward]

And the contrary: what is popular, but not necessarily right (e.g., unconstitutional).

In Canada some people call this the "Doris Day scenario". Here's the video version.

Re:What Is Right but Unpopular

[0111 1110]

Give it up, people. We lead a pretty charmed life compared to most folks who lived even a couple of hundred years ago.

Are you specifically referring to technology here?

Re:What Is Right but Unpopular

[Ichijo]

You propose...to move some money from the road fund to the schools -- sacrificing potential traffic problems in the name of education...

Traffic congestion, just like any other kind of shortage, is proof that the price "is set below the going rate determined by supply and demand." That's easy to fix.

Re:What Is Right but Unpopular

[Stellian]

you would have to show that there was a group of people who were going to be severely harmed by the continued operation of the schools in such a manner who did not agree with the decision, and that those people had no other options (private schools, homeschooling, etc.).

I think such an interpretation of democracy will ultimately work against the very notion of "society". It will tend to eliminate all types of social welfare: sure, any lower class parent could theoretically homeschool his child. In practice most of them will not, and the children will reach adulthood with no education and no other prospects except harsh manual labor or criminality. This reinforcing cycle will eventually lead to a highly polarized society, similar to capitalism during the industrial revolution.

Conversely a 90% tax on revenues in excess of 100.000$ a year will pass, leading to severe economic contraction and explosion of tax evasion. Can you argue that the minority of high earners who don't agree with the decision have no other options ? Of course not, they are free to earn less or donate their excess revenue to the poor. Their high revenue minority status is a choice therefore by your reasoning they can't claim protection against the abuses of the majority.

Besides protecting actual minorities, an important issue of public policy is creating an inclusive social contract in which the individual choice is maximized. A country where poor people get school subsidies and rich people pay acceptable taxes is a better one for both the rich and the poor. If each policy is decided on the spot by the largest minority the social contract breaks down. Spending more on roads is not a thing that should be decided by counting how many drivers there are among the populace, rather it's a complex political compromise that cannot be decided at the individual level. It's a collective game therefore the best solutions are negotiated collectively, and representative democracy is the bargaining tool.

Re:What Is Right but Unpopular

[azgard]

think such an interpretation of democracy will ultimately work against the very notion of "society". It will tend to eliminate all types of social welfare

And yet, in Switzerland nothing of the sort is happening. Maybe you should look at the real world before making any predictions?

I would love if all the people who scream "tyranny of the majority" would define the majority. Who is it? The reality is in direct democracy, the majority is very fluid. You lose some, and you win the most, on average. And this in fact improves social contract better than having a 2-party system, which emphasizes differences rather than common interests. Direct democracy can be actually improve social contract, and this was confirmed empirically.

Re:What Is Right but Unpopular

[dgatwood]

Conversely a 90% tax on revenues in excess of 100.000$ a year will pass, leading to severe economic contraction and explosion of tax evasion. Can you argue that the minority of high earners who don't agree with the decision have no other options?

First, I can't imagine that happening. $100k is solidly middle class in most parts of the U.S. I could see a cap at $250,000, though. And although they would not have a choice, they also would not be "severely harmed" by such a tax. Sure, if you look at it in dollar terms, it looks like they're severely harmed because they have many fewer dollars. However, nobody actually needs that much money, and anyone who claims otherwise is kidding him/herself. Having huge amounts of money (beyond a reasonable amount to pay for retirement) is a luxury, and taking away a luxury is never considered severe harm. Severe harm means taking away something fundamental and basic.

Besides protecting actual minorities, an important issue of public policy is creating an inclusive social contract in which the individual choice is maximized. A country where poor people get school subsidies and rich people pay acceptable taxes is a better one for both the rich and the poor.

Not really. School subsidies that pay the same amount of money to a private school are likely to provide for about the same quality of education as public schools, statistically speaking. For private schools that aim to be better than public schools, it won't be enough money, which means the poor still won't be able to afford those schools. However, most of the people who can afford those private schools with the subsidies could also afford them without the subsidies. By providing those subsidies, the private schools are taking money away from the public schools, thus reducing the quality of education for the poor, while reducing the cost of education for the rich. That sort of reverse-Robin-Hoodism doesn't make any sense at all.

If each policy is decided on the spot by the largest minority the social contract breaks down. Spending more on roads is not a thing that should be decided by counting how many drivers there are among the populace, rather it's a complex political compromise that cannot be decided at the individual level. It's a collective game therefore the best solutions are negotiated collectively, and representative democracy is the bargaining tool.

Maybe, maybe not. I would argue that if the political leaders feel that the roads are of lesser importance, they should be able to convince the people. If they are so ineffectual as leaders that they cannot do so, they should not be political leaders. Thus, if one of them presents his or her arguments and the public still votes the other way, that strongly suggests that the leader's argument wasn't nearly as strong as he/she thought, which means that more often than not, had the decision been made by the politicians, the decision would have been wrong.

This ignores situations in which non-political leaders interfere with the process, of course—church leaders pushing their congregations to vote in a particular way, rich corporations and unions airing attack ads, etc.—but for most decisions, such interference should not occur.

i'm canadian

[fluffythedestroyer]

Too bad I'm not an american because with that thought he would certainly get my vote. i would need more information from him of course but he's ahead of all the others simply by thinking like that.

Don't you risk vote buying?

[Kupfernigk]

In effect, isn't there a risk that following your idea will simply mean that you will vote according to who buys the most online votes, whether by advertising or direct corruption? In this country (the UK) there is a long history of people voting for extreme parties or positions in elections that do not seem to matter. We believe that our representatives have not only the right, but the duty, to identify what is best for their constituents rather than simply to follow whoever shouts loudest.

Re:Don't you risk vote buying?

[icebike]

This isn't a vote. Its a suggestion to a Representative on how he should vote.

Some states vote entirely by mail. (Washington). Vote buying has not been proven or even alleged over the years,
yet its easy to do.

Why would anyone pay someone to cast their opinion a certain way when they know the voter could log back in and change their vote as soon as the $20 bill is in the wallet and the payer is out the door?

There is no reason to limit the number of times a voter could change their vote right up to the time the floor vote was cast.

Re:Don't you risk vote buying?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, if you don't care about an issue (which probably is the case for the majority of people regarding the majority of issues), and somebody says "I'll give you $50 to vote on this issue", then you probably won't go back and change it.

It's not about coercing people to change their vote on an issue that they care about, it's about getting people who don't care to vote with you. There's a reason machine politics is almost entirely focused on "getting out the vote". It works.

Re:Don't you risk vote buying?

[LordLucless]

In effect, isn't there a risk that following your idea will simply mean that you will vote according to who buys the most online votes, whether by advertising or direct corruption?

That's a weakness in democracy in general. Witness how the politicians break out the "campaign promises" in election season. At least it'll be novel in that the voting public will receive the bribes, rather than them being concentrated at the candidate level.

Hi, I hear your name is Jeremy Hansen....

[eternaldoctorwho]

...why don't you take a seat?

(Sorry, I couldn't resist!)

Campaign Confusion

[eldavojohn]

Why would someone who feels that their important issue views are a minority ever vote for you? Clearly an opponent of yours could approach the LBGT community and say "Hey, Hansen's going to ask the population if you guys can get married and you're the minority so don't plan on that ever passing." Or the Atheists, the rich businessmen, the greens, the unions, any very specific religious group, etc (the list goes on). And by the time they're done pointing out how the majority are going to "oppress" the minority for all these interest groups, they've covered a large part of the population. How are you going campaign against something like this? Surely you can't even run on a position in response to any of these questions? Your answer will always be "Whatever the most people want." So how will you combat such a strategy?

Re:Campaign Confusion

[billlava]

That's a good point. I think the best tactic to combat this would just be to play up the 'tyrannical majority' argument in its most generic sense. Everyone (religious people, atheists, gays, heterosexuals, traditional minorities, and increasingly middle class white people) likes to think that everyone else is out to get them and would gang up against them if given the chance. You don't even have to suggest it to each group, just put it out there in a general way and everyone will think you're talking about them.

Re:Campaign Confusion

[lpp]

Isn't that already ostensibly an issue? If a candidate states that he will vote according to such-and-such values, including supporting or opposing same-gender marriage, then voters will turn out in support of or opposition to that candidates election, according to their motivation on the subject.

Those with a minority view that have a favorite candidate rarely ever get them elected. Certainly not without gaining support from outside their base in some way.

How is this different?

Re:Campaign Confusion

[Galestar]

The optimist in me hopes it might be possible to educate people on the idea of tyranny of the majority.

The pessimist in me knows people are ignorant, have no desire to learn, and even understanding the concept they will still vote for what serves their own interests best.

Re:Campaign Confusion

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why democracy doesn't work: it's about ephemeral coalitions of pressure groups instead of the long-term health of the body politic.

Anyway, social progress is a myth. The first gay President was James Buchanan. Everyone knew he was gay, and no one cared. Then a bunch of social science morons decided that Darwinism meant that being gay is unnatural. Then some religious idiots decided to follow the social science idiots off the cliff; it's blasphemy to put your words in the mouth of the Lord, but they did it anyway. Now the social scientists have turned around and are blaming the religious. Because cargo cult social scientists always blame religion, and always keep chasing wherever the banner of social progress is, up and down the field.

And tell the taxpayer that they need to be put in charge of everything to right the terrible wrongs of the past.

Re:Campaign Confusion

[Anonymous Coward]

Good points. While I like his ideas of allowing people to discuss the bills online, the online VOTE part is going go to be difficult. Getting elected without clear positions, as you say, is going to be hard too. He's not the only computer scientist running for office, though. I have degrees in Computer Science and Math and am running for State Representative in Washington State on a pro-science and technology platform. I'd advocating that people that algebra and computer programming in middle school, and numerous sciences including astronomy, biology, geology, chemistry, and physics in high-school along with required calculus and money management classes. Textbooks must only promote scientific theories that stand up to real evidence. I'm also wanting the State to start using dual-use English and metric highway signs. I want the Seattle area to become the "Space Silicon Valley" and more space companies to move into the area (like Blue Origin, Stratolaunch, Planetary Resources). I also support marriage equality, the right to die with dignity, and other pressing social issues. Oh, and surprise, I am a Republican. I believe in low taxes and am pro-business, but believe there is a middle ground with all these other issues that many in my party don't want to embrace.

Re:Campaign Confusion

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyway, social progress is a myth.

Right, which is why we still hang people for witchcraft and black people are still classified as farm equipment.

Kid, you're not doing a very good job of disguising your naivete as cynicism.

Re:Campaign Confusion

[azgard]

Maybe because in average, in majority of cases, you will actually agree with the majority?

Re:Campaign Confusion

[azgard]

You can start with educating me. Who is the majority? Can you name the people who make it?

That's the problem. The majority in "tyranny of majority" doesn't in fact exist. People differ in their opinions, but in majority of cases, on average, they agree with each other. And that's why the whole concept of "tyranny of majority" is silly.

Re:Campaign Confusion

[Galestar]

examples of tyranny of the majority:
1. being a homosexual in the middle east
2. being a person of color in America 200 years ago
3. being an atheist in the U.S.
4. being a pagan during the spanish inquisition
5. being a jew during the holocaust

Consider yourself educated.

Re:Campaign Confusion

[azgard]

I am sorry, but how are these democratic societies? And if they are not, how do you know (if they can't freely voice their opinion) that the majority agrees with the oppression, and it's not just fear of authorities and some oppressive minority? From that list, only U.S. is democratic, and atheists in U.S. are hardly "oppressed".

Re:Campaign Confusion

[Galestar]

A society does not have to be democratic for its culture to persecute a minority.
Funny how you managed to glaze over:
5. being a jew during the holocaust

Both democratic societies.

Here's more examples:
1. The Ancient Romans held slaves
2. Muslims in America
3. Homosexuals in America

Re:Campaign Confusion

[Galestar]

Original answer included 2. being a person of c_olor in America 200 years ago.. it can trimmed somehow.

Re:Campaign Confusion

[azgard]

Re Jews - Germany wasn't democratic either. It was a coup by one of the elected parties. The Nazi party only won the election, but didn't have majority support.

Sure oppression of groups does exist. But the point is, we are talking about representative vs. direct democracy (why would this come up otherwise?). And in that sense, there is _no_ evidence that people are worse than their leaders or some minority elite. In fact, the evidence is more like the opposite. I would say, the history shows repeatedly, the more inclusive the government is (i.e. more democratic), the less people try to opress someone, because that's usually tool of rulers to misdirect people from other problems (like the ruler himself).

Civil Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

How will you vote if "the will of [your] constituents" is to pass a law making homosexuality or teaching evolution a capital offense? How about implementing a Shirley Jackson-style "lottery?" I.e., should basic civil/human rights be subject to mob rule?

Re:Civil Rights

[MetalliQaZ]

The Bill of Rights.

Re:Civil Rights

[sunderland56]

The bill of rights is a poor example - it does not prohibit slavery, give blacks rights, or allow them to vote. The US Constitution (with all amendments) would be a better reason, but unfortunately even it does not guarantee equality under the law - ask any gay couple.

I think the question for Mr. Hansen is a good one. If "the will of the constituents" was the law of the land, slavery would never have been abolished, and being a Muslim would have been outlawed on 9/12/2001.

Re:Civil Rights

[tverbeek]

The Bill of Rights doesn't prohibit (for example) slavery, disenfranchisement of women, or the outlawing of homosexuality. Later Amendments (e.g. 13th, 14th, 19th) corrected some of the oversights we now consider "basic civil/human rights", but not all of them.

Re:Civil Rights

[0111 1110]

So you believe that a representative democracy where the people often don't get what they want because they voted for a person instead of a specific issue is better than a pure democracy precisely because the representative democracy is less democratic? Then perhaps you would prefer a monarchy. The king would not have to listen to any special interest groups. He could just do whatever he wanted, perhaps only (theoretically) limited by a constitution in violating human rights.

I personally think either a constitutional monarchy or a pure constitutional democracy would both be better than the current system.

Think of some of the human rights violations that might be abolished if we could vote for individual laws instead of just for a person. You could say goodbye to the TSA and maybe the entire DHS. Laws like the DMCA and the Patriot Act and all of the various government spying on its own citizen programs might have a harder time. It's true that some poor laws might be passed which would have to be invalidated by the supreme court for human rights violations, but that happens even in the current system. Corporations would also have a much harder time buying laws. It's a lot more difficult to bribe 51% of the population than a single congressman.

Re:Civil Rights

[0111 1110]

The constitution itself was intended to protect against all such human rights violations. The ninth amendment should protect against whatever rights violations were not specifically mentioned in the constitution. Remember that the constitution is mostly a list of things that the government is allowed to do, combined with a very short list of things it is not allowed to do, just to be certain that those particular rights are not violated. The constitution doesn't specifically mention grinding up babies and serving the meat in school lunches, but it is supposed to be understood that, since that government right was not listed they can't do it.

Re:Civil Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

none of which explains why "The Bill of Rights" was the correct answer to the question....because it obviously DIDN'T prevent the government from legislating slavery

Re:Civil Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

That seems like a non-issue. Presumably the polling would only be used for approaching issues that are actually being discussed by the legislature, so if the above issues come up then you're already dealing with a much higher-level problem: who introduced this bill in the first place?

However, in the event such an issue -is- brought up, I would expect that the poll would be written to ensure the voters are aware of the unconstitutionality of it, as well as the constitutionality of any given choice.

Re:Civil Rights

[Elder Entropist]

The most common interpretation of the 9th Amendment is that the Federal government is limited, but that the State governments aren't.

Re:Civil Rights

[JJJJust]

The Constitution EXPLICITLY provided that slavery would be legal until 1808 and that it COULD NOT be amended to change this. Congress prohibited it as SOON as they could.

So, let's all stop dragging slavery into the Bill of Rights arguments.

Re:Civil Rights

[0111 1110]

I suppose the founders should have expected that. It's an easy out. Although does the same policy apply to the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th amendments? The states all have their own constitutions as well. At least the 2nd amendment does seem to be ignored by some states as much as the 9th. It could be argued that only those should apply. I'm already tempted to move to a state like Montana, Wyoming, New Hampshire, or even Alaska. Although Montana has a rather large human rights free zone in the northernmost 100 miles to the border.

Re:Civil Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

What? Congress prohibited slavery in 1808... man, I wonder what that turmoil leading up to the Civil War was all about.

Idiot.

I grew up in Vermont

[Anonymous Coward]

and fondly recall going to town meeting and hearing the adults calmly and respectfully discuss various issues with their neighbors. Does this happen any longer?

Re:I grew up in Vermont

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. Next question please.

Re:I grew up in Vermont

[Anonymous Coward]

"and fondly recall going to town meeting and hearing the adults calmly and respectfully discuss various issues with their neighbors. Does this happen any longer?"

No, there now people of all colors there, not to mention gays, lesbians and atheists.
The horror!

Do You Experience Any Apprehension?

[eldavojohn]

At the prospect of going from a professor of deterministic systems to someone who will be a part of and responding to an inherently chaotic and non-deterministic system?

Security

[macaran]

How will you ensure that only your constituents vote on the topic, and that they vote only once?

Constitution?

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

What will you do when your constituents want you to violate the Constitution?

Re:Constitution?

[windcask]

He's a Democrat. Democrats view the Constitution as an outmoded, unjust document anyway.

Re:Constitution?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not a problem. The problem is dodging around it instead of amending it.

Re:Constitution?

[Jeng]

The laws that are the most unconstitutional are the drug seizure laws from Reagan.

What laws did Democrats pass that you think are unconstitutional?

Re:Constitution?

[AngryDeuce]

[citation fucking needed]

Re:Constitution?

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

Ronald Reagan was the President, and as such was only granted semi-veto powers over Congress. It was the Democratic controlled Congress that wrote and passed those drug laws.

Re:Constitution?

[windcask]

[citation fucking needed]

http://greenmountainscribes.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/scotus-justice-ginsburg-calls-u-s-constitution-a-bad-example/

“I would not look to the US Constitution if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012.” Instead, Justice Ginsburg referred to the constitutions of more supposedly progressive countries, like South Africa, Canada, and the European Convention on Human Rights. She stated, “I can’t speak about what the Egyptian experience should be, because I’m operating under a rather old constitution.”

Re:Constitution?

[pixelpusher220]

Well there is the Healthcare Mandate. I'm a flaming liberal and I say it's unconstitutional.

I don't want the gov't granted the ability to make me buy services. Tax me and provide the services, i.e. single payer, is absolutely constitutional and that would be the right choice.

But yes, the GOP has a nice long track record of unconstitutional laws...like the 'Mandate' for instance ;-)

Re:Constitution?

[AngryDeuce]

Yes, because Justice Ginsburg makes a stupid comment, now all Democrats are defined by it.

If that's the game we're playing, the Republican Party is fucking screwed: George W. Bush. 'Nuff said.

Re:Constitution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which Fox News commentator told you that?

Re:Constitution?

[windcask]

How is it stupid? I think it sums up the Democrat platform quite nicely. They believe in a proactive approach to social justice with weights and balances to favor minority groups deeply entrenched in government. Are you telling me you disagree with this? Because if you do, I'd think long and hard about the party you're supporting.

Re:Constitution?

[windcask]

The laws that are the most unconstitutional are the drug seizure laws from Reagan.

What laws did Democrats pass that you think are unconstitutional?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress#Enacted

Re:Constitution?

[Anonymous Coward]

laws from Reagan

No such thing.

Re:Constitution?

[AngryDeuce]

I don't support the Democrats, I just oppose ridiculously broad generalizations, especially as concerns political ideology. If you don't want to be defined by the worst of your own political persuasion, than I would refrain from doing so as concerns the political persuasions of others.

Re:Constitution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear kind sir, there is no constitutional authority for the federal government to provide health care services.

Re:Constitution?

[windcask]

If one more person on the internet says "Fox News" as a pejorative.towards me I'm going to hit them with a sack full of rainbow trout filets. It's a COP OUT. Argue against my point, don't insinuate I'm a tool because I happen to share some opinions with people on that network.

Re:Constitution?

[BlueStrat]

He's a Democrat. Democrats view the Constitution as an outmoded, unjust document anyway.

Well, to be fair, it's Progressives that want to "progress" past/beyond the Constitution, not necessarily all Democrats. Of course, most current Democrats holding office are Progressives, along with a large number of Republicans as well.

It's one of the major reasons why many of those in government from both parties pretty much ignore or end-run the Constitution when it's restrictions are inconvenient to their political agendas. They simply do not believe that government should have any restrictions placed on its' scope and power.

Unfortunately for freedom, choice, and the Rule of Law, they seem to currently be winning. It helps in the Progressive's gaining and maintaining power that they also believe that "the ends justify the means", and so are not restricted by any sense of fair play or obligation to stay within the law.

Strat

Re:Constitution?

[eldepeche]

"general welfare"

look it up

Re:Constitution?

[Jeng]

I'll agree that the Healthcare Mandate is troubling, but which portion of the Constitution specifically forbids it?

Unconstitutional doesn't mean that you are against it, it means that there is specific language in the Constitution that forbids it.

The drug seizure laws are a good example of an unconstitutional law since it directly goes against Fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court got around that by saying it applies to in-animate objects, not their owners.

Re:Constitution?

[0111 1110]

What laws did Democrats pass that you think are unconstitutional?

Recently? The DMCA. Also many Democrats have voted for many unconstitutional laws. Are you seriously arguing that Democrats are pro-constitution? The document that was written to limit the government to essentially be Libertarian? The tyrannical police state we now live in was brought to us by both parties. Both are evil and anti-freedom, just in slightly different ways.

Re:Constitution?

[JJJJust]

YOU need to look it up.

"general welfare" appears twice in the Constitution.

Once in the preamble, which has NO force and effect.

And once in the Taxing and Spending Clause, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States".
The General Welfare (sub-)Clause applies ONLY to how Congress may spend money. It does not give them authority to implement the healthcare mandate, merely give them authority to spend money on it,

Re:Constitution?

[Anonymous Coward]

They'd want him to violate the very oath he's sworn to uphold whilst in the elected position? Speaks more to the idiocy of the constituency than a formal request to violate his oath of office.

It's true we still have bread and circuses, theyre just hidden amongst the advertising.

Re:Constitution?

[0111 1110]

Ninth Amendment. Look it up. The government really doesn't have the authority to do most of what it does if you take what the constitution says literally and don't pretend that it doesn't say what it says or play word games. It's common knowledge that the founders were mostly Libertarians and it's pretty easy to see what they meant by various terms and phrases. The fact that supreme court justices simply choose to ignore those obvious meanings and replace them with their own pro-government ones is really nothing short of treason. Back in the 18th century I'd like to believe they would have been tarred and feathered and/or tried for treason.

Re:Constitution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear kind sir, I have studied the General Welfare Clause and it does not grant authority for Congress to provide health care services. Please kindly note the following text from the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

This text is followed by 17 specific items that Congress is granted power to do, and among them is not to provide health care services. Please check it. Kind sir, it is easy to misunderstand the quote above if read all by itself, but the way it was put in the document was to be a general statement of what Congress does, and then followed by the specific things that Congress can do. This is clear because otherwise Congress can do anything.

Re:Constitution?

[Jeng]

Does it specifically state that they do not have the authority to implement the healthcare mandate?

Re:Constitution?

[Anonymous Coward]

How the hell is the DMCA unconstitutional? I'm pretty sure it says right in the Constitution that the Congress has the authority to implement copyright.

Re:Constitution?

[JJJJust]

No. But since the Constitution does not grant the right to impose this mandate and does not prohibit the states from handling it, it's a Tenth Amendment right reserved to the states.

Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Re:Constitution?

[0111 1110]

It doesn't mention the rounding up of Jews into work camps "for the general welfare" either. Do they have the authority to do that? Did you really expect the founders to come up with a list of every single thing they don't want the government to be able to do in the next millenium? Instead they made a list of things the government can do. If it's not listed that means the government is not allowed to do it. You are supposed to have to have to get a constitutional amendment to get around that, but instead the government just does what they want and relies on the cooperative appointed supreme court justices to agree, and indeed they typically do.

Re:Constitution?

[Jeng]

Did you really expect the founders to come up with a list of every single thing they don't want the government to be able to do in the next millenium?

No

Instead they made a list of things the government can do. If it's not listed that means the government is not allowed to do it.

Did you really expect the founders to come up with a list of every single thing they want the government to do in the next millenium?

Re:Constitution?

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's wrong with that? She's saying a modern Constitution would be more useful for a draft, since you can consider the current needs and priorities, and other issues that people have found they have.

I wouldn't look to the US Constitution, or many state Constitutions. Have you seen the Alabama or Texas state constitutions? Horrors.

Damn a Supreme Court Justice has the sense to realize that backwards compatibility can be crippling. Who knew?

Re:Constitution?

[Jeng]

This text is followed by 17 specific items that Congress is granted power to do, and among them is not to provide health care services

The seventeenth item is not only very vague, but also looks like a blank check to do whatever they like.

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Re:Constitution?

[JJJJust]

It's the method of enactment to implement the preceding 16 items and "all other powers vested'.

Having the power is not sufficient, there must also be a method to exercise it and that is what this clause provides.

Re:Constitution?

[0111 1110]

Unconstitutional doesn't mean that you are against it, it means that there is specific language in the Constitution that forbids it.

I'd like to hope you are not an American. Go read the ninth amendment and get back to us. By your logic the government has the right to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger because that is not mentioned in the bill of rights.

The first 10 amendments are as follows:
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

2. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

3. No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

5. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

6. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

7. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

To be fair the 9th amendment is not the only one that is routinely ignored, but it is the most damaging, because it is really the only amendment that truly protects us against tyranny. The only one that explicitly limits the actions of the government. It says quite clearly the equivalent of, "The government is only allowed to do what we have specifically enumerated and nothing more."

These are guys who just fought a whole bloody war to be free from government tyranny and you think they would just give the government of their newly formed republic free reign to do whatever they want unless it is specifically forbidden in the constitution? I do think it is unfortunate that they didn't do a better job expressing their Libertarian ideals in the constitution itself, but they most certainly did believe in human rights other than the ones mentioned in the bill of rights.

Re:Constitution?

[Jeng]

Ok, I'll argue against your point.

You are wrong. There may be individual Democrats who believe one way, but those are individuals.

Re:Constitution?

[Obfuscant]

Did you really expect the founders to come up with a list of every single thing they want the government to do in the next millenium?

Yes. Everything that the federal government is to do. The rest is left to the states, or to the people.

And "general welfare" doesn't mean "everyone gets free stuff paid for by the productive members of society". "Welfare", in this context, means 'general wellbeing', not specific benefits for designated beneficiaries. That same "general welfare" clause that you think allows a welfare state applies just as much to the people who pay for the welfare as those who get it.

Re:Constitution?

[Jeng]

The ninth amendment is very vague, but what it says is that you retain your god given rights and the government can't take them away from you.

Basically the bill of rights listed a number of rights that they have specifically said you have, what the ninth amendment says is that you retain any rights they forgot to list.

Re:Constitution?

[Jeng]

I think what?

I'm not the one who made the general welfare argument.

I made the "if it is not in the constitution it can't be unconstitutional argument".

Re:Constitution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unconstitutional doesn't mean that you are against it, it means that there is specific language in the Constitution that forbids it.

Quite wrong, and symptomatic of a common and fundamental misunderstanding. The US Constitution does not enumerate things that the government is forbidden from doing. Instead, it lists all of the things that the government is allowed to do, and explicitly forbids the government from doing anything at all that is not specifically permitted.

Re:Constitution?

[windcask]

Very well said and I agree with your point.

Re:Constitution?

[eldepeche]

So Congress can spend money to provide for the general welfare of the country, and it can pass any laws which are necessary and proper to that end.

Or do you actually mean that Congress cannot pass laws that do anything for the general welfare but spend money?

Re:Constitution?

[eldepeche]

Kind sir, *makes wanking motion with hand*

Re:Constitution?

[0111 1110]

Did you really expect the founders to come up with a list of every single thing they want the government to do in the next millenium?

So how do you explain the existence of the 9th amendment? What was its purpose if they were mainly concerned that the federal government would be too weak?

You really believe that the founders intended to give the government the freedom to do anything? Have you read anything about the political beliefs of the people who actually wrote the constitution? They most certainly did believe that the power of government should be limited. If you want to limit it you really have to make some kind of list. Either of allowed actions or disallowed actions. The 9th amendment is clear evidence of their intent in this regard.

In hindsight they would have been better off instead listing all of the things and categories of things that they feared a tyrannical government or just power-mad police officers would be tempted to do. In terms of their personal politics they were varying shades of what most would consider to be Libertarians today. That means a limited government.

Remember that the Bill of Rights itself was very controversial. Those first 10 amendments were almost not included. If that had been the case I suppose we wouldn't have any rights at all? I admit that the founders were not as clear on this incredibly important issue as they could have been when writing the constitution. Perhaps because the constitution itself was more about uniting the individual states and forming a federal government than enumerating what most people in the colonies at the time understood.

It's important to appreciate that the states were more or less separate entities at the time. I think their belief in human rights was better explained in the various state constitutions. Considering how subtle they were about this important issue it's not so surprising that many people like you simply don't understand the kind of document the Constitution was supposed to be. It was never supposed to be a document enumerating the natural rights of all human beings. They did briefly allude to the idea of natural rights in the Declaration of Independence, but without any real detail. Perhaps they expected people to read John Locke.

Re:Constitution?

[JJJJust]

The former.

The Taxing and Spending Clause was not intended to be an independent grant of power. It has evolved that way due to court decisions, but it was originally intended to give Congress the power to tax in relation to another one of their powers. That's why it says they shall 'have the power to tax and spend to provide for the general welfare'. Not "have the power to tax, have the power to spend, AND have the power to provide for the general welfare". If they enact something under the Commerce Clause, they can levy a tax and spend that money for it with the Taxing and Spending Clause.

Congress can provide for the general welfare by exercising the power of the purse in another way, as well. The drinking age is not 21 at a Federal level, because there's no Constitutional basis for Congress to set it that way. Instead, Congress passed a law saying they would withhold Federal funding for any state that didn't raise the age to 21. Boom, general welfare provided for without being unconstitutional. (That's also how we got stuck with No Child Left Behind.)

Re:Constitution?

[eldepeche]

"Basic health care for everyone" sure sounds general to me, but I guess I'm not constitutional because it doesn't mention me by name.

The fact is, the language of the Constitution is ambiguous. If it were as precise as you think it is, we wouldn't have spent the last couple hundred years and change arguing about what it means. Pretty much everyone interprets "general welfare" as including protections for vulnerable groups, because we don't want to live in a society where old people eat cat food because they can't afford real food and they can't get a job. I think that benefits everyone, you clearly disagree.

Re:Constitution?

[JJJJust]

The provision of the DMCA that allows "takedown first, fight later", can be interpreted by some as an unconstitutional violation of the Fourth Amendment right to due process.

No person shall be [...] deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; [...]

Re:Constitution?

[JJJJust]

Fifth Amendment*

Re:Constitution?

[0111 1110]

The 9th amendment is only vague in the sense that the constitution never lists the enumeration of rights that they seem to be referring to. You have to read their own personal writings or in some cases individual state constitutions to understand what they meant.

Also they didn't forget. They just didn't enumerate what those rights were, except in a partial half assed way of the first 8 amendments. I do understand why this only partial enumeration of human rights in what became such an important historical document leads to such confusion. They didn't make it easy for people from the distant future to understand what they were on about. You have to remember that in their time most colonists were a lot more Libertarian than they are now. I think they kind of just assumed that "the people" themselves would be the ultimate defense against tyranny by literally fighting for their rights. Hence the importance of the second amendment I suppose. They clearly didn't envision a standing army and a military police force of the size and sophistication we have today. But, again, if you read about their own political philosophies it becomes apparent that they did not believe the rights enumerated in the constitution were the only ones. so it is highly unfortunate that that is precisely how the supreme court interprets it. The ninth amendment makes it pretty undeniable that it was not their intent for the constitution to function as an enumeration of human rights, but more of an explicit permission for the government to do certain things.

Re:Constitution?

[Obfuscant]

I'm not the one who made the general welfare argument.

Sorry, I packed two comments into one. A different "you".

I made the "if it is not in the constitution it can't be unconstitutional argument".

If it isn't in the constitution, it is by default and by definition unconstitutional. The constitution defines what the feds can do. End of story.

Re:Constitution?

[Obfuscant]

"Basic health care for everyone" sure sounds general to me, but I guess I'm not constitutional because it doesn't mention me by name.

Two stupid arguments in one sentence. "Basic health care for everyone" isn't the current issue de jour, since basic health care for everyone is already here. It's who pays for it and how much is meant by "basic". And people are not the topic of the constitution, it's the definition of the functions of the federal government. The fact you aren't mentioned by name is irrelevant because you aren't the federal government. Do you not understand at least that much about the Constitution?

If it were as precise as you think it is, we wouldn't have spent the last couple hundred years and change arguing about what it means.

Hardly. We have spent the last two hundred years arguing because there will always be people who want free stuff or a nanny state that will try to get whatever they want to pass constitutional muster by trying to claim that the constitution is "ambiguous" or "a living document" or whatever argument seems to work for them. When that fails, they'll try to argue that other country's constitutions are applicable here. And if all else fails, the ICC covers everything imaginable -- today. Not back then, but today it does, as a last resort of all those with their hands out for a federal handout.

Pretty much everyone interprets "general welfare" as including protections for vulnerable groups,

No, pretty much everyone interprets the rights as outlined therein as protections for vulnerable groups. It's the groups who seek government mandates for protection that try to read lots of stuff into simple things. The fact remains, "general welfare" does not mean "welfare for all" (using the modern definition of "welfare" as "free stuff from the government" as pushed by FDR and others). In fact, the word "welfare" doesn't mean free handouts of any kind, in the context of the constitution.

I think that benefits everyone,

It wasn't the intention of the founders that the federal government be the source of all benefits for all people. And no, taking money and property away from some to give it to those who don't have it does not benefit everyone, despite your claims to the contrary.

Re:Constitution?

[eldepeche]

I would think that someone who is so good at reading would realize that I was being facetious about being myself unconstitutional.

Programs that transfer money from rich people to poor people are nonetheless favored by many rich people, so it's not a case of unproductive people wanting handouts and taking them at the point of a rifle (that was bought with a rich person's tax money). We have a system in place for deciding how the government works, and we used that system to come to a consensus about the powers and limits of the welfare state (the conversation is ongoing, and the consensus is changing, which I take as a sign that the system works).

There are technical arguments about the marginal value of money, aggregate utility &c, but by "benefits everyone" I meant "benefits the country as a unit" rather than "benefits every single person." Social Security (for example) didn't just happen, we created it because people too old to work were literally starving and dying because they didn't have enough money. I think some asshole who complains about "unproductive people" and calls the only way to fund a government "taking money and property away" still benefits from not living in a country where old people starve and people die every day from easily preventable and treatable medical conditions.

I marvel at how obvious you think this is, when pretty much nobody agrees with you. "The Constitution says X and Y, but not Z, DUH!" OK dude. Do you go to the theater and yell at the actors when you think their interpretation of Hamlet is wrong?

Re:Constitution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear kind sir, this is quite a difficult power at first, so I will carefully through it to help you understand.

The first part "to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers" means that because in the list of powers it did not previously state that Congress would use its powers to make laws, and because the makers of this document were quite specific about saying what Congress can do, they decided they must state that Congress can make laws.

The next part "and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof" means that other powers granted to Congress not in the foregoing list can also be to make laws for. So you see that this is really quite a specific sentence when you break it down.

Re:Constitution?

[pixelpusher220]

Article I, Section 8:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States

Tax and provide service across the states is fully covered under this clause.

Re:Constitution?

[pixelpusher220]

And "general welfare" doesn't mean "everyone gets free stuff paid for by the productive members of society

So you're against Medicare and Social Security? Kinda popular programs those...

Re:Constitution?

[JJJJust]

Article I, Section 8:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States

Taxation is not covered under the Commerce Clause, that's why there's a Taxing and Spending Clause.

The provision of services is not covered under the Commerce Clause, that's why each state is responsible for educating their own citizens.

The Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce... Just because a law applies to more than one state does not make it interstate nor relate it to commerce.

Congress could pass a law saying every state has to have a bird feeder at their respective Capitol... it would be unconstitutional.

question

[Sparticus789]

How are you going to ensure that the people using your system are:

1. Legally allowed to vote in the U.S.

2. Are who they say they are.

Re:question

[Anonymous Coward]

How are you going to ensure that the people using your system are:

1. Legally allowed to vote in the U.S.

2. Are who they say they are.

Racist. How dare you.

Spelling bee

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you please check the box with the correct spelling?

|_| Amercia
|_| America

Re:Spelling bee

[0111 1110]

The People's Republic of Amerika is the correct spelling.

Self Selecting Constituents

[Anonymous Coward]

How will you get traditional political non-participants involved? What will you do if the majority wants protectionist measures which hurt a minority of citizens (eg expensive safety regulations for small toymakers)?

And also

[Anonymous Coward]

People are too stupid to govern themselves. The will of the majority can actually be quite harmful, unjust, or simply unmaintainable, which is why a representative democracy works better than a direct democracy.

Of course, the more power you give to one person, however competent he may be, the more evil he becomes. There really isn't a solution to that problem. But disempowering evil by empowering stupid is jumping from the frying pan into the eternal flaming abyss.

Re:And also

[characterZer0]

Of course, the more power you give to one person, however competent he may be, the more evil he becomes. There really isn't a solution to that problem.

Sure there is. Vote him out.

Re:And also

[Anonymous Coward]

"People are too stupid to govern themselves. The will of the majority can actually be quite harmful, unjust, or simply unmaintainable, which is why a representative democracy works better than a direct democracy."

Fully agreed. People vote themselves bread and circuses and no taxes.

Re:And also

[torkus]

I will agree that there are a lot of stupid people out there. But our representative democracy is a big part of that reason. Despite what we're 'taught' about democracy you quickly learn that "normal people" have essentially no voice excluding exceptions like the Streisand effect and the lucky viral video.

Flip that around. Give people - individual people - the power and responsibility. They also get the consequences. At least when the town budget comes up they can decide to vote out the subsidy for the politicians cousin's business in favor of keeping the park open. Sure, he employs 5 people who will be fired...but boo hoo. He wouldn't have been in the first place if he wasn't getting unfair, free money. This is true transparency in government.

MY QUESTION - beyond hack-proofing the system, how will each individual be registered so they get one vote either online or in person? (assuming there's a non-computer version of this as well to be fair to the computer illiterate) Short of barcoding people or taking /. level techie and assigning people encryption keys they won't understand of course.

Re:And also

[CubicleZombie]

People vote themselves bread and circuses and no taxes.

No, people vote to collect and spend other people's taxes.

Re:And also

[ewibble]

So you either have Tyranny of the minority instead of the majority. Both have the disadvantages. In order to have direct democracy I think you need rules in place like:
It is only now that direct democracy is actually feasible.

1. You must balance the books (probably a good rule representative democracy)
2. Don't vote unless you actually have some knowledge of what you are talking about. (some testing system that has to be factual not political). I am not talking about hard test just something that says you have investigated the issue more than read a 5 word headline.
Again probably a good idea for representative democracy as well.
3. A good constitution to protect civil rights, again good idea for representative democracy as well.

The problem with representative democracy is:
1. Your practical choices are very limited.
2. You know very little about how the representatives actually think.
3. You have no easy way of having a say on individual issues that may be very important to you.
4. Once they are in power they can even pass laws that violate what they said they where going to do.

Sure it may not work, its scary to try since what we have never really done it. it may take a few tries to get it right.

personally I think transparency in government is more important, nothing should be kept secret for ever.

Re:And also

[Anonymous Coward]

"Disempowering evil by empowering stupid"

I'll have to remember that

Re:And also

[Anonymous Coward]

Hugo Chavez's answer for this was to educate the masses. He created free classes, all over the country, to study the constitution, so even the poor and illiterate would know their rights.

When the US sponsored a coup against Sr. Chavez since he was funding things like medical care for the populace rather than profits for foreign oil companies, the people rose up, and stated that in spite of the official line that the coup was constitutional, that it was not, and restored their democratically elected, and very popular president, Sr. Chavez.

In Honduras, when the US sponsored coup against Sr. Zelaya took place, the (like in the US) far-right courts declared the coup constitutional, and the people, having not been educated in their rights as in Venezuela, did not have the critical mass needed to restore their democratically elected president.

Perhaps rolling out free civics and government classes could help. Even leveraging existing movements like the 99%, and tea party to help spread the education campaign.

Re:And also

[nschubach]

Term limits.

Re:And also

[shutdown -p now]

People are too stupid to govern themselves. The will of the majority can actually be quite harmful, unjust, or simply unmaintainable, which is why a representative democracy works better than a direct democracy.

I love how it's modded insightful. I wonder if the mods also consider themselves to be too stupid to govern themselves, or whether it's always some abstract "people" that they aren't personally a part of.

The will of the majority can certainly be unjust, but so can be the will of the representatives of that majority, as amply demonstrated by any modern representative democracy - and especially the USA. You also failed to give any references for your claim that "representative democracy works better than a direct democracy" - and please don't try to pull crap like comparing, say, Athenian democracy to USA, because there's two and a half thousand years and countless other differences between the two.

Re:And also

[TheRealMindChild]

We've done the "representative democracy", and as far as I see, it doesn't work. Instead of throwing good money at bad, shake the bottle up/administer a lobotomy, and see what happens. It can't be worse than we are now

Re:And also

[riverat1]

We already have term limits. They're called an elections.

Re:And also

[Anonymous Coward]

People who think people are too stupid to govern themselves completely miss the point, or are just being selfish. Stupidity argument is essentially anti-freedom. I am OK with that, if we all agree on hierarchy of values that way, reason above freedom, but remember that smartness doesn't warrant honesty and integrity. Power can corrupt philosophers too.

The constituents will face the consequences of bad government either way. With direct democracy they at least have the chance to grasp full responsibility. If their decision hurt them, so be it - possibility of making mistakes is the price of freedom, any freedom. Mistakes, unless fatal, are also a source of wisdom.

Re:And also

[Stellian]

Well, I'd love to be in a direct democracy with Slashdot posters. Just looking at the quality of moderation: most of the time they bring up things I either agree with, insightful things that change my view, or things I don't agree with but are nonetheless thoughtful commentaries made by intelligent people who understand the issues.

What I fear is that we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg. The vast majority of people don't follow current political events; from those who do, even fewer have the analytically tools and critical thinking required to go beyond pop-politics, to understand the implications of budget deficits and bailouts, of foreign policy, of healthcare models. Hell, most of the senators don't understand those. So when you are moving from a self selected community like Slashdot, which includes many articulate technical professionals that gather simply for the pleasure of discussing issues, to the whole voting populace of a country, then yes, I think it's fair to talk about an abstract "people" that may be unfit to govern itself. I'm not saying that's necessarily true, I'm saying the Slashdot sample is not representative for the voting base.

Re:And also

[andyteleco]

Yes, that's why Switzerland (the only real direct democracy in the world) is suffering so much from poverty, unemployment, corruption, etc Oh... WAIT!

Re:And also

[azgard]

Those people, who you are afraid, are also less likely to vote and even if they do, their "confused" vote won't cause the problem, because if you don't know, you're as likely to vote yes or no for any given proposal (there is even a theorem on that - contrary to popular belief, voting result is higher than average decision-making ability, and may be even higher than of any individual, due to central limit theorem). That is, unless there is someone manipulating them.. but then I would argue what you fear is not that some people are stupid, but that there are manipulators. In that case, I don't see how restricting those who are not manipulators from power is going to be of any help.

Re:And also

[davester666]

You really want to mess with elections in the US. Remove any sign of party affiliation from the voting form and from around all voting stations.

Then people would at least of to remember the names of the candidates they want to vote for. And no cheat sheets either!

Re:And also

[Stellian]

40-50% of voters regularly show up at elections in my country - sad to say the majority of them do not match the "articulate technical professional" archetypal Slashdot poster. Actually there seems to be quite the opposite: the most inept people show up to vote in the vastest numbers.

Your hypothesis that votes of clueless people are normally distributed and cancel themselves out is pure speculation. The voters are emotionally and financially exposed, wisdom of the crowds does not apply. Should the country run a fiscal a deficit or an excedent ? There may be a systematic bias of the voter base against increasing debt precisely when that is required for pulling the country out of depression. Conversely, cutting the deficit by laying off government employees might be soundly rejected based on self-conservation short term thinking. Lastly, as you say, it's easy for a powerful public voice to sway clueless voters one way or the other. In all these cases, the votes of the tiny minority that understands macroeconomics is simply statistical noise: the public policy will be largely decided by things unrelated to it's long term economic effects.

Minorities

[macaran]

How will you weight minority voting? Say Mexican farmers want rights, and the majority of their neighbors want them deported. Would you vote to have them deported, or would you weight minority votes on topics concerning minorities?

Undermines the idea of representative govt.

[windcask]

The idea of representative democracy is that you will elect someone whom you trust to represent your interests, not simply a middle-man between you and your government. How popular was TARP in terms of raw polling numbers? The idea was hated roundly by both sides, but it passed and worked because we had a lot of people in Congress with greater foresight than the average Joe. I know I wouldn't want the Republic subjected to the whims of the mob, whose opinions change as often as the weather.

Re:Undermines the idea of representative govt.

[cpu6502]

>>> TARP was hated roundly by both sides, but it passed and worked

It hardly worked. All it did was steal money from the poor (us human beings) to the rich (banking corporations). And contrary to belief it has not been paid back, nor did it solve the key problem (banks leveraged 50-to-1). It would have been better to let the House of Representatives follow the desires of the people, 75% of whom opposed TARP, and voted it down.

And as we later discovered the 700 billion TARP was just the tip of the iceberg. The private central bank in collusion with the Treasury Department (aka corporatism,fascism) handed-out 16,000 billion dollars in loans and direct gifts.

Malware / bots

[Anonymous Coward]

Given how difficult it is to prevent computer infection, how can you hope to avoid having malware or bots subvert the process?

Will all data collected be public?

[billlava]

And if so, how soon? Will you allow participants to view results of a survey/poll immediately after they vote, or before? Or never? What about all the demographic data you will likely tie to each vote? Will that be available (in an anonymized form) for public inspection? That could be just as interesting as the prospect of a poll-informed internet representative.

Value

[bws111]

If you are a mere puppet of the polls, and never use your own judgement or have the courage to take an unpopular position, what value are you providing to your constituents?

Re:Value

[shutdown -p now]

The obvious answer is, the value of accurately representing the desires of said constituents without bending it for the sake of his own ideology.

Mob Rule

[KermodeBear]

Do you worry that rule by direct election would lead to a "Mob Rule" mentality? Too often the public gets very angry over an issue and makes an emotional decision instead of an informed decision. And then, one must worry about the public basing their decisions on propaganda instead of information.

This can result in very poor policy - what is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular.

Re:Mob Rule

[shutdown -p now]

Too often the public gets very angry over an issue and makes an emotional decision instead of an informed decision.

Elected representatives seem to do it all the fucking time (it's even readily evident from the name of the laws they enact - what is "PATRIOT Act" if not a direct appeal to emotion to circumvent reason?). So what's the difference?

And then, one must worry about the public basing their decisions on propaganda instead of information.

See above. Fully applicable here as well. If you want some examples, you can google up things about e.g. Bush and Harper dismissing experts when their testimony disagreed with the party line.

What about Voters wanting to dumb laws?

[cpu6502]

What if the voters ask for a dumb law, such as "Every Vermonter will pay zero income tax," thereby bankrupting the Vermont government? I would assume you would reject that law and vote no on it, even if the majority of your home district's constituents desired it.

Re:What about Voters wanting to dumb laws?

[0111 1110]

You mean like neighboring New Hampshire? State taxes are smart. How else are state politicians going to pay for their hookers and heroin? What if Vermont residents vote in favor of a 99% state income tax for everyone who makes more than $15,000 per year and no income tax for everyone who makes less? Since I am in the latter category that would be fine by me. I still wouldn't vote for it, but it wouldn't bother me if it passed. Actually it would be especially good if some of those tax dollars would simply go directly to me, but I guess you can't have everything. Making everyone nearly as poor as me isn't as good as being rich, but it would have to do I suppose.

Populism

[SJrX]

While I can see the allure of being very responsive to voters, this seems to be a potentially dangerous idea. By being very receptive to voters immediate desires, voters who by and large are not informed enough to make good decisions, it seems like we could very easily be stuck in both political standstill or trap where required actions could not be taken. If the logic end of your idea is that more candidates should be doing this, it seems we could very quickly become paralyzed.

How do you plan on handling the political "game"

[MetalliQaZ]

I like the concept of taking direction directly from the will of your constituents, but how do you plan on handling...politics? More specifically, when the party needs votes and deals have been made, how will you stand up to the leadership and refuse to take part? Will that not render you an outsider and remove valuable (perhaps necessary) political clout? It seems like the Washington political machine is incompatible with direct democracy.

Bravo !

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been dreaming of big changes to our representative democracy for a long time.

How will you propagate this winning idea through our system ?

What can we do to encourage candidates that believe that their election
does not give them a blanket mandate for their own agendas ?

jr

Tyranny of the Majority

[Lawrence_Bird]

is why we have a representative democracy. This guy must have missed those classes in school.

Re:Tyranny of the Majority

[shutdown -p now]

He probably didn't, he just doesn't buy into propaganda. How's that representative democracy working out for you? All I hear is whining about "wasted votes" etc, or at best voting for lesser evil.

Re:Tyranny of the Majority

[cockroach2]

Nice excuse. Too bad direct democracy works quite well in other places.

Re:Tyranny of the Majority

[bill_mcgonigle]

Yep. Direct democracy also gets you a ban on gay marriage in North Carolina.

It doesn't have to be true that one or the other of those two choices is the correct solution.

Re:Tyranny of the Majority

[shutdown -p now]

Representative democracy gets you a ban on gay marriage just as well with sufficient public support, so I don't see the difference in that respect.

Ultimately, democracy - any democracy - is tyranny of the majority. Even with Constitution and other limiters, they can be overridden by sufficiently many votes (2/3 of popular vote in most countries; 3/4 of states - which can equal to less than half of popular vote - in US). Direct democracy is somewhat more honest in that respect, but otherwise...

That's an inherent flaw in the system, but I'd argue that, at a certain stage of development of the human society, the negative effect of that flaw diminishes relative to the benefits the system otherwise provides.

What if the people don't want this?

[Anonymous Coward]

What if the people vote to outlaw polling of the constituents, and want to require their representatives to act, as representatives, on their behalf? Will this paradox create a fissure in the space-time continuum? I mean, will you resign, will you ignore the new directive or will you act as a representative? Some other action?

How do you ensure the poll is representative?

[gstoddart]

How do you ensure the poll is representative?

If you let everyone vote on a web page, you're self selecting for technology literate, able to afford an internet connection, and politically engaged enough to care to vote.

If the same 10% or so vote on every issue, you might end up with skewed results.

And, as has been pointed out, you'd need to be sure the system was secure and had some validation in it -- otherwise you have no idea if you can trust the votes. Then of course, all of your voters are essentially on record for having voted for/against something.

It sounds like a good idea in theory, but the devil is always in the details.

Re:How do you ensure the poll is representative?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people don't vote in the first place, aren't elections not truly representative? Is this just another way to nullify that fact that most people will not have voted for you in the first place?

How will the Web-challenged be represented?

[Anonymous Coward]

What will you do to hear the will of those who aren't on the Web? Many seniors aren't (e.g. my father): will their thoughts be selectively excluded from the voting?

Access

[Obfuscant]

In addition to the questions about authentication and authorization, how do you intend on dealing with the following critical issue:

1. Access to "voting" by people who aren't online. How do you keep from disenfranchising those who are not electronically capable, either because of cost or because of ability?

Do you think direct democracy is the answer?

[PCM2]

California has been running an ongoing experiment with direct democracy for many years, and here IMHO it's mostly been an abysmal failure.

What happens is that all kinds of budget earmarks get put on the ballot. Well-meaning voters think, "Well gosh, of course we should have funding for after school sports programs!" Next thing you know, there's a law on the books that earmarks X percent of the school budget for after-school sports programs -- whether or not the students have textbooks.

Or just as often, the bills are put on the ballots by special interests with hidden agendas. Here in San Francisco, a group operating out of San Diego -- some 450 miles away, in Southern California -- seemed close to getting a bill on the local city ballot that would have banned the practice of male circumcision in the City. You can debate whether circumcision is "torture" all you want (for both my father and I it was a medical necessity, due to a congenital defect). But the bill's supporters' real agenda became painfully apparent when they advertised the bill using a comic book featuring "Foreskin Man," a blonde, blue-eyed superhero who saved blonde, blue-eyed boys from forced circumcision by leering, demonic Jews with glowing eyes, pointed teeth, and Hassidic dress.

Of course, the classic example of direct democracy gone wrong in California is Proposition 13, which put strict limits on property taxes, and as a result, impoverished school districts, libraries, fire departments, and other community services in many areas. Debate over the bill was so contentious at the time, and continues to be to this day, that to even approach the idea of repealing it is considered a political death sentence, so no representative has the will to do it.

So to repeat my question: Are you really sure this is a good idea?

Re:Do you think direct democracy is the answer?

[cpu6502]

>>>California is Proposition 13, which put strict limits on property taxes, and as a result, impoverished school districts, libraries, fire departments, and other community services
>>>
My state has a separate school tax. Couldn't California politicians enact a similar tax in order to avoid the Prop13 property tax restriction?

Re:Do you think direct democracy is the answer?

[nhavar]

Property tax or school tax or sales tax, it all has to go on the ballot just the same.

Re:Do you think direct democracy is the answer?

[PCM2]

My state has a separate school tax. Couldn't California politicians enact a similar tax in order to avoid the Prop13 property tax restriction?

They kind of did that, only it was with another direct-democracy measure, Proposition 98, which mandates that a certain amount of the state budget be spent on education. The downside of that is that, once again, it ties the representatives' hands a little more when it comes to allocating the budget. Instead of taking personal responsibility for the budget, all the representatives can do is follow the rules. "Not my fault!" It's all a big mess.

Re:Do you think direct democracy is the answer?

[misexistentialist]

But the bill's supporters' real agenda became painfully apparent when they advertised the bill using a comic book featuring "Foreskin Man," a blonde, blue-eyed superhero who saved blonde, blue-eyed boys from forced circumcision by leering, demonic Jews with glowing eyes, pointed teeth, and Hassidic dress.

The only reason circumcision continues is because of Jewish influence. It is possible for groups to live up to their negative stereotypes

Re:Do you think direct democracy is the answer?

[kwerle]

Prop 13 is why people who bought their homes when they were $75K (or less) can still afford to live in them now that they're worth $1M+(or much more) and they're living on retirement. I'm a big fan of rolling back prop 13 protection for businesses, which I think SHOULD need to keep up economically with their neighbors.

But toward the partent poster's point that we elect these folks to govern and not just tally their constituent's opinions, I sure agree.

Re:Do you think direct democracy is the answer?

[dpidcoe]

Eh? Prop 13 is an example of direct democracy gone right. All of the financial issues this state is having are due to a combination of corrupt officials and mismanaged/badly allocated funds. If the spending problem was actually under control, people would be a lot more receptive to new taxes.

Re:Do you think direct democracy is the answer?

[alexander_686]

Prop 13, combined with the "3 strikes" (sponsored by the police union) prop and "education" prop (sponsored by the teacher's union), is not direct democracy gone right. Sorry if I can't rember the props off the top of my head.

Prop 13 limits taxes. The other 2 props which increase goverment spending. And then there is the prop which requires a super majority to raise taxes, while you only need a majority to raise spending. CA is getting to a point where the state legislator could not pass a budget if they wanted to.

I can ask easy questions and get easy answers. However, at some point you want to work off a clean sheet of paper and figure out the best balance between how much to tax and where to spend.

Re:Do you think direct democracy is the answer?

[PCM2]

Eh? Prop 13 is an example of direct democracy gone right. All of the financial issues this state is having are due to a combination of corrupt officials and mismanaged/badly allocated funds. If the spending problem was actually under control, people would be a lot more receptive to new taxes.

As I said:

A.) Prop 13 has always been contentious, and some believe it did good, while I think the majority thinks it has done a lot of harm.

B.) Part of the spending problem is due to the direct democracy process, where year after year, new propositions create new expenditures without finding the new revenue sources to fund them. Usually there's some kind of bond measure attached to fund them, but that's just borrowing, and it doesn't always work out. You seem to think the source of the spending problem is corrupt officials. Too often, it's because bad laws were put into effect because "the people willed it" -- even though "the people" don't actually have any experience governing, nor did they actually write the law they voted for. (Many probably didn't even read the ballot info all the way through.)

Re:Do you think direct democracy is the answer?

[PCM2]

Prop 13 is why people who bought their homes when they were $75K (or less) can still afford to live in them now that they're worth $1M+(or much more) and they're living on retirement. I'm a big fan of rolling back prop 13 protection for businesses, which I think SHOULD need to keep up economically with their neighbors.

This is indeed the biggest problem with Prop 13. Nobody wants to evict grandma. But the law is so badly written that it has allowed some corporations (which don't have to worry about dying) to use shell games to conceal their continued ownership of a property even after they sell it, allowing them to reap the profits while keeping property taxes low for the new buyer. (How do you track down the ownership of a property when it's owned by some kind of huge conglomerate or partnership?) Cases that smell suspiciously like out-and-out fraud to you or I will go unprosecuted because the law seems to permit them. But if any politician ever raises the possibility of reforming Prop 13, those same corporations will put out ads claiming that it's all about evicting grandma. We seem to be stuck with it.

Re:Do you think direct democracy is the answer?

[PCM2]

The only reason circumcision continues is because of Jewish influence. It is possible for groups to live up to their negative stereotypes

No doubt all those Muslims who practice circumcision are taking their cues from the Jews. Same with the American Protestants and Catholics. And the Africans, Koreans, Thais, etc. But as for some people living up to stereotypes -- I can see you're right about that.

Re:Do you think direct democracy is the answer?

[kwerle]

... But the law is so badly written that it has allowed some corporations (which don't have to worry about dying) to use shell games to conceal their continued ownership of a property even after they sell it, allowing them to reap the profits while keeping property taxes low for the new buyer. (How do you track down the ownership of a property when it's owned by some kind of huge conglomerate or partnership?) ... We seem to be stuck with it.

Ownership is easy. It's the name on the deed. The owner should not be protected from raising taxes on commercial property. It really doesn't matter where the shells are - as long as the owner gets taxed. They'll pass the costs up and down as they can.

As for being stuck with it - yup.

Re:Do you think direct democracy is the answer?

[Ichijo]

Prop 13 is why people who bought their homes when they were $75K (or less) can still afford to live in them now that they're worth $1M+(or much more) and they're living on retirement.

In other words, Prop 13 protects millionaires.

I forgot, why do we need to protect millionaires? Why can't they take their windfall profits and move into less expensive accommodations?

Re:Do you think direct democracy is the answer?

[Pfhorrest]

Where I live (where I was born, to a family that has always been and still is below the poverty level) the median home price is over a million dollars. A cheap home on the outskirts of a neighboring small town MIGHT, if you're lucky, get down to $500K. My dad is still struggling to pay off the doublewide mobile home I grew up in.

If I am very lucky and continue to live like a college student for the rest of my life, I might be able to afford a home by the time I retire, and know that even if I don't have any significant income, at least I'm not going to end up on the street in my old age. At some point I will be able to stop and breath and enjoy a late morning tea and read a book before going back to bed as my body slowly gives out from under me, instead of shivering in the cold and dying of exposure because I'm unable to work anymore.

That is, unless the house that I could barely afford continues to rise in value, and the taxes on it continue to go up, and I am required to spend more and more of the money I don't have just for the privilege of keeping the house I worked my entire life to pay off.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing but contempt for people who treat homes as investments and just a way to make more money off of other suckers later on, but everybody deserves the opportunity to at least secure a space of their own to live in and not have that taken away from them when they need it most because those asshole flippers have jacked up the property values. And that opportunity is the only way for people to get out form under the subjugation of the worst kind of property "investor", the kind who buy a house, rent it out, use the proceeds to buy another house, rent that out, and grow their own little fiefdom off the hard-earned money of people too poor to afford a down payment themselves.

Re:Do you think direct democracy is the answer?

[azgard]

California has been running an ongoing experiment with direct democracy for many years, and here IMHO it's mostly been an abysmal failure.

I think they are running the experiment close to 100 years now. I wouldn't call one of the most developed states in the US a failure.

I am not sure what the details of California system and problems are (it's very hard to find facts, as opposed to various opinions), but to me it seems that the problem stems from bad interaction of direct and representative democracy, that is politicians want to spend but people limited that in referendum.

Re:Do you think direct democracy is the answer?

[kwerle]

Prop 13 is why people who bought their homes when they were $75K (or less) can still afford to live in them now that they're worth $1M+(or much more) and they're living on retirement.

In other words, Prop 13 protects millionaires.

I forgot, why do we need to protect millionaires? Why can't they take their windfall profits and move into less expensive accommodations?

You're a bit flamey, but I'll bite.

I believe that a home is not the same as a house. You should not be forced to move out of your home just because the houses in your neighborhood got bought up by rich folks.

I don't believe you're $ rich because your home is worth a lot. I don't think of a home as a liquid asset.

I do believe in a strong inheritance tax. So I guess I believe in protecting people's homes until they die. And I think that's going to be hard on the kids who grew up in the house if they can't afford the taxes, but that's where *I* would draw the line...

Re:Do you think direct democracy is the answer?

[Ichijo]

You should not be forced to move out of your home just because the houses in your neighborhood got bought up by rich folks.

If you think people should reap the benefits of real estate appreciation without paying the costs, then you are in favor of privatizing profits and socializing losses.

Re:Do you think direct democracy is the answer?

[PCM2]

Ownership is easy. It's the name on the deed.

But the name on the deed is the conglomerate. Want to buy my property? Join the conglomerate, pay me $300 million, do whatever you want with the property, and enjoy the same property taxes we've had since the conglomerate was formed in 1988.

Re:Do you think direct democracy is the answer?

[kwerle]

If you think people should reap the benefits of real estate appreciation without paying the costs, then you are in favor of privatizing profits and socializing losses.

What benefits are those?

Re:Do you think direct democracy is the answer?

[kwerle]

Ownership is easy. It's the name on the deed.

But the name on the deed is the conglomerate. Want to buy my property? Join the conglomerate, pay me $300 million, do whatever you want with the property, and enjoy the same property taxes we've had since the conglomerate was formed in 1988.

Hang on - maybe we're talking across each other.

If it's a business, then the current assessed value should be taxed. In which case the conglomerate gets taxed the right amount and can figure out how to pay for it. Doesn't matter.

If it's a personal residence, then it is owned by a person or persons. It must be (in my ideal head) the primary residence of 1 person or 1 couple. Any change to the deed (other than survival of one of the people in the couple - does that even cause a deed change?) should cause an assessment.

If a residential property is not owned by a person/couple, or is not lived in by that person/couple, then it is an investment property - which qualifies it under the same rules as a business. It should be assessed every year (or however often).

Finally

[DaMattster]

At long last, we have a candidate that isn't a doctor, lawyer, MBA, or poly sci major. It is amazingly refreshing to have someone with a computer science background running. Perhaps technology will leapfrog in Vermont because technology decisions could be made by someone that - perish the thought - actually knows what they are talking about.

Re:Finally

[Anonymous Coward]

technology will leapfrog in Vermont

Today the draft horse... tomorrow the steam engine!

What about people who aren't online?

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you intend to ensure that you still properly represent those who don't have internet access or, perhaps, aren't technologically literate? People who are poor, disabled, impaired, or otherwise vulnerable in such a way that could prevent them from taking part in this process: how do you intend to represent them fairly?

Conflicts

[bws111]

What do you plan to do when your voters want something impossible or utterly disastrous for the state, such as lowering taxes and raising spending at the same time?

Informed electorate

[Obfuscant]

How do you ensure that the voters are educated on the issues and not just voting because it's 'leet and kewl" and they can 'vote no on everything just because they can'? I.e., you have money to hire a staff, and have access to background information that most people do not, and are expected to "do your homework" and cast informed votes because that is what you are elected to do in the current system. How do you make sure your proxy votes are cast with the same care and attention?

This is related to the question about keeping advertising from swaying the votes, but different. How do you get people who may be busy trying to make enough money to get by to spend the time doing the research that you were elected to do? And in that latter vein, does this change to the process not violate the "equal protection" clause of the Constitution? You are, after all, giving your constituents a much bigger voice in the vote of your elected body than those in other districts. Don't those other people deserve the kind of government that they are voting for, and which you are seeking to change?

Re:Informed electorate

[JJJJust]

And in that latter vein, does this change to the process not violate the "equal protection" clause of the Constitution? You are, after all, giving your constituents a much bigger voice in the vote of your elected body than those in other districts. Don't those other people deserve the kind of government that they are voting for, and which you are seeking to change?

There is no equal protection clause violation here. The proportionality of votes to districts to people doesn't change because he's subcontracting the decision. In the end, he's still one representative with one vote. In a way, he's just allowing everybody to be a lobbyist.

Re:Informed electorate

[Obfuscant]

There is no equal protection clause violation here. The proportionality of votes to districts to people doesn't change because he's subcontracting the decision. In the end, he's still one representative with one vote.

However, he is giving more power to the relatively few people who might vote in his "poll" than the same number of people in another district who have no direct control over the vote of their representative. This is the "equal protection" issue.

That, and it is a unilateral change to the design of the system that applies only to some of the people who are operating under that system. Every other district will have a representative, this one district will have a proxy system. Does this not result in less protection for minorities from the "tyranny of the majority" in his district than those in other districts?

In a way, he's just allowing everybody to be a lobbyist.

Hardly. Even if 100% of the lobbyists visiting one Senator's office want him to vote a certain way, there is no guarantee he will. This guy is promising his constituents that he will vote the way the majority of them want him to on everything. That's significantly different from just being a lobbyist.

Re:Informed electorate

[JJJJust]

However, he is giving more power to the relatively few people who might vote in his "poll" than the same number of people in another district who have no direct control over the vote of their representative. This is the "equal protection" issue.

That's not an equal protection issue. The unenforceable pledge of an elected official to vote X because his constituents say so does not rise to the level of state action to be protected under the equal protection clause. Just like a broken campaign promise can't be prosecuted as election fraud. He has a duty to represent the people of his district and how he chooses to do that is his business. The law says that X district shall elect Y members who shall represent them faithfully in Z body. Additionally, there is nothing stopping the other members from doing the same thing, thus they are protected equally.

Even if there WAS an equal protection clause violation, it'd be subject to the rational basis test. It'd be constitutional if there's a rational basis for it and it serves a legitimate government interest... which this does.

Again, even if there WAS an equal protection clause violation to be found, there is no equitable court-enforceable remedy for it, therefore it's moot. You cannot enjoin him from serving. Nor could you really enjoin him from proceeding as planned (more of a logistical limitation). The Vermont Senate has control over the conduct of its members and they could expel him, if they saw fit (not definitive as I haven't read the rules or the Vermont Constitution on this).

That, and it is a unilateral change to the design of the system that applies only to some of the people who are operating under that system. Every other district will have a representative, this one district will have a proxy system. Does this not result in less protection for minorities from the "tyranny of the majority" in his district than those in other districts?

It's a not a "change" and it wouldn't be unilateral. It would be a voter-mandated philosophy. Protection for minorities from the tyranny of the majority is not a Constitutional guarantee nor protected under the equal protection clause. Otherwise, actions taken during pro forma sessions of the Senate when there are only one or two members around would not be valid, for the protection of the majority against the minority. Elections where a plurality instead of a majority were obtained would also not be valid, for the protection of the majority over the minority.

Additionally, the Vermont Senate has multi-member at-large districts and he would be 1 of 3 members from that district. The people of the district are still adequately protected.

Even if 100% of the lobbyists visiting one Senator's office want him to vote a certain way, there is no guarantee he will. This guy is promising his constituents that he will vote the way the majority of them want him to on everything. That's significantly different from just being a lobbyist.

The percentage of persons participating in his experiment would never be 100% of his constituency, thus, they are just like lobbyists. Elected officials make voting promises to lobbyists routinely.

Re:Informed electorate

[Obfuscant]

It's a not a "change" and it wouldn't be unilateral.

It isn't how the system was designed to work and it isn't how it works today, so yes, it would be a change. And yes, since it is one person making that change, it is unilateral.

The percentage of persons participating in his experiment would never be 100% of his constituency, thus, they are just like lobbyists.

The percentage participating is irrelvant. Lobbyists cannot expect that a simple vote amongst the lobbyists will result in a vote being cast as they demand. Lobbyists can wheedle and ply and buy dinners for, but not control, the vote of the person they lobby. That makes this significantly different than lobbying.

Elected officials make voting promises to lobbyists routinely.

Irrelevant. Elected officials do not promise to vote the way that a poll of lobbyists tell him to.

Remember when Obama spun the same BS?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Remember when Obama made similar promises about having open government and shining all sorts of sunshine on government matters, then behaved more like GW II in office? Fool me once...

Proving Who You Are and Are Elegible

[sycodon]

Voter ID laws, despite the hyper-partisan rhetoric about disenfranchisement, are all about the voter proving they are who they say they are.

If advocating for Voter ID laws are portrayed now as tantamount to KKK level Racism, how will internet participation be policed so that only those who should be voting (as in a legal resident of the jurisdiction) actually vote?

  If anything, the complaints about electronic voting system now will only be upped by an order of magnitude if elections and plebiscites are moved onto the web.

Re:Proving Who You Are and Are Elegible

[cdrguru]

So what is the problem with someone who is suitably motivated voting twice? They are clearly more interested in current events than the 30-40% who never vote for anything. Even worse, most elections get less than 50% turnout - significantly less.

We are talking about Vermont here, home of Ben and Jerry's. If someone in Russia were to vote on something, would it be that big a deal? Being Vermont, it just isn't going to be that interesting to most people not in the area.

Clearly, based on racial ideals, voter ID laws are absurd. It is trying to solve a non-problem and making it difficult for people to vote. Now, if we had 100% voter turnout and people were having fistfights in the parking lot over issues on the ballot there might be a case here. But in most elections when only a small percentage of people actually vote, who cares? If it isn't important enough for people to even bother voting on, it certainly isn't important to ensure "the right people" are voting.

Besides, with the ease of making fake IDs today - high school kids are doing it all the time - why would anyone consider a driver's license to be all that imnportant? I could have five different ones for five different states and nobody would notice.

Tail end handled; what about head end

[vlm]

OK so you've got the tail end of democracy or whatever it is handled, that being the online voting on bills thing.
Whats your plan on the head end of the legislative process, that being writing and submitting bills? Thats a bit more complicated.

One example of a failure mode is to never submit legislation, which doesn't scale too well.
Another failure mode is 1000 people vote for or demand or whatever 100 bills each bill requiring say 1/10th your term to ram thru whoops thats 10 times more work than you can theoretically accomplish.
Another interesting head end failure mode is the stoners submit 50 different weed legalization bills all of which split the vote. Or culture jam where one group doesn't like a LGBT hate bill, so they submit 49 similar bills to split the vote of the haters.
Another failure mode could be "just let the lobbyists write all bills" which I'm told is what unofficially happens anyway.

I guess the TLDR version of my question is "everyone's focused on how you'll vote... how will you propose new bills?"

Conflict with Oath

[JJJJust]

The Permanent Rules of the Vermont Senate provide for the following Oath (www.leg.state.vt.us/misc/Senate%20Rules.pdf):

"I, __, Senator from __ County (or Counties), in the General Assembly of the State of Vermont, do solemnly swear, that as a Member of this Assembly, I will not propose or assent to any bill, vote or resolution, which shall appear to me injurious to the people, nor do or consent to any act or thing whatever that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared by the Constitution of this State; but will in all things conduct myself as a faithful, honest representative and guardian of the people, according to the best of my judgment and ability. So help me God. I do solemnly swear that I will be true and faithful to the State of Vermont, and that I will not, directly or indirectly, do any act or thing injurious to the Constitution or Government thereof. So help me God. I do solemnly swear that I did not at the time of my election to this body, and that I do not now hold any office of profit or trust under the authority of Congress. So help me God. I do further solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the State of Vermont and the Constitution of the United States. So help me God."

Winston Churchill allegedly once said something along the lines of, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

- If your constituents would like a law implemented that runs afoul of the oath how would you react?
- How can you execute the will of the people without question while still being in compliance with your oath when the will of the people is often what is in their own best interest at the present moment and not in the future?
- How does your idea not directly conflict with "but will in all things conduct myself as a faithful, honest representative and guardian of the people, according to the best of my judgment and ability". It seems that prohibits substituting the desires of the voters for your own without question.
- How will you represent the views of residents of your district who choose not to participate? You still owe them representation.
- As a legislative official, you would have a duty to more than your district; you would also have one to the state as a whole. How will you balance that given the constraints listed?

Non voting tasks?

[vlm]

I don't know about your state, but the fed congressmen get to select two young people for the military service academies.
All congresspeople at the fed level get more requests than they can possibly handle.
Are you planning on votes for non-legislative "tasks" in your position?

Pitiful example: City A in your district wants you to attend their county fair and its at the same exact moment as City B wants you to attend their fire station grand opening. Do you put this up to a vote or ?

Will you open your source and platform?

[Garridan]

I've been hoping your breed of politician would arrive for a few years now. I hope that more like you come. One representative directly speaking with the voice of the people will have little power, but many would be a true force to be reckoned with. Will you let others use your source code and your infrastructure?

Citizen vs. Professional Legislature

[mysqlrocks]

I am a Vermont resident (although not in your district). Vermont is a state with a citizen legislature, meaning that it is comprised primarily of citizens who have jobs outside of being a legislator. From a citizen legislature, direct democracy a logical next step on the continuum of representational democracy. However, is direct democracy too much of a leap for legislative bodies that are currently made up of professional legislators? Aren't there some benefits to having a professional legislature? For example, professional legislators can spend more time understanding the domains behind individual issues. Do you agree with this assessment?

What about Mrs Grenier in Waterbury Center?

[jackjumper]

I live next door in Bolton, so this is particularly interesting. One thing I know about the area is that at Town meeting much of the most interesting and cogent points are made by older folks that are the least likely to have an internet connection. How are you going to represent people that do not have an internet connection?

Re:What about Mrs Grenier in Waterbury Center?

[cdrguru]

Perhaps a better question is how does the government ensure every citizen has an Internet connection and some device to make use of it? If the government is going to start making the Internet important for every citizen, then there needs to be "Internet education" so it can be used intelligently and it absolutely needs to be a state-mandated utility service. Every house has a connection.

And then we need standardization. It makes little sense to have a state web site that demands 500Kbps bandwidth to play the video when not everyone has that. Nor does it make sense for the government to spend time designing a web site that might require 2Mbps bandwidth if that is more than the standard service mandated by law.

It took around 40 years for every dwelling in the US to be connected to the telephone network, and even then there were "party lines" where phone service was shared between a number of dwellings. That didn't end until around 1960 in some areas. It got done because the states individually had tariff requirements that made it happen. It might take nearly that long before the government could assume every dwelling in the US had Internet service of some minimum bandwidth and service level. It would certainly require a major restructuring of how telecommunications works in the US to implement something like that.

Frankly, I don't see it happening. It is way too much government interference for most people's tastes. And can you imagine a government-mandated (and likely tax-subsidized) Internet where everyone in the country gets lessons on how to download stuff from The Pirate Bay? You want to see some serious filtering and censorship, just make the government pay for it.

How about the rest of the job?

[trcooper]

Being an effective representative isn't simply about yes or no votes. He or she also needs to effectively argue and influence his fellow representatives. Simply being a pass-thru for online polls when the rest of the districts do not operate that way does not seem to work. If all districts worked this way and the job of the representative was solely to push a button when a vote comes up, sure, but why elect someone at that point, just let the online polls do all the work.

I wouldn't vote for this person. While I think he's got good intentions, I don't think he understands what the job entails. I don't have all the information. I don't have time to listen to debate. Neither does 99% of the population. I think I would be better off looking at a candidate who has similar views to me, and hope that they represent me well, if they don't I'll vote for someone else next time.

I want a representative who does listen to his constituents. I don't want one that isn't able to speak his mind on an issue or is not willing to make a stand based on their own opinions which should in most cases be more informed than the general public. I'd much rather have someone who is intelligent, passionate and open minded as my representative than someone who says of the 10 people who went and voted on this online poll 6 said yes, so that is how I will vote. Isn't the point of debating an issue to convince others? How do you accomplish that if you're parroting the results of an online poll?

What about new work? How do you go about getting initiatives started? Do you just not do that? Do you poll your constituents on what they want? How do you come up with those options? What if an item is one you aren't familiar or excited about?

How are you effective as a representative of your constituents in the government structure we have today if you aren't truly a representative, but a mouthpiece?

Ugh..

[WOOFYGOOFY]

I am not sure this is a great thing. Maybe it is. I am conflicted, I admit. I am not sure that direct democracy is not subject to intemperate and ignorant decision making on the part of , say, scientific illiterates.

OTOH clearly our current system is pathetically broken with WORSE than "average" decisions being made by venal, near idiots.

I admit I am stumped and seek the wise consul of people who are actual learned specialist - academics who study this or whose work in, say psychology , especially the psychology of crowds or extremely relevant specialty subjects like terror management theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory

I want to know what they think the hidden ramifications inherent in this type of political organization of society.

Procedural

[vlm]

OK so you've answered the voting, I've asked about submitting new legislation, and I've asked about your time off / non-legislative tasks.
That leaves one remaining area.. procedural.
For example, you get 10 minutes to speak. Do you put that time up for vote, or just recite vote totals, or try an honest attempt at a debate following the will of the majority, or try to influence people to vote for you as per your personal beliefs.
Or are you assuming you'll be frozen out of the debate process and not allowed to ever address the floor, or whatever your state calls it?

What is your policy on tie votes among electorate?

[Aristos Mazer]

Suppose a bill comes up and you poll the electorate and the result comes back 50/50 split. How do you break the tie? More importantly, votes rarely come in exactly 50/50. How do you propose to handle the margin of error? If the vote comes in 51/49 but the margin of error is 3%, would you feel ok voting your conscience and going with the 49%? Would you abstain because your electorate is undecided?

Closed door / classified stuff

[vlm]

What if you're involved in closed door sessions / classified stuff? A really vague vote? Or in your position is that simply not relevant?

Ubiquitous access to broadband required

[Anonymous Coward]

To create a level playing field for such a platform, all voters need to have access to broadband Internet to quickly download prospective bills and have access to all types of media to perform research. This is far from the case in Vermont. Please start by strongly supporting and doing whatever possible to drive ubiquitous broadband access to all Vermonters, including supporting community-driven efforts such as ECFiber!

Are you willing to go against your own morals?

[Sir Realist]

I know nothing about your personal beliefs, but are you willing to go against them if your constituents tell you to? To pick a ludicrous example; if the web voting tells you they want to legalise baby eating, will you vote for it?

How would more citizen involvement help?

[eldepeche]

Traditionally, the average citizen looks at the possible candidates and chooses one whose beliefs and policy preferences line up with their own. The system you suggest would require instead that a citizen become well-informed not only on a wide range of issues, but also on legislative procedure and language, competing amendments, legislative strategy (horse-trading, or voting against one version of a bill with language one favors in order to allow another, better version to pass in its place) &c.

As someone who thinks we already vote too much (county and state judges, county board of supervisors, city council, mayor, governor, attorney general, secretary of state, state house and senate, federal house and senate and president, not to mention county, city and state referenda) for the average person to remain well-educated, can you tell me why you think direct citizen involvement in the legislative process itself might produce better outcomes?

Voting system

[Ichijo]

Will the voting system be plurality or a preferential system like Instant Runoff or Condorcet?

Please View

[The Wild Norseman]

For those who have questions of how such an e-voting type system could work, watch this TED talk:

http://www.ted.com/talks/david_bismark_e_voting_without_fraud.html

Thanks.

Classified Information

[billius]

It seems like in a lot of national security matters, citizens would not have access to the same information that members of Congress would due to some or all of it being classified. However, this lack of access would not stop some citizens from forming a strong opinion. A perfect example of this is the 2003 invasion of Iraq. There were people who were vehemently for and against it, but neither group had access to the same information that the members of Congress had. How would you weigh popular support against your own assessment of information that you *knew* your constituents did not have access to?

Re:Classified Information

[Giant Electronic Bra]

He's only running for the VERMONT Senate. Trust me, as a citizen of Vermont though not Washington County, NOTHING that has to do with national security ever happens in the VT Senate. Not unless it has something to do with cows or the next invasion of the US by the Empire of Quebec.

Constitutionality

[J'raxis]

A representative should be elected who would work strictly as an advisor and make all policy and voting decisions based on the will of his or her constituents, regardless of personal opinion.

Where does the Vermont Constitution and the U.S. Constitution enter into this? Are you saying you'll support blatantly unconstitutional laws if that be the will of your constituents?

How will you frame choices?

[alexander_686]

PCM2 has a point - but his question is non starter - so let me try to ask 2 questions.

First, how will you frame questions? Decsion Theroy, a branch of Psychology and used by Economist, has shown that we can manipulate results by how you frame questions. i.e. "Do you want to increase taxes for spending on roads" gets a lower result then "How much do you think we should spend on roads"

Second, how will you balance you a passionate minority vs. a passive majority? I will use building a new road as an example (a poor example because this is beyond the preveiw of congress - maybe somebody could come up with a better example?). Most people want to see the road built. A small minority want accommodations (move the road a couple of hundard feet to perserve a cherish historical or natural spot, better barriers for road noise, etc.). Special intrest groups are not automaticly evil after all.

As an aside, how much have you read on Public Choice? A subbranch of Economics on how different voting methods can generate different results.

Re:How will you frame choices?

[havmerci]

The question isn't a non-starter, it's exactly what I was planning on asking. Direct vs Representative democracy has been a non-trivial issue for centuries:

"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion." - Edmund Burke (1774)

Technology might have finally made direct democracy a viable option, but that doesn't mean it's a good option.

Re:How will you frame choices?

[Anonymous Coward]

Decsion Theroy, a branch of Psychology and used by Economist, has shown that we can manipulate results by how you frame questions.

Yes, Prime Minister showed that a long time ago.

Voting vs Crafting

[Anonymous Coward]

An automaton voter is not that interesting to me. It may shift things slightly from a democratic republic to a more pure democracy, but not that much. The vote aggregator still acts as a barrier to the pure democracy.

More interesting to me is the real job of a legislator--to craft legislation. What innovative ideas do you bring to the table for crowdsourcing this task? How will you choose your target issues and how will you moderate the formation of the proposed legislation? This requires a lot more sophistication than simply putting out polls.

Use the Solution to Decide!

[eldavojohn]

What will you do to hear the will of those who aren't on the Web? Many seniors aren't (e.g. my father): will their thoughts be selectively excluded from the voting?

It's simple, we solve that problem with the solution. Our first online vote will be on a bill that will solve this very problem. Interestingly enough, over 100% of the population turned out to vote on this particular issue with a surprisingly large number of referral clicks coming from 4chan. As it turns out, the resolution is to grind up individuals who do not have internet connections (like your father) and feed them to the web savvy users and their "lulled cats" in a nice pink slurry. I'm sorry for your loss but the populace has spoken in so strong a voice that it was statically impossible.

Re:Use the Solution to Decide!

[MightyMartian]

Goddamn but I wish I had mod points.

Who gets a vote?

[dkleinsc]

Should people who work in Washington County but do not reside there (e.g. somebody who works at Ben and Jerry's but lives near Burlington) get an online vote to determine how you vote? What about seasonal residents and workers?

Secret Ballot or Letter to Representative

[icebike]

Would this system be a secret ballot sort of approach where the representative would not know who expressed the opinion that the vote should go a certain way, or would it be more like a letter to the representatives office, where staff would at least check for unsigned, anonymous letters and shuffle them aside?

With an authenticated system, constituents could express their opinion Yea/Nay, and change it as they learn more about the issue under debate, right up to the time of the floor vote.

Without authentication, even dead people and Canadians could vote (no disrespect intended to dead people). (JK!!!).

People want to own their representative

[Anonymous Coward]

I want a representative who will vote one of two ways: 1. Do the Right Thing (tm) 2. Vote the same way I would if I were the one voting.

Under your proposal I can not assess the likelihood of either one of those ever occurring. That makes you more of a gamble than any other candidate.
As a corporate interest, this means that you can never be bought directly. I would have to persuade the majority of your constituents instead. That is a lot more expensive. So there is no point contributing to your cause.

Where do you hope to get financing? And how will you get people to think of you as "my guy in Washington"?

Re:People want to own their representative

[Anonymous Coward]

And how will you get people to think of you as "my guy in Washington"?

If people from Vermont should think of their state senator as a "guy in Washington", wouldn't they vote him out, and replace him with a "guy in Montpelier"?

Mob Rule

[jimmifett]

A direct democracy is fool hardy, esp as the mob learns to vote itself more and more things that it can't pay for. This also leads to 3 wolfs and a sheep voting whats for dinner.

Putting aside the technical hurdles involved, such as bacon forbid, unique IDs to prove who one is in order to vote and ensure valid voting (something that is apparently racist to have accuracy and accountability), you have a person in a position of power applying his vote however the wind blows, with no convictions or principles.

I'd much rather vote for the person who has a spine, is willing to stick to their principles, and is most closely aligned with whatever ideology I associate with on what I consider the important issues to represent me.

What is your participation threshold?

[Burz]

It is conceivable there would be many bills that do not have popular attention, but which are still critically important to a functioning society. Will you require a minimum number of votes on an issue before going against your own better judgement, or will any amount of citizen input suffice to direct you?

The United States is a Republic, not a Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

I pledge allegiance to the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands.

The Democratic and Republic forms of government are starkly different.

The democratic and majority rule only affects the election of an individual. That individual is then bound by the laws of the Constitution and amendments.

http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm

Vote Tabulation?

[BlueStrat]

Will such votes also be counted by SOE, a vote-tabulation/counting company tasked with counting a large portion of the US Presidential popular vote, which is owned by Scytl, a foreign company that is owned by a major Obama campaign contributor?

What is Jeremy's stance on the SOE/Scytl/Obama-contributor issue regarding vote counting and the conflict of interest and foreign influence possibilities inherent to this situation?

Strat

Offline mode?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will there be an offline mode so non-tech people can have a more equal say in the matter?

We The People

[Anonymous Coward]

In what ways do you envision your system being similar (or different) with regard to the White House's "We The People" online petition system?

Scarecrow anyone?

[pubwvj]

I suppose a candidate without any brains is better than one who doesn't bother to read the bills.

I would prefer a candidate who can think. Popular opinion is not all it is cracked up to be.

Fu& that... you want participator Democracy?

[3seas]

Then tell government where they are going to spend your taxes, me regarding mine, your regarding yours. This simple core change fixes a great many problems not least of which is removing failures of government to budget and do correct accounting..... We'll do it for them and they can take more vacations until their vacation is permanent, like a rigged lottery for a free lunch.

No Taxation without representation! Do Lying Politicians represent you?

Representation is not about some person claiming to represent you as that could have happen at the start of this country where someone in Britain could have claimed such.

Moron participation threshold

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you seen the interview faq? It's a human factor. Moderation helps us decide which questions to send along, but often there are interesting ones which haven't been modded up as much.

If you don't have some personal opinion and thought, you are as useless as that computer in Close Encounters Of The Third Kind, taking over the keyboard of the fellow communicating with the spaceship.

Bundling

[thereitis]

How will this system help better outcomes when good and bad things are bundled into the same bill?

Re:How do you plan on handling the political "game

[whistlingtony]

This, is a good question....

Australia needs variation on the Dig'l Dem'y theme

[ivi]

So, the Australian parliament has WASTED weeks on a "Return [former PM Kevin] Rudd" & it -almost- began a similar "Dump Julia [Gillard]" campaign recently.

Question time Q&A's are broadcast in ABC "News" Radio, and often shows the idiocy of personal attacks & insults that Elected Members can get up to...

All this useless time-wasting means AU's parliament gets stuck "cycling on the negative" while other, more intelligent legislatures move their countries -ahead- of Australia, despite its potential to lead & succeed.

WHAT AU NEEDS is Direct Digital Democracy, eg, in the form of FEEDBACK to the Speaker (who can stop proceedings, name Members who are deemed to be playing-up, & even -eject- Members who ignore his/her instructions to cease misbehaving.

Suppose it were possible for a random & changing collection of Citizens (in statistically significant numbers) - who are monitoring (in Real Time), from anywhere across Australia - to indicate their Satisfaction or Dissatisfaction with the proceedings at the moment, ie, in the House and/or Senate, and BE HEARD (electronically) and EFFECTIVELY STOP / CHANGE those proceedings.

So, if a random sampling of current (in real time) listeners and/or viewers of those proceedings could Press either a YES or a NO button, to register or withhold, resp., their support for what how their Elected Members are -currently- (at that moment, + or - say 5 - 15 min's) using their time...

and a TALLY-based RESULT (CONTINUE or STOP) indicator was presented to the Speaker of House & Senate... the Speaker could - moments after getting that
RESULT indicator - rule to STOP (eg, & move on to a next item, that might use that house's time better) or ALLOW the current proceedings to continue.

The idea is that - today - the Public can only grow angrier... but has No Agenda or Unit-of-Proceeding level way to indicate what they like or dislike, akin to a Presidential "Line-Item Veto" power.

This proposal would give the Public a feedback control power, not quite as rich as Citizen Initiated Referendum (CIR) power enjoyed by more democratically-wealthy Swiss, but perhaps "safer"... until we can competently handle the responsibility of CIR power. Perhaps this Speaker Feedback mechanism would help the Public learn to handle power, so that - some years after having & exercising it - they'll be ready to take-on CIR powers. :-)

My 2.2 cents.

Garbage In. Garbage Out.

[westlake]

In opinion polling how you build your statistical universe and ask your questionasshapes the answers you will get ---

which will most likely be the answers you wanted to hear all along.

This system blatantly discriminates against those with limited access to computers and the Internet: the poor, elderly, ill. disabled and so on. It's only coincidence that they are the ones most in need of social services, of course.

Hansen's got it wrong

[snspdaarf]

"...a representative owes the People not only his industry, but his judgment, and he betrays them if he sacrifices it to their opinion." - Edmund Burke

direct democracy feedback

[Anonymous Coward]

How will Jeremy deal with the issues of voting fraud and technical naivete? ~john

Good principle but wrong approach

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is poorly defined.
I read from the solution that direct democracy is about including the many into decision making processes. Because we are used to 'voting' the first assumption is that this inclusion process must involve voting. But 'voting' and 'inclusion' are not the same thing.
Firstly, online voting with existing technologys cannot work because you can not have a secret ballot, as well as an auditable process without somone in the system saying 'trust me'. So three things.
1. Secret ballot (required to avoid coercion, bullying and vote buying).
2. Auditable process (to check that it is not being rigged)
3. No one party saying "trust me", like say the guy who installed the database that has kept the open underlying access to the system that stores the votes.
When ever I see attempts to create online voting systems, one of these three principles is compromised, and without a major leap forward in quantum cryptography (the only likely contender, but still NOT probable) no system will work. I will happily challenge any system that claims to have all 3 of these principles... bet you they won't. The air-gap that exists between the voters hand holding a ballot paper, and the box they insert that paper into, along with the scrutineers from interested party being abel to witness the vote counting... is the BEST method to date, hands down.

Secondly, 'inclusion' does not necessarily mean 'voting'. You can include people in the decision making process without immediately running off to the ballot box. Think about it, what is your purpose? If it is to include people who feel disenfranchised by the political aparatchik, then maybe there are other ways to do inclusion. Like here, I have contributed, I feel included. Maybe the system needs to be a blog-network-cloud thingy that allows people to respond to other people, with the best contributions coming to the fore. Think web2.0 - twitter - wiki connected and gameified.

Anyway, I am a webprogrammer and db architect for 20 years, and have tried building online systems and realised it could not be done, now I am more interested in inclusion systems that utilise web2.0 technologies.... damn just given away a billion dollor idea.

So what happens when...

[Anonymous Coward]

...what happens when the public votes to return to slavery or send all the niggers back to Africa?

No seriously, not trolling. With direct democracy if enough people want to vote for a stance that otherwise wouldn't fly with the rest of the country, what will be the safeguard against zany outcomes?

Step in the Right Direction

[ozborn]

I think this is definitely a step in the right direction, obviously a majority decision made by the electorate may be the "wrong" (whatever that means!) decision but I suspect it will generally be better than the decisions made by representatives. The reasons:

1. Bribing the electorate is more expensive than bribing a single politician. The influence of moneyed interests is arguably one of the biggest problem facing Western representative democracy today and that alone is sufficient reason to move towards direct democracy.

2. Generally the crowd (after some discussion) comes up with better answers which is why asking the crowd for their input in game shows is usually a good idea.

2. Having meaningful participation in the process will encourage civic involvement and political engagement, more so than voting for somebody every few years. I think there is a good chance that more people will become informed if they have a say in the process.

One I find really crazy reading these slashdot posts is the worry over "mob rule". I think we have the absolute opposite problem (plutocracy) and anything that moves us away from that is going in the right direction. Also I would argue that technology only helps, it does not make direct democracy possible. Direct democracy has been around longer than computers and I suspect that even now you could gather all the people who actually care about politics within most electoral boundaries into a large stadium and do much of the business face to face.

Informed votes for every single issue

[AlphaWolf_HK]

Given that there already exists voter apathy for elections in general (namely, most people can't be bothered to vote on election day) how will you instate a balance between the vocal minority from the silent majority?

In the legislative process, multiple bills are being debated and voted upon at any given time, and most people aren't going to bother reading each and every one of them, because to do so would be really time consuming, and that isn't their job (but as a legislator, it is your job.) That said, how are you going to account for people who just vote based on the summary of the bill without actually understanding all of the implications? And further, how do you account for people (who may often be the majority) who want things to go one way, but simply don't participate due to either a lack of time, or other issues?

Re:Informed votes for every single issue

[JJJJust]

In the legislative process, multiple bills are being debated and voted upon at any given time, and most people aren't going to bother reading each and every one of them, because to do so would be really time consuming, and that isn't their job (but as a legislator, it is your job.) That said, how are you going to account for people who just vote based on the summary of the bill without actually understanding all of the implications?

Legislators don't read every line of every bill (in a lot of cases they don't read ANY of the bill). They use their staff and analyses from the research service of whatever legislature they work for/party they are a member of to understand implications. When written properly and thoroughly, these analyses are just as good as reading the bill... if not better, because when reading an analysis you don't need to run and find a copy of the existing law to understand what happens when "section 15 is amended by striking "Slashdot" and entering "reddit"".

Tyranny of small decisions

[Anonymous Coward]

How will your avoid a tyranny of small decisions situation from occurring?

Why support democracy?

[metrix007]

Why support a system in which it has been shown over and over again that people vote emotionally or on singular issues without regard to the bigger picture, and generally are not educated about the issues they vote on? It may be better than all the others, but why not try and find something better?

Already available in Australia

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a party which contested the last couple of Federal Elections in Australia which has a similar platform:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senator_Online

Where do you draw the line?

[Anonymous Coward]

What will you do if your voters turn out to be a bunch of evil dicks?

If your citizens vote to expel all blacks/ hispanics, will you do it?
If your citizens vote to 'cure' gays with electroshock therapy, will you do it?
If your citizens vote to apply the death penalty to shoplifters, will you do it?
If your citizens vote to take voting rights away from muslims and atheists, will you do it?
If your citizens vote to introduce slavery, will you do it?
If your citizens vote to bulldoze slums and execute the homeless, will you do it?
If your citizens vote to invade a neighbouring state, will you do it?

It will be be representative

[lourd_baltimore]

...of the "tech literate". Politicians invariably answer more to certain interests of their constituency more than others. In this case Mr. Hansen may well end up listening mostly to those constituents which can use computers. So he will be giving those people their voice. It may not be an ideal, equitable representation, but I think it will be an interesting experiment* in the least. And judging by the comments I've seen on just about every news website there doesn't seem to be a bias to the left or right. You get the full spectrum of crazy.


* For those that think we shouldn't be experimenting with government, we've been dragging this one out for over 200 years...

So true

[Giant Electronic Bra]

Of course that doesn't mean we're handling them as well as others may have in the past. I don't subscribe to the notion that we're especially better or worse though. It is just an eminence illusion, today's problems always seem worse, more urgent, more significant, than those we read about in history books (sorry, on Wikipedia). lol.

Stupid idea

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole point of a representative democracy is for someone to devote time to be a public servant learning and researching issues in-depth in order to vote appropriately on it. The idea is that most people don't have the time to be doctors, farmers, lawyers, mechanics etc., manage their business/career and their family/household and still be well-informed enough on all of the issues. People's opinions change day-to-day, heck hour-by-hour even. This proposed form of democracy is lunacy.

"Thank you citizens, for electing me..."

[Tyrannicsupremacy]

"And now, for my first act as senator of Vermont: Marblecake also the game."