CS Professor Announces Run For VT State Senate On a Platform of Internet Polling 226
Cynic writes "Having read pretty heavily on the topic, weighed the pros and cons, and seen a few relevant slashdot articles, I wondered why an elected representative couldn't use online and in-person polling of constituents to decide the way he or she votes. Though we are living in the 'information age' and have rich communications media and opportunities for deep and accessible deliberation, we are getting by (poorly) with horse-and-buggy-era representation. In the spirit of science and because I think it's legitimately a better way of doing things, I recently announced my candidacy for Vermont's State Senate in Washington County."
How do you think such polling could be best accomplished? Do you think it's worth trying? Whether or not you buy into it, it's something that's only been made feasible in recent times with modern technology.
It's Possible (Score:3, Insightful)
You'd have to set up the system so people can't vote multiple times. Otherwise they could have a bunch of bots automatically do thousands of votes to sway things however they wanted.
A fantastic idea (Score:2, Insightful)
Nothing like mob rule to really get some well-thought-out laws passed.
Maybe we can all vote on criminal trial verdicts too.
Not a better way (Score:3, Insightful)
"I wondered why an elected representative couldn't use...polling of constituents to decide the way he or she votes."
Because the electorate are stupid and ignorant, and malware will be developed to submit votes.
"In the spirit of science and because I think it's legitimately a better way of doing things'
If you really believe these things, then you should absolutely never hold any public office whatsoever.
Ignoring your constituency is very bad; doing exactly what they say is worse.
Like Henry Ford said... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad Idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if one disregards the technical hurdles, the very idea of government run strictly by polling is ill advised. Firstly, poll results are heavily influenced by the wording of the questions. This would essentially be handing over a great deal of influence to whoever gets to phrase the questions. Secondly, it is likely to encourage demagogy. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Security (Score:4, Insightful)
Still better than the richest corporation.
Re:Like Henry Ford said... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yea, TFS seems to imply that representative democracy was some kind of compromise based on logistics rather than a conscious choice. Even ignoring the lack of knowledge and understanding the average person has of complex issues, the tyranny of the majority is very real and something that all democracies need to keep a careful eye on. To use the most obvious of historical examples, in 1860 more than 50% of those eligible to vote supported slavery. That didn't make them right. And even looking past that, the practicalities of direct democracy go far past the logistics of collecting votes. Everyone will gladly vote for every tax break and most spending initiatives, then stand around wondering what happened when the city/state/country goes broke. Managing a national government is a full time job, best left to people able to work on it full time.
*Disclaimer: I have zero faith in the current US Government and the way it operates. I just don't think direct democracy is anything resembling the solution since the only thing I have less faith in than the US Government is the US general voting population.
He doesn't understand the job he is applying for (Score:5, Insightful)
This guy clearly doesn't understand the job he's applying for. We live in a REPUBLIC.. which means we elect people to vote on our behalf for/against proposed laws.
Our founders knew that people did not have the time to read, understand, and vote on each and every issue.
Do you really think technology changes that? In the 2009-2010 congress [govtrack.us], there were: 9239 proposed bills, 998 acted on by the congress, 26 failed, and 366 enacted = 10629 bills.
Each one hundreds or even thousands of pages long.
So seriously ask yourself: do you have time to read a several hundred page law, filled with legalese and references to other laws, 29 times per day every day of the year?
There's a reason why our REPRESENTATIVES have dozens of staff.
Re:It's Possible (Score:4, Insightful)
You'd also run into vocal minorities, which would be especially heavy as time wore on. John Q. Public doesn't really want to vote on every single bill or issue that arises, that's why he's happier with a republic than a direct democracy. Of course, if John is a heavy advocate of a fringe idea, he'll make sure to log on and vote at 6:00 AM sharp when that issue is up on this representative's poll page.
Over time, as people forget that they elected this guy, fewer and fewer people will bother voting, leading to decreasing accuracy. I don't think it would be the worst situation for the voters (certainly it would be harder for single entities to lobby), but it would come with its own set of political issues.