democratic reforms: direct election

[Az]

You'll have to send your personal code with it, that would be verified against the central computer database.

Btw, good job stealing ONE voice in a handful of votes. This still represents a massive improvement over the current system - and even now, identity theft as a factor in elections is negligible.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Az
Direct Democracy can work through technology. Just imagine everyone carrying an always-online palm computer, onto which the questions will be SMSed.

It works about just as well with the internet or with some TV-technology.

Basically, the technological potential is there, and in the case of Scandinavia and the US, the spread of the technology is sufficient already so that nearly everybody could access the "electronic democracy".

The problem is not a technological one. The problem comes from the fact that a full-time job isn't enough to give an informed vote about all issues. If you look at a Parliament, most MPs vote along party lines, or according to some colleague they trust that has worked on the matter. Citizens, who have other things to do than politics, will vote even more by trusting party lines, or the lines of some politician.

Besides, those who would bother to vote at all with the needed regularity would always be the same: the politically active, who overwhelmingly come from a class of well-educated people. And the post-materialists, who give a particular importance to their voice being heard (they also overwhelmingly come from the ranks of the educated)

[C0ckney]

az, much as i hate to make a serious post it's a nice idea in principle but in practice the drawbacks others have mentioned far outweigh the benefits.

[GePap]

Electing the heads of the burocracies is a terrible idea. Elect legislators all you want, since those that make the law and control the purse have the power, but keep the mangy hands of the masses out of the daily running of departments, and out of the courts too.

[Az]

az, much as i hate to make a serious post it's a nice idea in principle but in practice the drawbacks others have mentioned far outweigh the benefits.

Now now, that's the same thing they said about democracy. And any social benefits you're enjoying.

How about real arguments?

Besides, those who would bother to vote at all with the needed regularity would always be the same: the politically active, who overwhelmingly come from a class of well-educated people. And the post-materialists, who give a particular importance to their voice being heard (they also overwhelmingly come from the ranks of the educated)

Oh, dear god, the educated will vote more!!!!!

There are always groups that vote more - it's the nature of having non-compulsory voting.

[C0ckney]

what's not 'real' about pitiful turnouts and turning people off politics even more than they are at present?

[Az]

what pitiful turnouts? all they have to do is to look at their ****ing palm.

[C0ckney]

oh good grief, i didn't know you were talking about your pie in the sky future

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Az
Oh, dear god, the educated will vote more!!!!!

There are always groups that vote more - it's the nature of having non-compulsory voting.

Yes, but there's a world of difference between systems with 50-70% participation, in which the educated are slightly overrepresented, and systems with 20% participation, in which the educated are about the only one who vote.

Democracy is the government by the people. If you are in a democracy that requires such effort that it is unrealistic that most people participate, then you can forget about the "demo" part.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for more frequent elections, especially I favour issue related votes (i.e. referenda). However, the perpetual referendum that you're envisioning is not good for representation IMO. I think the Swiss model is the best one, because it's not all policy that is decided by referenda, but the most significant ones. But even then, I think Switzerland might benefit from having fewer referenda than it currently has (too damn low participation in so many of them).

[C0ckney]

but they could do it now, with mobile phones, but i don't think many are going to txt in to vote in 'minister of silly walks idol'.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Az
what pitiful turnouts? all they have to do is to look at their ****ing palm.

Err, if they are to vote with their mind, rather than on a whim, they also have to inform themselves about the issue, or at least about the positions of the talking heads they trust.

And when you have dozens of votes a day, trust me, it's quite a hassle for the average dishwasher.

[Az]

why a dosen? one or two a day. We could also enter an element of polling into this, i.e. not everyone would vote on everything, but that a certain percentage of people will be randomly chosen, and vote on the subject. ( and stop telling me about unaccurate representation, because electing some guy, or even worse, SOME PARTY, every 4 years to make those decisions for you is far far far worse )

[GePap]

Why is it worse, when most of the time the person on the street has not even the slighest clue about the true elements involved?

At least someone who has legislative experience has a better clue, if not always a great clue, about what is going on. God help us if the imbeciles on the street made every decision, and this is form someone who saw the immbeciles in a legislature at work as well. The "man on the street" angle is worse.

And yes, I am an elitist. If I won't let just anyone fix my computer, why is governance any different?

[Az]

because "governance" isn't some sort of service you buy, you silly american *****. Otherwise, Best choice would be to incorporate government all together, and hold competitive tenders on governance,people who won't stand the terms of their tender, will be sued, or something.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Az
why a dosen? one or two a day. We could also enter an element of polling into this, i.e. not everyone would vote on everything, but that a certain percentage of people will be randomly chosen, and vote on the subject. ( and stop telling me about unaccurate representation, because electing some guy, or even worse, SOME PARTY, every 4 years to make those decisions for you is far far far worse )

That's intriguing, but good luck making this process look legitimate in the eyes of someone who is used to elections where everybody has the right to vote.