Slashdot Log In
Internet Based Political "Meta-Party" For Massachusetts
Posted by
timothy
on Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:34 PM
from the thought-you-said-mega-party dept.
from the thought-you-said-mega-party dept.
sophiachou writes "The Free Government Party, a non-profit, open source political 'meta-party' focused on providing citizens with more direct control of Congress through online polling and user-drafted bills, seems to be looking for a candidate to endorse for US Representative of Massachusetts' 8th Congressional District. If you're from the Boston area, you might have seen this already on Craigslist. The chosen candidate will be bound by contract to vote in Congress only as do his or her constituents online. However, they don't seem to be going for direct democracy. To make voting convenient, you can select advisers to cast your votes for you, unless you do so yourself. Supposedly, interviews for the candidate position are already underway. Anyone from MA's 8th Congressional District on Slashdot already apply?"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Sounds like a miniature electoral college system. (Score:4, Insightful)
The way we were supposed to choose our president was to know and vote for our electors, who were supposed to be the wisest people we knew. Political parties kind of buggered up the plan.
-jcr
Re:Sounds like a miniature electoral college syste (Score:2, Insightful)
The way we were supposed to choose our president was to know and vote for our electors, who were supposed to be the wisest people we knew. Political parties kind of buggered up the plan.
Correction: Human nature kind of buggered up the plan. The fact that we have a kind of floating aristocracy, divided into a couple of camps depending on which segment of the wealthy and powerful aristocracy they get more support from, is entirely by design. Many of the framers didn't want the common people getting too much control over things for fear that we wouldn't choose to let them run things.
Thomas Paine was basically run out of town on a rail for being too much against the idea that the "smar
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Many of the framers didn't want the common people getting too much control over things for fear that we wouldn't choose to let them run things.
One possible motive.
There may have also been a nod to the level of literacy in the general population. Remember, this was in the day where if you could do enough math to perform celestial navigation, you could be an officer in the navy.
Times have changed, the pool of smarter heads is bigger. You'll never eliminate the "dumb rubes", but you can gather useful input from a broader swath of people.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt, those Framers may not have come off as so elitist in a modern context.
Re:Sounds like a miniature electoral college syste (Score:4, Insightful)
...vote for our electors, who were supposed to be the wisest people we knew.
Sounds a lot like a monarchy: the elite nobility governing the unwashed ignorant masses.
Something that is increasingly forgotten is that the key innovation of the American revolution was to move away from trying to find the most superior person to govern and to instead rely on a system. Instead of having a (supposedly) superior king decide whose head to chop off, they had a system - of laws and judges and lawyers and juries.
The basic realization was that you're not ever going to find some guy who is just so special that he can make all the best decisions for the country. Instead, you need a system of specialists, experts and ordinary citizens working together collectively.
For example, in that view, the president is not supposed to make decisions himself (and certainly not based on his "gut") but, like a judge, he is supposed to preside over the system to insure that the system reaches the correct decisions.
Parent
Re:Sounds like a miniature electoral college syste (Score:4, Interesting)
Sounds a lot like a monarchy
Nope, it sounds like a committee. The electors were supposed to be performing an occasional, temporary public duty, like serving on a jury.
-jcr
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
There were federalists and anti-federalists from the get go.
Online influence! (Score:5, Interesting)
You could set it up like Slashdot, with the explicit goal of influencing government policy and officials to move in a suitable direction.
Such a group could have policies on health, education, technology, science, military, the whole gamut, all debated by people who know what they are talking about, with a moderation system like slashdot. Once the debate was finalised, you could hold a poll for the final direction of that piece of legislation or whatever, and set that as the policy for the year. The debate could perhaps be re-opened by popular demand as situations change.
And then you give it teeth. All members donate a hundred bucks a year to it (also a handy way to ensure that there are not too many duplicate accounts) for lobbying or funding the political group, and representatives are appointed to push the agenda on the hill. Its just the bare bones of an idea, it needs a hell of a lot of fleshing out, but damn me if I wouldn't set it up myself if I had the time.
Parent
Re:Online influence! (Score:5, Interesting)
If you can even get a quarter of a percent of the population on board, you can utterly dwarf any other special interests group out there, the corporations would have no notion of competing, although it would have some hair raising debates with a million people participating. One thing I like about Slashdot however is that it almost always acts as a superb bullshit filter, and the true facts of most matters come out in the end. The same effect would apply for such a system, and contrary to common wisdom, the average person knows a line when its pointed out to them.
It would remove the power from the politicians, and only those who were voting off message would need to be targeted. You want additional funds going to NASA, or a complete reorganisation of NASA, you got it. You want more spending on education, it will be pushed through. You want the Telecoms bill revoked, congratulations and here's your receipt. You'd need to be careful that you weren't overwhelmed by special interest groups in the early stages (NRA or theological cults for example).
The idea might leave a bad taste in the mouths of many, but in a warped, roundabout way it sort of is the mercantile American way. And it would without a doubt get things done.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why not setup a system that mirror's the house of representative's docket for the following day, allowing people to vote on the issues that matter to them. Break this down by region and district, so that politicians can see their people swinging one way or another on individual issues.
Create a dynamic system where any one user can lend their vote to another user unless they choose to override it. Setup a discussion for each item with moderation, slashdot style.
Basically, make it really easy for a congress
aaaaalll-rriiiiggghhtt!!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Of course, I won't use them for just ANY occasion, I will save them for something important. Hmmmmm.....the invasion of Canada vote!!!! Prepare thyself, Oh Canada!!
Re:aaaaalll-rriiiiggghhtt!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what concerns me. On face value the idea sounds like a huge step forward for democracy and people who don't really think things through or aren't particularly educated will vote for it.
I have seen loads of clips - and yes American /.ers, I know how easy it is to selectively edit these things - that show interviews with "average Americans on the street" saying that Buddhists are terrorists who should be nuked when asked what they think of Buddhists. I know that this is not true for all Americans, but I also know a large percentage of Americans know less about the world outside their local area than any other Western country. I have grave fears for these people being able to directly vote on anything that a nuclear armed super power might do.
Sometimes I feel pissed off about the traditional two party thing we have here in Australia too, but there is something to be said for a system with checks and balances, separation of powers, the rule of law and non-elected bureaucrats keeping things orderly. It's frustrating but relatively benign and this idea of letting anyone vote directly on decisions threatens all of these things.
Parent
Re:aaaaalll-rriiiiggghhtt!!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
There are ways to help work out the kinks before we have people voting to imprison Buddhists for terrorism. The process of voting from home can be asked to read some information regarding the subject matter of the vote before voting. Additionally a double opt-in vote would require that you insert your voter number to place the vote, then reply to the email sent to your registered email address before your vote is counted. This stops bots and gives those voting time to think it through and read about it a bit before just voting.
The key to getting a veracious vote result is education. The harder that you work to educate people on the issues, the more likely they are to vote using an informed opinion.
Yes, there are always those that oppose things out of ignorance or in support of something else, but perhaps if you informed people who Buddhists were before asking them the question they would not be so quick to say they should be nuked.
Education is the key to solving quite a few problems in the world.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Its a fine line between education and propagandist indoctrination. Education is not the key, thinking for yourself is the key.
Re: (Score:2)
Well you have to admit, it provides one Hell of an incentive to educate the populace, whereas at present the US government seems to have an interest in keeping people ignorant. If these people have power, it's going to be the first time in a while that people are going to have to really make their cases to the people and that should be a good thing. Let's not panic just yet. This is one candidate. If they find someone and they get elected, this could be a really good thing.
Re:aaaaalll-rriiiiggghhtt!!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
We need a new name for a new basis of government (Score:4, Insightful)
And "Republic" doesn't seem to sound right either, when there is so much potential for this sort of system to take direct action. Is this right? Answer: Also "perhaps".
How about a "Liberacy"? (a) Maybe, but it evokes the wrong sort of popular pianist to appeal to everyone. YMMV. But I think we've blurred the boundaries so far it's really hard to use the original terms for this sort of political party.
But I think it's a great idea, myself.
Direct Democracy is tedious (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course they aren't going for direct democracy. That is an organizational nightmare. Direct *Representation* is the model I have always advocated, and that is what they are doing. I should have a vote, and be able to give that vote to anyone that I feel is able to represent my views and interests best.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I should have a vote, and be able to give that vote to anyone that I feel is able to represent my views and interests best.
While I agree with you on principal, how do you prevent votes from being bought and sold as commodities?
It's a noble thought, however I fear too many people would rather a few dollars than freedom, and in time you could find special interest groups owning a large number of votes, so many in fact that they can do anything they want...
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps this implementation is not a perfect example of the system I want, but it is a step in the right direction. In my ideal, vote buying would be difficult, as there would be no way to keep an individual from reassigning their vote to another representative.
[not a fan of geographic representation]
Re: (Score:3)
While I agree with you on principal, how do you prevent votes from being bought and sold as commodities?
Oh my, that one nearly cost me a keyboard. You're trying to infer that they aren't now?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually he would be trying to imply it. You're the one infering it.
[/pedantry]
Re: (Score:2)
how do you prevent votes from being bought and sold as commodities?
The death penalty?
Ok, that is an exaggeration, especially since I am against the death penalty, but the basic idea is correct. Laws against buying (as well as selling) votes or probing into the voting patterns of any person. There should be pretty hefy penalties as it is a direct attack on society itself.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Everywhere is
Freaks and hairies
Dykes and fairies
Tell me where is sanity
Tax the rich
Feed the poor
Till there are no
Rich no more
I'd love to change the world
But I don't know what to do
So I'll leave it up to you
Population
Keeps on breeding
Nation bleeding
Still more feeding economy
Life is funny
Skies are sunny
Bees make honey
Who needs money, monopoly
I'd love to change the world
But I don't know what to do
So I'll leave it up to you
Oh yeah
World pollution
There's no solution
Institution
Electrocution
Just black or white
Rich
Direct democracy (Score:4, Insightful)
Think of what we would have done if we were following the opinions of people just here on slashdot:
The whole thing reminds me of a chess game, Kasparov VS the World [wikipedia.org], in which Kasparov played against anyone who willing to log in to MSN to vote. On one move, 2.5% of the people voted for a move that was completely ILLEGAL. In that particular game, the world did manage to play a good game, but arguably only because a few very good players managed to take charge and guide the hoards through it all. In general the message boards degenerated into a lot of flaming....
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Works like charm - while this option is used, as I see, relatively rarely, it does keep the politicians from thinking up very stupid things.
And guess what? Swiss are not disbanding their police force, not invading Israel nor Iran and the corporations are oh so legal
Re:Direct democracy (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe it would work, but here in California where we have the ability to allow any proposition to appear on the ballot, we have had mixed success. Sometimes rather bad laws manage to pass (anti-gay marriage) whereas other times very reasonable and good laws are voted down (anti-gerrymandering). I'm not convinced that people voting on a law by law basis is a good idea.
Parent
The election is already over . . . (Score:2)
The Democratic Party primary can quite reasonably considered to be the end of the line for candidates seeking Federal election from MA. Unless you have a genius plan to disrupt the internal workings of the party, I find it hard to believe you are going to accomplish all that much.
MA was bought and paid for a long time ago.
It looks good (Score:2)
I live in this district (Score:2, Interesting)
I can't remember my password, so screw Karma.
The pay for this job in MA is 31k.
Anyone intelligent at all is making 60k+.
Anyone unintelligent is making 40k at Mcdonalds if they actually fucking worked at it.
In other words: the pay doesn't just suck, a teenage dropout can make more.
I live in this district. I'd apply, and mean it, in a second if the job payed -anything- livable. 55k maybe.
For all of you who go "But 31k is fine in hickland" this is less than .01 miles from Boston! The cost of living here is cra
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You want a dolt, imbecile, automaton - indeed, a Voting Machine which will simply vote the way the System ordains. A voting robot - hey, that'll even save them $31K a year!
To Sum it Up (Score:2, Insightful)
doomed (Score:4, Insightful)
A good representative is not someone who conducts polling every time something comes up. A good representative makes as sound an educated a decision as he or she can, weighing the good of ALL the people they represent against the good of the commonwealth, against the good of the planet...and more importantly, they should not make a career of it.
I don't see the voting populous having that kind of foresight. I'd be a happier if representation was randomly assigned amongst people.
Re:doomed (Score:4, Interesting)
People selfishly look for their representative to represent them best personally, when people instead should have the maturity to look for someone who represents them collectively.
I can't remember where I heard this (NPR?) but there were studies done that showed that people vote for who and what that they identify with, not who and what benefits them most or represents them most closely.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
weighing the good of ALL the people they represent against the good of the commonwealth, against the good of the planet...
and what subjective means are used to identify this? This is why meta-parties are such a good thing.
Enlightenment groups like the freemasons were vilified and persecuted as the bane of civil society by royalty and the pope because they recognized the tyranny and provided points of organization against....get this.. royalty and the pope.
Sound like certain technologies to me.
Somewhere... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I suspect that all the Founding Fathers have been spinning like bobbins on a sewing machine for some time now. A little more angular momentum wont make any difference at this point.
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED (Score:5, Funny)
Re:HIGHLY RECOMMENDED (Score:4, Funny)
alternately :
1. (sort of) vote for new congressperson
2. ?
3. Profit!
Parent
Something similar to this .... (Score:3, Informative)
PodVoters looks to me like a much better idea (IMO), because it's an online system for selecting candidates, according to a process that should yield much better candidates, than we get at present. It's not about users directly managing the entire legislative process which is too burdensome for most (any?) citizen.
just my two cents
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What I want to see is where taxpayers would allocate their money. I.e. when you fill out your tax form, you send along something that allocates the taxes paid per year to various programs. For example, assuming that you pay $10,000 in taxes, you might write:
Defense: $2000
Social security: $2100
Medical: $3300
Debt reduction: $800
NASA: $50
Other discretionary: $1750
That's what we have now (lumping a lot of things together to save typing). Or maybe you might prefer to spend nothing on defense and that $2
Another noble experiment (Score:3, Interesting)
Opponent if pretty awesome... (Score:4, Informative)
I live in this district, and must say that as much as I love this idea, it would be tough to sway me (as a social libertarian and economic moderate) to vote out Capuano. His voting record is very consistently exactly in line with what I would want.
To whit, the ACLU ranks him at 94% voting the way they advocate and 100% by LBGT advocates (I'm also gay). He's in favor of affirmative action, which I have some minor objections to, but generally think isn't particularly evil. He voted against expanding criminal prosecutions for minors and is rated "soft on crime" (which I approve of, having been harassed by the police and FBI several times despite having committed no crimes). He is generally not in favor of the war on drugs. I don't think he's as savvy on energy and the environment as I'd like, but he probably is better informed that an average group of citizens...
I dunno, I'm not sure I'd trust my neighbors in general to be as sensible as Capuano has been. I've seen my neighbors believe some pretty stupid crap. I'd have to see a very sensible plan before I'd vote to change.
Someone tried this in Norway... (Score:3, Interesting)
Is it constitutional? (Score:2, Interesting)
You needn't live in the district (Score:3, Informative)
You don't have to live in the district in order to run for Congress in that district, you only have to live in the state.
The folks running the Free Government Party might require a candidate to live in the district, but it isn't a restriction required by the United States or Massachusetts.
Damburgers wacky idea #345633 (Score:3, Interesting)
Why not have artificially intelligent avatars represent you?
You know what your overall objectives in voting are, but don't have time to pursue them on every single issue. You can't trust a human representative (who certainly has his own agenda) so you program an AI with parameters reflecting your personal preferences and it tries to emulate your vote on every issue that comes up, and if it comes across something it can't handle, alerts you so you can vote in person.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
(To paraphrase Carlin) Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize 50% are DUMBER THAN THAT...
Re: (Score:2)
Is he being offered a job or money in return for signing the contract?
If he isn't, then that isn't corrupt, its democracy. Although I understand why the corporate-owned media works at trying to confuse people.