Internet Based Political "Meta-Party" For Massachusetts 227
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?"
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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:Direct Democracy is tedious (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: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.
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:We need a new name for a new basis of governmen (Score:1, Insightful)
wikiocracy
American Political Idol (Score:1, Insightful)
This is scary. Dealing with our laws, our freedom, and our future in the exact same manner as the best singer is chosen on t.v.
A "pure democracy" has the potential to be even more oppressive than the worst sort of communism or dictatorship.
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 "smart people" should make all the decisions for us dumb rubes.
- (A)
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.
Re:ISRAEL, WE BLESS THEE (Score:0, Insightful)
Rest of the middle east = Social conservative cunts who practice the stupid religion of Islam
America = Social conservative cunts who practice the stupid religion of christianity
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.
Their plan is doomed. (Score:1, Insightful)
It needs:
A) A rather large amendment to the Constituition
B) A population that actually understands the issues being voted on, including causes, effects, and solutions.
As an American, I believe that B does not exists. We are not rich landowners like ancient Athenians, who had lots of time to ponder these things, and were able to have an efficient direct democracy. Americans, on the whole, are specialized to hell. We don't sleep, we don't take vacations, we just work. We don't have time to think about the government.
Re:I live in this district (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!
I don't know how to read, you insensitive clod! (Score:2, Insightful)
SEX! SEX! SEX!, vote yes on proposition 2600, SEX SEX SEX.
I see so many problems with this "direct voting". It's not even funny. Well, it's a little funny. SEX!
Re:aaaaalll-rriiiiggghhtt!!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Its a fine line between education and propagandist indoctrination. Education is not the key, thinking for yourself is the key.
Re:Sounds like a miniature electoral college syste (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:Something similar to this .... (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 $2000 would go to space research or welfare or whatever else you might want to select. Or you think too much is spent on welfare and not enough on defense, so you give the $10,000 to defense.
Even if this were non-binding, I think that we'd get some interesting information. Some discussion of how this might work (although based on a per person allocation rather than a per tax dollar allocation) is in the second press release ("New Poll: Public Would Allocate a Federal Budget
Much Different from Washington's") at http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/tables/usspend.htm [globalpolicy.org]
Binding (if feasible) would make this interesting. People could have the option of increasing their personal taxes paid and having the money go where they want it (e.g. NASA or welfare). Billionaires (e.g. Gates) would get the benefit of controlling the allocation of their taxes, giving them a reason to pay taxes (rather than the natural reasons to evade them).
This isn't the micromanagement of direct democracy, but it does allow people to participate directly in the decision with the most direct impact to them.
Re:aaaaalll-rriiiiggghhtt!!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Most /.ers don't even read TFA. Do you really think we could get everyone who votes to read both sides of the argument before they got bored and picked the radio button with the prettiest picture next to it?
Re:Sounds like a miniature electoral college syste (Score:1, Insightful)
In my observations, the wisest people have no desire to control others through coercion. They realize that economic and social progress naturally arises through voluntary association.
Government naturally attracts those who DO wish to control others through coercion, not those who just want to live their lives in peace. Realizing this, I'd feel a bit silly claiming that government should (or could) be comprised of the wisest people.