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.
No, it would not work (Score:5, Insightful)
Direct, 100% democracy also leads to huge problems for minorities. If back in the 90's older people would have been thinking that computers and machines are destroying the world, they would had just banned them from all geeks. No reasoning, majority just thinks so. Similarly, and even more noticeable, it leads to huge problems for sexual minorities, ladyboys, "rich" people (those who actually create jobs and make things happen) or anyone else the majority as a whole starts to hate. It's akin to mob justice. Full democracy is never good.
However, and I cannot stress this enough, people in general just are incredibly stupid.
Re:No, it would not work (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not that people are stupid, it's that people may not have a complete education in given subjects.
Even if we posit an ideal Libertarian utopia, I don't know what to do about interstate grazing rights, do you?
While this is true in the legislature, there's a reason why we specialize and have committee and sub committee rules.
Re: (Score:2)
this is precisely what the Natural Law Party proposed. they proposed not only local governance, but that specialists be invited to advise on specific subjects.
unfortunately, everybody thought that the Natural Law Party were coke-snorting left-wing loonies. actually, Mr Maharishi just thought that the trampoline guy was a hoot, so they didn't take him out of the Party Political Broadcasts ohh dearie me... :)
Re:No, it would not work (Score:5, Insightful)
No, often it really is just stupidity. People are happy to clamour for something without even thinking it through. They are happy to argue to the death for something based on knee-jerk reactions. That's not a lack of domain knowledge, that's just stupidity.
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.
Re: (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 ma
Re: (Score:3)
At the end of the day, the people put in place to determine qualifications would be the ruling party.
Re: (Score:3)
This proposal does not have any safeguards against the formation of intellectual aristocracies, (it does not enable permeability of social strata. Specific fields of study could be controlled to prevent the rest of the public becoming informed, and thus eligable to vote on the issues. Eg, concerning medicine, if med schools are run by doctors seeking self interest politically, and actively refuse admission to otherwise perfectly brilliant students, do this simply to intensify the power of their own votes.),
Re: (Score:3)
No, often it really is just stupidity. People are happy to clamour for something without even thinking it through. They are happy to argue to the death for something based on knee-jerk reactions. That's not a lack of domain knowledge, that's just stupidity.
Indeed. I live in a developing country that's about to accede to the WTO, against significant opposition from the grass roots. In today's paper was an article about how the WTO is bad for the US because jobs suddenly become globalised. Yeah, they move into developing countries like ours.
In effect, the editorial was stating that we should oppose the WTO because it creates local employment.
Re: (Score:3)
No, often it really is just stupidity. People are happy to clamour for something without even thinking it through. They are happy to argue to the death for something based on knee-jerk reactions. That's not a lack of domain knowledge, that's just stupidity.
Actually quite often it is the person making the accusation who is an idiot for failing to understand why people act the way they do. A classic example was the story about Italy voting not to build new nuclear power stations a few months back. Several commentators launched into tirade about how stupid all the sheeple are with their knee-jerk reaction to Fukushima and unjustified fear of nuclear power. That completely missed the real reason they rejected it: the guy proposing it was a crook and they didn't w
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that people are stupid, it's that people may not have a complete education in given subjects.
That, and the fact that many believe they know the subject without knowing makes the perfect reason for the "wouldn't work".
This reasoning, however, doesn't imply that the opinions of many shouldn't be listened and taken into account for legislation (based on some quorum that is). Overall, I'd assume that respecting the X% of the population (where X is a fairly low number) should be a goal for the government.
Then again, I don't know about the topic and I'm talking about it, so most likely I'm making s
Re: (Score:3)
Overall, I'd assume that respecting the X% of the population (where X is a fairly low number) should be a goal for the government.
Well, they've accomplished that. And it's a wonderfully low X, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not that people are stupid, it's that people may not have a complete education in given subjects.
No.
"Not having a complete education" != stupid.
"Not having a complete education but still thinking you know more than somebody that did have a complete education" == stupid.
"Not having a complete education and using the knowledge of somebody that did have a complete education" == smart.
(Obviously talking about specific subjects of education, not general education).
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but I don't want to spend my day mulling over issues that may or may not have any impact on my day.
The republic is pretty bad. Its only merit is that it's better than any other system so far.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought you were referring to the Republic as a meritocracy.
in the end, it's all a popularity contest. I mean, who do you think should have more merit when it comes to say, medicine - Dean Edell or Deepak Chopra? Why is your opinion more important than anyone else's?
Re:No, it would not work (Score:5, Insightful)
When the banks turn around and foreclose on them because they, along with hundreds of thousands of others can't meet these loans, let alone in unfavourable conditions, they all turn around and say it was a bad decision.
An interesting approach would be to rate decision makers who voted against the idea in the first place to get a future higher rating. This approach might provide a good average between the broad stroked autocracy which has an agenda, and democratic process, holding that agenda in check. If voting is not a cyclical, and arbitrary thing, the cycles of appeasing voters will hopefully come to an end.
Re:No, it would not work (Score:5, Informative)
You realize that there are many people who can't meet loans because they've lost their jobs?
Also, there was *a lot* of fraud in the no-income-verification home loans. Not just by borrowers, but by mortgage brokers who knew the system and intentionally gamed it, representing to banks that borrowers had income X and representing to borrowers that documents Y covered the loan they had discussed and just to sign them.
Re: (Score:2)
Is a meritocracy not capitalism?
Re: (Score:2)
no, a meritocracy is when it's about the most competent one is the right person for the job.
I knew a guy who I worked with, brilliant coder and amazingly bright guy. Didn't give a shit about how much he made, just as long as he could get by.
Aside from making a living, not everyone who's passionate and skilled at something is necessarily in it for the money, or would the money even matter.
Re: (Score:2)
This guy would fare no better in a meritocracy. Someone needs to choose the meritorious. And if it's not the market (voting with one's money is far more accurate measure of merit than one-man-one-vote), it falls to a nameless administrator to make that determination.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, if you are employing this indivual to screw a bolt into a hole. But a UI designer, say, for the iPhone isn't a place you want to skimp on labor costs.
Re: (Score:3)
that distinction comes down to a matter of using the right metrics. capitalism approaches your idea of meritocracy when the metrics are well thought out and long-term.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and there's a further difference between these two and a representative democracy where we democratically elect people we trust to spend the time necessary to understand any given issue. Some really smart people came up with this idea a couple of hundred years ago and it's still a good idea today.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that they failed to see that in the future some really fucking stupid people would vote for even fucking stupider people to purposefully create gridlock and ignore the needs of the people.
But, there isn't really anyway around that as Democracy is the worst form of government except all the other ones.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole point of the us system is gridlock and not to have laws Passed on emotion. Aka patriot act and sox
Re: (Score:2)
How do we get meritocracy, though? Self-organizing doesn't seem to work, with Wikipedia being a case in point.
Re: (Score:3)
This is true. I walked by the OWS thing in manhattan last week. There were placards up that you'd expect - "Wall street stole my retirement" and other protests against wall street, then some about the 1%, and some against capitalism itself. Then there were a bunch of (chinese-looking) people holding signs urging everyone to boycott china, and it went weirder from there.
Also it's not really on Wall St any more.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
ladyboys
While I agree with your point... ugh. Please use a more civil term, such as "transgendered". Not only is that somewhat offensive to male-to-female transgendered people, it basically disregards the existence of female-to-male transfolk.
But, yeah, most people are stupid and really shouldn't be making decisions that impact an entire country. Wanna know what should be done? Put the country in the hands of intelligent, altruistic, understanding people.
Of course, good luck selecting people that actually fit those
Re: (Score:2)
Not only is that somewhat offensive to male-to-female transgendered people, it basically disregards the existence of female-to-male transfolk.
I notice you didn't mention the robot-to-vehicle and robot-to-consumer-product transfolk. Bigot.
(I didn't mention the robot-to-dinosaur or robot-to-city transfolk because they are sparkless abominations.)
Re: (Score:2)
The main reason being that people in general are stupid.
You could have stopped right there.
Personnally, I have nothing against people and wouldn't call them stupid to their face, but there's a staggering number of people who really, really liked what a certain few former governors had to say, so they were elected. These would prove to be very regretable choices for the electorate as their state governments lost oppotrunity while times were relatively good and set them up for greater difficulty down the road.
Watching the economic events in Greece and Italy, ther
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why a better system is a meritocracy. But now combine that with Google's Pagerank, where people who are voted by other people generally have more 'weight' to a policy's outcome, even if anyone can influence it. There'd be no government, but the public isn't treated equally. It'd be like the perfect balance between a "the public make the choices" system, and "government knows best".
That would be the basic premise, although you could expand upon this by voting for someone's particular 'skill area' ra
Re: (Score:3)
The main reason being that people in general are stupid.
Generally people are stupid, and well meaning. I'll take my chances with stupid and well meaning over devious and self-serving any day.
Direct, 100% democracy also leads to huge problems for minorities.
There's nothing about representation that protects minorities. That's constitutional limitations, which we need to get back to respecting.
Representation can actually make things worse for minorities. For example, if you have a racist party and a modera
Stupid is as stupid does. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, wouldn't half of the people be dumber than the "median" person?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Even if everyone were geniuses, it's also a time-sink.
Which is why a direct democracy that depends on you voting in every vote is fairly flawed. That doesn't lead to mob rule, it leads to flash mob rule and victory by attrition. A good direct democracy should let you take stances, that yes I'm opposed to his now just like the last ten times we voted on something like that. It should also let you choose representatives, like I trust $person or $party to be an expert in this area and I'll let him/them represent me. But unlike now that you can withdraw that suppo
Re: (Score:2)
The main reason being that people in general are stupid
Exactly right. Here in British Columbia, Canada, we recently had a referendum on changes to our consumption tax. Every economics expert under the sun, from all political spectrums, argued that the new tax was better for the economy. Yet the referendum was defeated as the electorate flocked to a charismatic ex-politician who opposed it for grandstanding reasons - Others voted no because they were angry at a different (ex) politician who brought in th
Opposing VAT/GST stupid? (Score:3)
Every economics expert under the sun, from all political spectrums, argued that the new tax was better for the economy.
Right because the news media equally represented the opinions of every economics expert under the sun, and they all agreed...
Firstly, there is no policy upon which all economists agree. If the news gave you the impression that there was, then you are guillible. Especially in the case of consumption tax, there are many experts who view it as an unfair tax as it is a (relatively) flat tax meaning that the wealthier pay comparatively less of their income than lower income citizens, and corporations pay almost
Re:No, it would not work (Score:4, Insightful)
The majority of people, in general, are not as stupid as you may think (usually only about a third of them).
Looking at currently established direct 100% democracies, most of them:
* agree (democratically) to limit their own rights to put human rights on top (other than say the US that doesn't really care about them)
* often priorize education very highly (as opposed to e.g. military expenses)
* are politically very stable (middle ground, instead of back and forth between extreme positions)
* are economically very stable (even these days)
* have almost no strikes
* sometimes even agree to increase taxes (yes, they can essentially vote on how much taxes they want to pay)
* have low unemployment rates
* do not start any wars or threat other countries (seek diplomatic solutions and cooperation instead)
Re: (Score:2)
Please show your data.
Re: (Score:2)
Could you do the discussion a favor and enumerate these direct democracies?
Enter the Gaussian (Score:3)
Let me introduce you to our friend, the IQ gaussian. It's a very interesting concept. A very large, statistically speaking, pool of individuals take a test designed, as best we can, to quantify intelligence as a single number called IQ, or "Intelligence Quotient."
The scores of everyone, graphed, always, and I mean always, come out as a bell curve, or Gaussian curve [wikipedia.org]; then the scores are adjusted so th
Re:No, it would not work (Score:4, Insightful)
"rich" people (those who actually create jobs and make things happen)
PfffhahaHAWHAWheohoohoohaaHAAAAAAA! You had me until there, bro!
At least your first paragraph is right, though. You can expect to see real mob justice after all those disgruntled soldiers and Marines come back from the sandbox with PTSD and no jobs to support themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The main reason being that people in general are stupid.
So why should I listen to anything you have to say?
Re: (Score:3)
Because, you see, everyone *else* is stupid... except him and anyone who agrees with whatever his 31 ideological flavors are.
Welcome to Slashdot!
Re: (Score:2)
Another problem is that a certain percentage of people will always vote for a certain thing or issue. There are Democrats who will never not vote Democratic, Republicans that will never not vote Republican, and special interest people who will always vote on abortion, gay rights, environmentalism, racism, etc. (either way). You could have the perfectly seasoned and educated candidate, but if a female non-white/Jewish & had a stance on abortion (either way), gay rights (either way), and had strong op
Re: (Score:2)
The main reason being that people in general are stupid.
And yet, somehow, Wikipedia works.
Re: (Score:3)
The main reason being that people in general are stupid.
You left out selfish and shortsighted.
I live in California, which has lots of direct democracy: initiative, recall, etc. If you want a perfect demonstration of what's wrong with too much direct democracy, California is it.
We have one of the longest constitutions in the world, and one of the reasons is that initiatives are often written as constitutional amendments. A particular problem is all the constitutional stuff that requires that a certain amount of tax revenue be given to certain purposes, combined w
Stupidity irrelevant to direct democracy (Score:3)
No, it would not work
The main reason being that people in general are stupid
This is your main reason? With intelligence being controlled by numerous genes and being normally distributed? You have evidence that there is some special intelligence cutoff that we need to move to direct democracy? I doubt you have even bothered to think about it.
In any case, you're argument is absolutely insufficient. You also need to show that:
1) Politicians as a class are less stupid than the general population. Many would agr
Re: (Score:3)
Direct, 100% democracy also leads to huge problems for minorities.
I believe the term you are looking for is "the tyranny of the majority". I like the direct democracy idea, but have no idea how to "fix" this issue. Its not like representative democracy doesn't also have this problem either.
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube comments. QED.
I wonder how much useful legislation would include LOL, STFU or WTF.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why we have a Republic, not a Democracy.
And yet, sufficient people within the Republic have seen their way to electing a leader (2001-2009) who increased spending, decreased revenue, didn't oversee energy trading, was blind to the hurricane, engaged in war on two fronts and overlooked a financial sector run amok. People even venerate this leader and blame the ills of the economy and country on his successor. People aren't stupid, but they are certainly prone to spells of madness.
No, it won't work (Score:5, Insightful)
People who actually have jobs and a life will be under represented as the people who have nothing better to do besides sit around and watch TV would be over represented.
Over time democracies degenerate into mob rule. A constitutional republic -- the constitution to protect individual rights, republic to pick someone to represent you -- is much preferred.
Re: (Score:3)
I had mod points, but....
How can you say it won't work when we have not even scratched the surface of what crowd-sourced democracy could look like.
Just to suggest an idea that keeps coming popping up in my mind recently: here on Slashdot, we constantly survey what threatens the Internet as we invented it and we see that much power is exercised covertly through the actual writing of legislation, a process which often find our representatives complaining that they don't have the occasion or actual time to inf
Re: (Score:3)
You really want to know? Ok, you have a brand new house. You need to wire it. You have two choices. You can hire some random person to do it, let's say a cook from McDonald's who knows absolutely nothing about electricity except that the light comes on when he flicks a switch, or you can hire an electrician, familiar with electricity, insulation, keeping wires away from the sides of wal
Re: (Score:3)
No. They don't. In fact, that's one of the most ridiculous assertions I've heard in some time.
Religion: 90% of the US population is either deluded or deceptive. Healthcare: 40% of the US population doesn't have any. Wars: We've recently been active on multiple fronts -- Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan -- not even one of them justifiable. Constitution: outright chaotic disobedience at the executive, congressional an
Re: (Score:3)
People who actually have jobs and a life will be under represented as the people who have nothing better to do besides sit around and watch TV would be over represented.
Yup. I've always been in favor of moving elections from Tuesdays to all weekend. Think a few election returns would be different if the playing field weren't blatantly slanted against the employed?*
*For the pedantic, yes, I know some people work at other times, but the majority of working people work during working hours.
Re:No, it won't work (Score:4, Insightful)
However, it's not impossible to envision a direct democracy that moderates the group-think and trolling in a way similar to Slashdot(although considerably more sophisticated).
How much time is currently wasted on Slashdot reading and responding to these types of posts? Now we're going to include everyone and get everyone's opinion -- and the stakes are going to go way up. Currently if I ignore a post, who cares, I may or may not have influence one other person's thinking. If it's direct democracy, now I have someone raising my taxes or slashing important services (depending on which group is currently glued to the system).
Also, If your system had a way to establish a persons credibility on a particular subject, they're input might be "weighted" above the uninformed masses.
So now we're officially going to be controlled by unelected elitist just because they have high karma points.
In contrast, a strict republic inherently marginalizes *everyone* except for a select few representatives. Then the problem becomes that your representatives are "package-deals" who may or may not represent your interests(usually not).
I don't know anyone who's stated that the current system is perfect -- just better than alternatives (or at least the alternatives proposed).
A republic by itself is insufficient -- the elected government will fleece the people. The constitution -- deliberately designed to limit what the elected officials can do -- is required to protect the people from the ruling class.
The question is essentially, do we start from a point where we listen to everyone except for a select few?
What select few are you offering to not listen to? People who work for a living and have a life outside of work?
Or, do we listen to everyone and slowly add in controls and balances as they become apparent?
You can already have your say -- on the internet, newspapers, anywhere you can scrawl your name. In California, they even have a ballot initiative process so that you and your buddies can [try to] pass any law you want (as long is it passes constitutional muster).
But that does bring up an interesting point. Back before the 2008 (or 2010?) elections, a reporter on NPR was interviewing someone from Washington state regarding ballot initiatives. The reporter noted that every state with a ballot initiative process (the most direct democracy we currently have) is in financial difficulties.
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: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Given such a process I am not sure the voting rights act of 1965 would have survived. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
But with education and a general shift in attitude towards equality for all peoples ...
And there is the fatal flaw in the approach.
Re: (Score:2)
going with the majority teaches both the majority and the minority not to ever go with the majority, ever again. "the majority" is, by definition, "the median". i.e. *lower* than the "max". whoops.... john major's "classless society" and destroying the polytechnic system... he should have been strung up for that, but whoops, you can't do that either because he was... yep, voted in by a "majority"... *shakes head*...
The question reveals profound shallowness (Score:4, Insightful)
It confuses technological means with good governance. As others have mentioned upthread, the major consideration of mob rule is no different than without technology. Read your Federalist Papers, then get back to me.
Look at California (Score:3, Insightful)
California is almost a "direct-democracy" due to the large number of ballot measures voted on by the public. California is a disaster. Direct democracy doesn't work because people are not fully educated on all the issues and to become fully educated would take away from their time spent doing other, more interesting activities.
Re: (Score:2)
It'll work great! (Score:5, Funny)
Pollster: Hey, you!
Guy: Huh?
P: What do you do?
G: I have a Master's degree in puppetry.
P: Wow! That's... a thing!
G: Thanks!
P: So how do you think the Global Economic Steering Committee should plan for the next 5 years? Should they continue to implement the existing computable general equilibrium models or switch over to the new Klein-Mobius models that have arisen from the joint econometric project at MIT and Oxford?
G: Um. Wait, what was that about a joint?
P: Do you feel the current IS/LM techniques are effectively pushing both the local and global economic realities toward the general equilibrium point, or is the locus of points generated by the algorithms simply not reflecting actual market trends?
G: Did you say lotus? I can do the lotus position.
P: Is there someone else here we can talk to?
Re:It'll work great! (Score:5, Insightful)
Pollster: Hey, you!
Guy: Huh?
P: What do you do?
G: I have a Master's degree in puppetry.
P: Wow! That's... a thing!
G: Thanks!
P: So how do you think the Global Economic Steering Committee should plan for the next 5 years? Should they continue to implement the existing computable general equilibrium models or switch over to the new Klein-Mobius models that have arisen from the joint econometric project at MIT and Oxford?
G: Um. Wait, what was that about a joint?
P: Do you feel the current IS/LM techniques are effectively pushing both the local and global economic realities toward the general equilibrium point, or is the locus of points generated by the algorithms simply not reflecting actual market trends?
G: Did you say lotus? I can do the lotus position.
P: Is there someone else here we can talk to?
Amusing, but more likely scenario:
Pollster: Hey you!
Guy: Me?
P: Yes, what you you think about cutting spending?
G: It's great, I'm all for it!
P: Where should we cut? Arts, Medicine, Defence, Research, Social Programs or Education?
G: Anything which doesn't directly affect me.
Trial and Error (Score:2)
It could work, as long as sunset clauses are built into all resulting legislation in case something doesn't work out as well as planned. There's nothing worse than a bad law that can't easily be repealed, and this difficulty also prevents good laws from having a chance at being passed.
Funny You Should Mention "Repeal" (Score:3)
The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 (Gramm-Leach-Bliley) [wikipedia.org],
The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 [wikipedia.org], and
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 [wikipedia.org]
If there is a single thing that would prevent another economic collapse in the future, it is the immediate repeal of those three acts.
99 44/100% pure! (Score:2)
Trouble is, it's easy to criticize the physical occupiers for being unrepresentative of the general population
Yeah, well, that's going to happen when you claim to represent 99% of the population. It's easy because it's true.
Re: (Score:2)
Constitution (Score:4, Insightful)
This would only work if there were a constitution that specifically sets out to protect people so that the majority cannot vote in laws that initiate harm against someone else. One man should not be allowed to vote away the freedoms of another.
Re: (Score:3)
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...
Status quo must go (Score:2)
Occupy is the worst possible model to use (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it wouldn't work, and I'll tell you why, based on the very source of the debate: the "occupy" movement. First off, what do they stand for? Go to one of these protests and start asking people why they're there and what they want, most of them will give you different answers. Of the answers that are similar, most of them will be so vague and generic as to be almost useless. The rest will cover so wide a range as to make it almost impossible to find some sort of middle ground or consensus. The issue of consensus-making is hard enough in a representative system (needs either party-line voting or coalition voting to happen). And this is in the rather limited population of elected representatives. The problem is greatly compounded when the number of voters goes from a couple hundred to a couple thousand; while direct democracy would involve millions. At the same time, elected representatives are supposed to be specialists; theoretically they should have the time to research and evaluate issues up for vote before they cast their votes. Currently they have huge staffs and are still overwhelmed when it comes to knowledge of what they are voting for. How do you expect a person who is working 40 hours a week, raising a family, etc going to find the time to do his due diligence and research and think about the issues, ethics, and ramifications around one potential vote, much less all the others he would have to do? It would lead to massively irresponsible voting, simply because people would be overwhelmed.
Another problem with this is that everyone can tell you what the problem is, and how they think it should be fixed, but none of them can give a practical way to obtain that fix. Ask them if they want free healthcare, or free college tuition, and they will say yes. Ask them if they would be willing to pay 30-40-50% or higher taxes for this, and they will probably say "no, I don't make enough money. The people who make over $250,000 should pay for most of that." Ask them, and they will say "the people who make over $1,000,000 a year should pay for it". And really, when you are getting into tax rates of 50-60-70%, it actually becomes cheaper for you to pay for those things yourself. What they suggest either doesn't fix the problem, or causes far more problems than it fixes. There is also the inherent need to "stick it" to someone, or to come out ahead over someone. People are perfectly happy to have stuff given to them, but they are far less willing to give things up for others. They all want to pass the buck to someone better off than them.
I know what I am about to say will get me modded down, but I'm going to (mis)quote Heinlein anyway: "when you vote the impossible, the disastrous possible happens instead." The few times that any majoritarian consensus is achieved, it will slightly benefit those it favors, and substantially damage those it doesn't.
tl;dr: It won't work because the numbers are simply too big, and ignoring that hurdle what policies could pass would themselves be either so impossible to fulfill or so unequal (due to the naivete/ignorance of governance or selfishness of the voters) that they would have consequences much worse than what we are facing today.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 (Gramm-Leach-Bliley) [wikipedia.org],
The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 [wikipedia.org], and
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 [wikipedia.org]
If there is a single thing that would prevent another economic collapse in the future, it is the immediate repeal of those three acts.
You can start by signing a petition [signon.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (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 s
Re: (Score:3)
Please read my response to the OP. It has the OFFICIAL STATEMENT of OWS in it.
You argue like Bill O'Reilly. You just put 100 million people in a group and said they haven't examined what they stand for.
A little humility, where you quit acting like you're smarter than 100 million people, might serve you some good.
Oh, it's on a web page, it must be true!
Now watch the various interviews that have been held with OWS squatters. Wait for the question, "Why are you here?" Tell me how many people come up with anything close to that statement.
Aristotle Said It Best (Score:5, Insightful)
"Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms."
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I am Swiss. Here the direct democracies is in place since a long time an work pretty well. If you bother to learn a bit about the Switzerland politic you will find that the direct democracies is fare from unworkable.
I observe that a lot of people that only think about the theoretical process of the direct democracies found hard to believe that it work. Some care must be taken here when comparing to the Swiss politic system. Direct democracies here don't work alone. There is a bunch of others features
Garbage In, Garbage Out (Score:2)
Voters who are baffled or bamboozled can't effectively run a country. The best they can do is hold beauty pageants and popularity contests.
Re: (Score:2)
Voters who are baffled or bamboozled can't effectively run a country.
Can they elect representatives who can effectively run a country, though? Our actual track record is not exactly stellar on that count.
No, it cannot work. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, direct democracy cannot work, and the Occupy movement is a perfect example of why not. The occupiers aren't even able to govern themselves. Witness the unsanitary conditions and crime in any of the camps.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
They couldn't even get enough dough from Soros for porta-potty and dumpster service? Pitiful indeed.
Re: (Score:3)
Switzerland experiments (Score:5, Informative)
Part of many country problem is to give too much power to a very small group of people. I live in Switzerland, where proportional representation, direct democracy, constitutional initiative and referendum are in place since a long time. Those "politic tools" tends to give back some government controls to the citizens, effectively making harder for a small but powerful entity to impose his view alone. Citizens are more concerned and informed about the politic process and get very often the responsibility to vote on almost any changes of the constitution. That way, the citizen tend to think as a part of the nation, not as a supporter or opponent to an elected majority.
This is very observable in the media. Most country new is only about what the citizens will face after government decisions or about election of the next government (if not only the president). Here, the citizen actions are more visible. It's usual to vote to choose between constitution changes proposed by the government or by a group of citizens. This bring some pressure to the politics to present acceptable changes.
"Crowd-sourced democracy"? Sheesh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because you use the latest buzz-phrases in an attempt to reframe it doesn't change the picture: it's still what Jefferson and others described as the tyranny of the majority and went to considerable lengths to restrain when they devised our form of government. A rose is still a rose by any other name and all that. There are certain things that should be inalienable rights, that not even a majority should be able to take away from minorities with a vote. Your "crowd-sourced democracy" would allow that to happen.
Read up on tyranny of the majority, and then you'll understand why your re-branded crowd-sourced democracy is the same thing and just as un-egalitarian.
True democracy is theoretically impossible (Score:3)
The short of it: individual preferences cannot be aggregated in a meaningful way without paradoxes. Most reasonable people would find unacceptable that any of the listed criteria should be violated, yet there is no way around this. And so, democracy can't work even in theory, let alone in practice.
From what's left, I figure non-dictatorship is the criterium I'm most willing to let go, assuming we can (in the future) specially breed and raise a group from which to choose reliably benevolent dictators who will exercise the minimum influence needed to make the system work..
Re: (Score:2)
Sign [signon.org]
Re: (Score:3)
It's okay to make sure that majority doesn't trample minorities, but the problem with the present system is that it evolved into a tool for minorities to trample the majority, while defending themselves by claiming that, after all, there was a public vote, so they clearly have a mandate.
Yes, we should learn from historic experience of "mob rule" in Ancient Greek polises. But we should also learn from our own experience with representative democracy. Right now, I'm not sure if either system really has any co
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, in the past they've usually used either race or a informal poll of whom you intend to vote for.
Re: (Score:3)
Although it strikes as "ad hominemism", the phrase "consider the source" comes to mind. If a failure gives me advice, I'm likely to think "His advice led him to where he is, so it's likely not good advice." Given that the "Occupiers" are suffering from fleas, lice, STDs, and failure to meet normal standards of sanitation, a wise person looks to other places for advice.
When a person chooses to live in a subhuman manner, it is that person who "dehumanizes" himself, not his critic.