Slashdot Mirror
Vermont Senate Hopeful Jeremy Hansen Responds On (Mostly) Direct Democracy
by MyFirstNameIsPaul
What will you do when your constituents want you to violate the Constitution?
Jeremy Hansen: I would do the same thing as anyone else who has sworn an oath to "support the Constitution of the State of Vermont and the Constitution of the United States.": Tell them no.
Or when appropriate, I could suggest that an amendment to the Constitution would be necessary.
There is a "release valve" in all of this: the representative. I am not suggesting unfettered direct democracy. Part of my proposal is to reserve the right to vote in opposition to majority sentiment if I have a moral (or in this case, Constitutional) objection. At that point, I offer my constituents the opportunity to initiate a vote on whether everyone believes I should remain in office. If the majority votes that I made a mistake overriding the previous vote, I step down.
What is your participation threshold?
by 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?
JH: Even in a small district like Washington County, I agree that we do need a participation threshold. The threshold should be high enough to ensure a representative (though clearly non-random) sample, but not so high as to discourage participation and make the whole feedback process moot. If we pretend for a moment to have a random sample, a threshold of 2000 votes would seem to me a reasonable compromise between the two: at a 99% confidence level, that gives a confidence interval of 2.82.
Do you think direct democracy is the answer?
by PCM2
California has been running an ongoing experiment with direct democracy for many years, and here IMHO it's mostly been an abysmal failure.
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?
JH: Am I 100% certain that it will work? No, but I am very confident that it will be an improvement. As Majid Behrouzi puts it in his second volume of "Democracy as the Political Empowerment of the Citizen," "[Democracy] is primarily about individual citizens experiencing political power directly and doing so on an ongoing basis." This is a goal that I believe we can reach, even if only initially at the county level.
California's situation is strange; I'll give you that. Here's a set of Economist articles (http://www.economist.com/node/18563638) (thanks r0ball) that talks about how strange it is, with a glimmer of hope towards the end:
"Switzerland, whence California imported the idea, the initiative process works well. In some of the other 23 American states that practise some variant, it works better than in others. So the problem is not direct democracy as such, or even the initiative process, but the details of its Californian variant. It needs to be fixed, not eliminated."
I'm also encouraged that I'm not the only (and certainly not the first) one pursuing this idea:
- Phil Dodds, current candidate for the House of Representatives in Florida
- The Pirate Party's Liquid Feedback
- Sweden's Aktiv Demokrati
- Online Party of Canada
- UK's People's Administration
- Australia's Senator Online
Campaign Confusion
by 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?
JH:
In part, I expect that all reasonable points of view will be
presented. What I'm proposing is not perfect, and I can't hope to
solve every problem with our current system of representation.
Minorities already get short shrift more often than the majority, so I
am not convinced what I'm proposing is in fact worse. I have felt
quite comfortable explaining my position to individuals interested in
minority position issues, and they have seemed receptive to the idea.
You can't make everybody happy all the time, but you can provide
citizens with more of a voice in the decisions that affect them.
How do you ensure the poll is representative?
by gstoddart
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.
JH:
Part of my proposal is to incorporate offline "town hall"-style
meetings and other non-Internet communications so that those citizens
who aren't tech savvy or who don't have reliable Internet connections
can still participate.
The short answer about trying to prevent skewed results is that I
really can't. By having a participation threshold, the "release
valve", and by widely publicizing the way the votes are going, we can
mitigate some of the risk of skewed results. When an issue comes up
for a vote, I will provide an analysis and justification for how I
would vote if it were only my decision but ultimately leave the
decision in the hands of the citizens. I also think that adding a
deliberative component (discussion forums and such), citizens will
hopefully have as much information as they need to make informed
choices.
Citizens should be able to change their votes as new information comes
to light, and would not necessarily be able to be tied to their
previous votes.
How do you plan on handling the political "game"?
by 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.
JH: The good news about running as an independent, is that I don't have
leadership to stand up to. (Also, recall as I mentioned above, that
this is a state legislative position, and the only Washington that I
will be interacting with directly is Washington County, Vermont)
Still, I think you're right that politics will come up, and any sort
of compromise/exchange of votes would have to be presented to my
constituents as such. This could certainly remove valuable political
clout, but I think my proposal is valuable enough on its own that I'm
willing to sacrifice the clout if it comes down to that. I suspect
that some constituents will react with indignance and some will think
that compromise is a good idea. It's not often that a situation comes
up with a simple black or white answer — this is where I feel the
power of deliberation and discussion becomes apparent.
Security
by macaran
How will you ensure that only your constituents vote on the topic, and
that they vote only once?
Security?
by eldavojohn
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)?
JH:
It will probably be difficult. Not that my credentials and experience
will necessarily guarantee a secure final product, but I do have
experience doing OWASP and PCI audits and source code review. I also
have a good deal of knowledge in the field of cryptology and the ugly
history of electronic voting. I know that there are solutions out
there that allow for secure, auditable voting.
Keep in mind that the electronic voting
will probably not be the be-all end-all method for citizens to
communicate their opinions. I see the methods that we already use to
communicate to our elected representatives still being important:
phone calls, emails, face-to-face meetings, snail mail. I have a list
of all my constituents who are registered to vote, so cross-checking
with that authoritative list will be an important component of the
system. You say your name is John Q. Public from Woodbury, VT? An
automated phone call or a card mailed to the address on file could
verify John's identity and set him up with a username/password. (As a
side effect, this might also be a good way to motivate voter
registration.) For the anonymity and employer influence question,
stay tuned for the "vote buying" answer below.
What is Right but Unpopular
by eldavojohn
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?
JH: In part, the "release valve" could come into play as previously
described, but alternatively, tools like participatory budgeting or other
feedback mechanisms to help everyone understand the long-term
ramifications of decisions.
Don't you risk vote buying?
by 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.
JH: Right now, it's those with the money that tend to shout loudest
anyways — this is something that will be somewhat mitigated by my
proposal. It's easier to sway the opinion of a single politician than
it is to expect the same effect on a sizable majority of their
constituents. The "return on investment" for a lobbyist could be as
high as 22,000%.
In terms of vote buying, we have absentee ballots for the general
election with the same risk and arguably more serious consequences. As
I mentioned earlier, changing one's vote at any time should be no
problem. Vote the way the "buyer" is paying you for, then change it
back later.
I find the claim that representatives doing "what is best for their
constituents [even when they don't know it's good for them]" a bit
paternalistic. Phil Dodds put it well in a recent message to me:
"[People are] weighing ‘direct democracy' against a fictitious
idealized representative democracy. It is not helpful to idealize the
current system." I agree with Phil here and think our current system
is unrepresentative and far more sensitive to corporate interests than
it is to the people for whom the government ostensibly works.
Do You Experience Any Apprehension?
by 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?
JH:
Not all of computer science is deterministic systems, of course —
randomized algorithms, Monte Carlo simulations, and genetic
programming all involve an element of randomness. I also teach, which
one could certainly argue is a pretty chaotic system. I have spent a
lot of time with real IT systems, which do not always behave the way
that they should. I have two kids under 5 — you want to talk about
random?
More seriously, this is a new challenge for me, and I don't doubt that
it will be a lot of work both as I campaign and build the system, but
also should I be elected, to actually deliver what I'm promising. I
believe all of this work will be worthwhile — any apprehension I might
have is tempered by feeling that what I'm doing is right.
Hansen adds this note:
"I'd like to thank those that contacted me with contributions and
offers of technical help — I appreciate both, but will definitely need
more help on the software side of things starting immediately and
through the end of the year as we build the platform I discuss in more
depth on my site and in the answers
below. We hope to have something concrete to show by the end of the
summer. In particular, thanks to candidate Phil Dodds, project
facilitator Drew Nolan, and e-Democracy researcher/consultant Kyle
Rivers for the work they've already done."
and forgotten its history. That we are here discussing this is incomprehensible; that someone is actually running for office with this as a platform is insane. Mob rule is disastrous, because it is always possible, with four wolves and a sheep, to know the outcome of a vote on what's for dinner.
Dog is my co-pilot.
What is the probability that a technically savvy member of the US Congress (Senate or Representatives) will run on a similar platform in the next Congressional Election?
What more do we need to know ? Just elect him already.
"Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it." In ancient Athens this type of nonce "democracy" resulted in endless wars, the exile of innocents, high taxes to maintain their Trireme fleet, and led to their overthrow after about 300 years. Inflamed passions led by motivated propagandists always take control.
We've always had mob rule. We are a Democratic Republic, which means we vote mob rule by proxy for most large issues. We elect Presidents and Governors, Congressmen and others from the local City Council straight to the top of the nation. Just because we elect a guy to do our bidding doesn't mean the mob's out of the equation. In fact, it might actually amplify the mob's goals as we often elect those who most staunchly support the mob's wishes.
Whoever can rile enough gets the most votes, and our "representatives" slaughter the sheep for us.
Electronic or otherwise. California has direct ballot initiatives which is fairly pure, as democracy in America goes. It hasn't been an unmitigated success.
The "wisdom of crowds" is too easily subverted by a mass media owned by a moneyed elite, and researching your own information has fallen to finding out what some other idiots on facebook or slashdot think. I wish I had a solution, but frankly, I don't think there is one until and unless money somehow magically leaves our political system. Fat chance of that happening.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
time to legalize pot?
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
as in Final World Order. It will spread, because of it's efficiency and likeability, and encompass all decision making across the world creating a hivemind made of ourselves connected by electronic signals. And then Gaia will rise to the stars!
Or some philanthropic billionaire decides to level the playing field and help balance the money towards balanced public education on issues.
Hey, it could happen!
This guy seems very sane. I hope Vermonters give this a shot!
Because they seem to uncouple what people want from how to pay for it (if I understand it correctly).
Lets pay buy all new roads. But lets downvote all taxes to do so. Everything should come with both how to pay for it and what it is.
Phil Dodds put it well in a recent message to me: "[People are] weighing ‘direct democracy' against a fictitious idealized representative democracy. It is not helpful to idealize the current system."
Can't be repeated enough, no matter how bad an idea you might think direct democracy would be, you can't honestly deny that our current form of representative democracy is not very representative or democratic.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
What we need is a more controlled version of the ballot initiative. I would rather see the following changes:
1) All felony criminal statutes are etched into stone in the state constitution. The legislature is powerless to draft new criminal charges worse than a misdemeanor without submitting them to the electorate for a ballot initiative. A
2) All tax increases must be submitted for ballot initiative and must apply to all potential voters. That is, whatever behavior would trigger it for your neighbor must trigger it for you. For income tax purposes, that would mean that even if it's just $1, every voter must pay additional income tax or vice tax if they work or use vice.
3) Recall elections for elected representatives. For appointed judges, how about a ballot initiative that would force the legislature to consider impeachment charges immediately upon the opening of the first session of the legislature.
An added problem: This discussion seems to presume an arbitrarily large amount of time to get voter feedback on proposed legislation (esp., including discussion forums, switching votes, snail mail and in-person town hall meetings). I don't believe that legislatures always work that way; sometimes bills are drafted on short notice (or modified in negotiations) and then voted on in partly-surprise "midnight sessions". (Actually, I've even been called into a midnight session of a college student senate during particular machinations.) So what happens in that case, when there's maybe a few hours elapsed between bill presentation and voting?
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Hey I'm working on it. Last part of the puzzle that I need is the moneys part.
Or was the posting for this interview really that thin!
There have been many candidates I would vote against. There have been many more that I would vote for purely for lack of a better option.
You are the only one I have yet seen that I would vote *for*. If you ever find yourself running for something I can vote for, you can count on mine.
Are your ideas perfect? No. But then again, neither are mine.
Or we decide to invest seriously in PBS
Slashdot: So, our readers asked...
Hansen (interrupting): Hello, my name is Jeremy Hansen. Why don't you take a seat?
Slashdot: Um, okay....Anyway, onto the first...
Hansen: Would you care for a cookie? A drink of water?
Slashdot: No thank you...Let me read this...
Hansen: I have your chat logs right here. I'd like to read an excerpt....
1) Jeremy and I are both saying the Representative has a role. The representative is a facilitator and a steward of the process and his job would be to mitigate issues.
2) In my eyes, the current system has abandoned any serious effort of representing the people. Elected officials have 1,001 ways to buy money and re-election with their legislative voting power. This is a frank and honest response to the lamentful state our system. There are problems with almost any other solution you want to talk about. But here is one idea that could help and has people behind it ready to give it a try.
3) Constitutional amendments may have better results, but the catch is how to actually implement them? Supporting candidates like Jeremy and I give momentum to those larger efforts.
Speaking of supporting candidates like us, come LIKE our facebook pages [www.facebook.com/phildoddsforcongress ; http://www.facebook.com/#!/jeremyhansen2012] and contact us to volunteer your engineering skills towards this noble experiment.
"JH: Part of my proposal is to incorporate offline "town hall"-style meetings and other non-Internet communications so that those citizens who aren't tech savvy or who don't have reliable Internet connections can still participate."
I'm going to reiterate a question I posed last time that I don't feel was adequately addressed. The poor, the non tech-savvy, those without an internet connection, or those who are unable (through some mental or physical impairment) to operate a computer: How do you plan to make sure that these people still have a vote in this system.
What you seem to be proposing is that those who cannot vote online take part in these "town hall"-style meetings but it isn't clear from you say if they will get a vote at these meetings.
It's good to see that you plan to give those offiline a way to communicate with you and have a voice but unless the people who can't vote online have some way to vote offline then they will be cut out of your system and therefore be essentially unrepresented.
How do you plan to give those who are offline an equal chance to say "yay" or "nay" as those who are online?
1 bar any unrecorded discussions of a bill with more than 3 present (and no Phone Tree Tricks either)
2 require 24 hours between the presentation and any voting action (with a clause for Clear and Present Physical Danger to allow for stuff like funding for rapid bridge repair when one has almost collapsed)
3 a full history of any changes to the text should be made Public (SVN type thing)
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
What do you do if your constituents want you to violate the constitution?
I "reserve the right to vote in opposition to majority sentiment..."
So you're just like every other politician out there. You want the people to think you're doing what they want, that you're different from all the others, and you're going to vote with a wallet labelled "your conscience" when a corporation pays you enough or other lawmakers pressure you to.
How do you ensure the poll is representative? If the same 10% or so vote on every issue, you might end up with skewed results.
The short answer about trying to prevent skewed results is that I really can't. By having a participation threshold, the "release valve", and by widely publicizing the way the votes are going, we can mitigate some of the risk of skewed results.
OK, so either you're never going to hit your participation threshold and make all the decisions yourself anyway, or you're going to hit the threshold and always have skewed results because it won't be anywhere close to 50% of your constituents. You acknowledge that your threshold is about 2% participation. I tried an experiment a moment ago. My cat likes milk. I poured her a saucer of 2% milk and told her, "here's some milk. You like milk!" She came running over because she knows the word milk, sniffed at it without touching it, gave me a dirty look and stalked away. Calling 2% participation a consensus doesn't make it a consensus. Even my cat knows this.
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?
In part, the "release valve" could come into play as previously described...
Again, you will vote the way your constituents want, except when you disagree with them.
Direct democracy is evil. Its only use is as an interim step to understanding why representative democracy is necessary. You seem to understand that direct democracy does not truly work, because you keep falling back on the explanation that you would be the representative who has to make the decisions on behalf of your constituents. Which is how it should be. But don't ride on a direct democracy platform if that's not what you are offering. If you're going to lie to the voters now to get into office, why should they trust you to make decisions for them.
Here's what you want to do: Acknowledge that what you are offering is representative democracy, but be extremely open about every vote you cast. Create a Web site where you will explain how you voted and why. And don't dumb it down to make it sound good for the media. Explain it as if your constituent was your next door neighbor and he was sitting on the couch in your living room eager to hear what you're doing for him in Montpelier. And provide a relatively-secure way for them to communicate their thoughts and concerns to you, but don't ever base your vote on majority opinion. Or 2% opinion. If you are elected, it's because the voters say they trust you to make the right decisions for them. Sometimes you'll screw up, and sometimes you'll upset people, but you learn from your mistakes, listen to your constituents and honestly communicate your reasoning. That's what it truly means to be a representative.
There is an old story about Washington and Jefferson discussing the purpose of the U.S. Senate (I realize you're running for the Vermont Senate,
That's very close to the truth. Propositions that require new outlays are not required to have a funding mechanism. In addition, because they are not laws, ballot propositions do not have to be constitutional.
For instance, assuming you could get enough people to sign the petition (which wouldn't be terribly hard as signature takers are paid by the signature and so aren't terribly interested in talking about the bill that they're gathering signatures for), it is entirely possible to put a proposition on the ballot that would require that white people get ice cream every Thursday and that the bill be picked up by everybody else. Obviously it won't pass constitutional muster if passed for a variety of reasons, but there's nothing stopping it from getting on the ballot in the first place.
So now everybody games the system for their own purposes. We've had ballot measures that don't stand a chance of becoming law (an English-only amendment), competing measures (one, from insurance companies, that purported to lower insurance costs by restricting awards and another, by lawyers, by restricting the amounts that insurance companies can charge), some that reword other propositions that have already been passed and some that, if passed, will negate other propositions that are on the same ballot.
Arguably the most highly educated populace in history is being denigrated day in and day out by the current system, which includes criminal justice and the mass media. If you don't belong to the corporate aristocracy (or the political class on the other side of the revolving door) then your personal life is held to be an outlet for their fishing expeditions and general thirst for exacting punishment.
Fueling that out of control punitive instinct is a commercial media that constantly gives people the impression they are being attacked by a crime wave -- no matter what crime statistics are like -- of lower and middle class good-for-nothings. So crime and corruption go unchecked among the elite, and their negative attitude toward the rest of us keeps getting bolder.
I'm not sure if direct democracy can fix this societal madness, but I do know that when strictures against "mob rule" were formed in our society, most of the population were totally uneducated. They were at the start of the industrial revolution and centuries before the computer revolution / information age. (Or, if you wish to take the long view, the anti-'mob' tradition of thought can be said to be not centuries but millennia old.) So it may be time to take the professionals of the 'four estates' down a peg and to start experimenting with initiatives like this.
Frankly the average intelligence of the American public makes all voting a risky proposition. Perhaps it is poor education or a life too easy but all in all the typical person out there simply lacks enough ability to be given any voice in how they are governed. Yeh, I'll get slapped for saying this. That is a given. But in all seriousness look at human behavior. Go to the local court houses and watch cases. Most of the public is about as rational as the characters portrayed in a Richard Prior performance. And even Richard shot his own car because he was fighting with his wife and set himself on fire while using a crack pipe and he was probably better balanced than George Bush.
CA has high income taxes, business taxes, and sales taxes. Wouldn't the more likely scenario be that if Prop 13 hadn't been passed that CA would have really high property taxes and high taxes in all those other areas?
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
You don't really acknowledge the way he proposes to mitigate the damages. Instead, you attack a straw man.
Kudos.
In reality, for example, he wasn't saying that 2% participation would be a consensus. He said that it would be enough to form a representative sample. He would be fairly confident that the numbers within that 2% would reflect the numbers in his constituents overall.
Also, he very specifically does not say that the release valve is for use whenever he disagrees with his constituents. That is an idea you created and latched onto because it helped you make your point. In reality, he laid out a very limited set of scenarios when he would vote against the expressed wishes of his constituents, and promised to follow it up with something like a vote of no-confidence.
Just relax and let the man innovate. Sometimes, innovations are awesome and there are high fives all around. Sometimes, they are massive piles of fail, but the savvy learn from them and innovate better next time. Again, high fives all around.
AC Hammer
Naw, eldavojohn is just our representative. The ol' boys club of Slashdot, those of us with the mod points, know him to have his head on his shoulders. So rather than write out questions ourselves we simply upvote his.
But, uh... yeah! WOO direct democracy!
..if direct democracy helped them decide whether to allow collective bargaining by unions. Those who suggest direct democracy bypasses big money need to take a look at how well it worked there.
Frankly I still don't see how I can verify that my vote was counted, I can see it's correct, I can see the total, I can't see the process in-between unless people count ballot slips. An illusion of transparency is not enough for me.
With a second amendment It is two wolves discussing dinner with a well armed sheep.
Hypothetically, if you could accurately weight every person's vote by some measure of their expertise on the topic in question, would it be better or worse for democracy? I know it's somewhat fundamental that everyone gets as much say as anyone else, but I've never felt like my vote has made a difference, and I don't feel like it ever will, so long as there are so many other people voting. Prime example: many people really have no understanding of economics, and on any economic issue will vote to defend their wallets. However from a holistic perspective of the economy, sometimes there are courses of action that are better overall. Economics professors spend their lives studying these issues, and I feel that their votes should count more than everyone else's, including my own. Some professional economists will have 'bad' opinions, but generally the more educated should vote more 'correctly' on average, and hence should have a greater degree of representation. It also excludes Ted Stevens from any Internet-related legislation. I'm sure this has been discussed before, but it has always interested me.