Could Crowd-Sourced Direct Democracy Work? 594
maccallr writes "The Occupy movement is getting everyone talking about how to fix the world's economic (and social, environmental, ...) problems. It is even trialling new forms of 'open' democracy. Trouble is, it's easy to criticize the physical occupiers for being unrepresentative of the general population — and much of their debating time is spent on practical rather than policy issues. Well-meaning but naive occupiers could be susceptible to exploitation by the political establishment and vested interests. In the UK, virtual occupiers are using Google Moderator to propose and debate policy in the comfort of their homes (where, presumably, it is easier to find out stuff you didn't know). Could something like this be done on a massive scale (national or global) to reach consensus on what needs to be done? How do you maximize participation by 'normal folk' on complex issues? What level of participation could be considered quorate? How do you deal with block votes? What can we learn from electronic petitions and Iceland's crowd-sourced constitution? Is the 'Occupy' branding appropriate? What other pitfalls are there? Or are existing models of democracy and dictatorship fit for purpose?"
One issue I see with a global version of something like this is all of the people in the world who haven't even heard of the Internet.
How is the issue of mob rule addressed? (Score:4, Interesting)
None of the above should be interpreted to be support for the current dysfunctional behavior of the US Congress. I'm just questioning the wisdom of just going with whatever the majority thinks.
Re:How is the issue of mob rule addressed? (Score:2, Interesting)
One method of addressing mob rule is to make legislation enacted as now, by representation. Make veto power and removal of laws a democratic function. All bills that make it through the house and the senate must be approved by a majority of the population. Any law can be brought before the public for review at any time. If it does not receive the majority it is removed from the books.
democracy is the weakest form of governance (Score:3, Interesting)
there's a risk that this subject line will automatically have people going "-1" automatically. this will demonstrate, graphically, how democracy is the weakest form of government.
if on the other hand, this message gets moderated up, then you know that slashdot's moderation system works as a "democracy".
i think it's worthwhile looking up the "Jefferson Mk 7" which you'll find in an arthur c clarke sci-fi novel. it's the one about remote interplanetary colonisation. it's called the "Mk 7" for obvious reasons, and its strongest point was cryptographically-secure random number generation to select the president... for an office duration of ONE (1) year. all persons ever expressing an interest in becoming president were automatically disqualified.
the point that the sci-fi writer was making, indirectly, is that modern democracy gets people the leaders that they DESERVE.
i much prefer the original greek system. you get everyone into an arena, and they ask each other questions about the population of the city (athens: 30,000). if they get the answer wrong, they're disqualified.
the last person left becomes the leader.
now that's democracy.
but best of all, i prefer the system where the leader has absolutely no power but to make "proclamations". very much like the debian so-called "leader", who is there merely to satisfy the "idiots" who go "what the fuck does this group of 1,000 developers think they're doing by _not_ having a leader??" so now they have one, all the remaining 999 developers can get some peace and get their heads down, get on with the job of packaging.
"democracy" - the means by which knee-jerk reactionary politics can result in decisions that are jolted back into complete reverse gear after 4 years. greaat.
so - if you define crowd-sourced direct democracy as being the "voice of the people", then yeah, it works. it tells you quite how scarey crowds can be. the "collective consciousness" of crowds shines through, loud and clear. maybe that's a good thing, when the mob shows itself to be an ass instead of being sensible.
me, i live in a remote area of scotland, away from crowds. maybe that tells you something, maybe it doesn't...
Re:No, it would not work (Score:3, Interesting)
Not a clue, and I'm happy to be quiet on such a topic. Unfortunately, many people in the same situation would not, and I dread to think what would happen if we listened to all of them. The number of people who know something about an esoteric subject is usually outnumbered by the number of people willing to interfere in things they know nothing about.
If maybe there were a way to determine your level of expertise on various subjects that either qualify or disqualify you from voting on certain matters. Such that, in regards to interstate grazing rights you would forfeit your vote to the people that have been determined to know precedents, rulings, rights, and other determining factors for such policy. However, say a policy of voting ethics, you would be able to cast your vote with other eligible voters that have passed pre-screening for voting on that matter. There by leaving the decisions to the people that know the ins-n-outs of the issue at hands.
I guess the trick would be to determine qualifications for voting on particular matters. If you had to answer questions about your depth of knowledge on the particular subject it would make the time to vote for A or B much more time consuming than just click-scribble-done. Which may or may not be a bad thing.
Re:Occupy is the worst possible model to use (Score:3, Interesting)
A majority of those who support the "Occupiers" are Democrats, mostly those who either follow the demagogue Obama or who correctly recognize that OWS's muddled slogans are what they want. Also among the supporters are anarchists of the chaotic variety, who explicitly endorse lack of constructive purpose.
Among the 36% of those who claim to support the OWS are those who haven't examined what they stand for, just as there are among the opponents those who haven't examined what OWS stands for. Indeed, there are more reasons to oppse them than just what they stand for; their methods are also subject to valid condemnation.