Part of the reason that I am "floating" the idea, rather than doing it, is that this system would not be a monopoly - but simply one of many websites in a competitive environment of e-polling stations - each with their own "coalition of independents". Some of these sites would be private, and some would themselves be democratically run - so you could vote out the facilitator if needed.
If voters thought the any particular system (e.g., mine) was in any way corrupted, they could stop voting in members from that system, and starting using another.
Similarly, I would think that many commentary and review websites would spring up with the specific goal of reviewing the independence of such e-polling sites. Much like our current Media Watch program in AU. People could easily visit my summary website, each lobby group's website, and a number of independent review sites before voting.
And my last count-point, is to compare the "corruptability" of my proposed edemocracy system verses your current "democratic" system. Start by counting the number of official "dinners", "lunches", or "functions" that your current representative attends in any given year...
PS. I'm surprised that I've only had negative feedback on slashdot... Imagine if slashdot
had a "vote" button at the bottom of each issue relating to a parliamentary bill, and that one (or more) members of parliament (or senators or whatever) would actually vote that way. Obviously there's a lot of the logistics to work out, but doesn't democratic and political power, and the achievability of such a system appeal?
Thanks for your feedback. I really am considering doing this, and so am
interested in what actually would happen - ie, how it really would play out.
In response to your points:
1. The idea is that the website would have information/links/arguments etc above the little
vote button - so it would be very easy to get educated on the issue before voting. Kind of
like how you can read a slashdot thread and then become an expert on an issue.:-)
2-3. I think you missed the point of proxy voting. In it's laziest form, you could
assign your proxy/default vote to a "normal" politician, which is effectively what you have
today. The benefit ofcourse is that you can change your mind at any time or on any issue if/when
you feel inclined.
4. I think that lobby groups lobbying the general population is better than lobbying politicians. Particularly for issues such as media ownership, corporate rights, etc.
5. Having no control and a feeling of helplessness in the existing political system creates much of the current apathy. I think that being able to impact change will increase involvement.
6. Regime change is required when the population wants to go a different direction to the government . This doesn't happen in a direct democracy, so the need for regime change (ie, the
big reset button) doesn't exist.
You haven't convinced me that it wouldn't/couldn't work - but I do perhaps need to go into more detail as to how the website would actually work..
Setup a website where all the issues are discussed and can be voted on.
Have / become / vote for an independent candidate that promises (his/her only promise) to vote whichever way the web poll comes in - on EVERY (bar none) issue.
Vote on the web site for all issues you care about. Assign your default vote to someone else in the mean time.
I don't know if this has ever been done anywhere in the world yet. I'm thinking of doing this for our (Australia's) next federal election. I don't think it well get up by a long way - but it might the next time around (or the next one)...
Slashdot Mirror
And what would you rather? The sheep deciding what is for dinner?
Part of the reason that I am "floating" the idea, rather than doing it, is that this system would not be a monopoly - but simply one of many websites in a competitive environment of e-polling stations - each with their own "coalition of independents". Some of these sites would be private, and some would themselves be democratically run - so you could vote out the facilitator if needed.
If voters thought the any particular system (e.g., mine) was in any way corrupted, they could stop voting in members from that system, and starting using another.
Similarly, I would think that many commentary and review websites would spring up with the specific goal of reviewing the independence of such e-polling sites. Much like our current Media Watch program in AU. People could easily visit my summary website, each lobby group's website, and a number of independent review sites before voting.
And my last count-point, is to compare the "corruptability" of my proposed edemocracy system verses your current "democratic" system. Start by counting the number of official "dinners", "lunches", or "functions" that your current representative attends in any given year...
PS. I'm surprised that I've only had negative feedback on slashdot... Imagine if slashdot had a "vote" button at the bottom of each issue relating to a parliamentary bill, and that one (or more) members of parliament (or senators or whatever) would actually vote that way. Obviously there's a lot of the logistics to work out, but doesn't democratic and political power, and the achievability of such a system appeal?
Thanks for your feedback. I really am considering doing this, and so am interested in what actually would happen - ie, how it really would play out.
In response to your points:
1. The idea is that the website would have information/links/arguments etc above the little vote button - so it would be very easy to get educated on the issue before voting. Kind of like how you can read a slashdot thread and then become an expert on an issue. :-)
2-3. I think you missed the point of proxy voting. In it's laziest form, you could assign your proxy/default vote to a "normal" politician, which is effectively what you have today. The benefit ofcourse is that you can change your mind at any time or on any issue if/when you feel inclined.
4. I think that lobby groups lobbying the general population is better than lobbying politicians. Particularly for issues such as media ownership, corporate rights, etc.
5. Having no control and a feeling of helplessness in the existing political system creates much of the current apathy. I think that being able to impact change will increase involvement.
6. Regime change is required when the population wants to go a different direction to the government . This doesn't happen in a direct democracy, so the need for regime change (ie, the big reset button) doesn't exist.
You haven't convinced me that it wouldn't/couldn't work - but I do perhaps need to go into more detail as to how the website would actually work..
If you want a real e-democracy that can make a difference....
http://www.blognow.com.au/edemocracy
I have (very roughly) blogged about an idea that I had to implement an e-democracy without _any_ overhauls to the current parliamentry system.
http://www.blognow.com.au/edemocracy.
Basically you:
I don't know if this has ever been done anywhere in the world yet. I'm thinking of doing this for our (Australia's) next federal election. I don't think it well get up by a long way - but it might the next time around (or the next one)...