Stalin and the Struggle for Democratic Reform

[Lord Avalon]

Originally posted by Az
Direct democracy has a very nice tendency to work. It worked in Israel. still does in some places. Large scale attempts have NEVER been made.

Worked in Israel? Where parties with only 1 member in the Knesset get a level of power disproportionate to their representation because of their ability to make or break a coalition?

[Az]

I was talking about the Kibbutzim, as small communities with direct democracy. as I've stated, no attempts at direct democracy have been made yet.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Az

Yep accountable only to the extent that they seek election or re-election. Face it the continuum of voting with dollars makes accountability much more timely and automatic rather then the discontinuity and at best minimal accountability having every x years representatives having to pay lip service to their constituency. (which by its nature is certainly not a homogeneous customer with homogeneous demand needs)

And here's where direct democracy comes in.

Only instead of "voting with dollars", which is, of course, completely undemocratic, you're voting with, you know, votes.

Actually it is much less equitable and dangerous.

Take for example the decision being made are a one vote per person kindof vote (or even a number of votes given per citizen). That vote represents only that individuals need but in no way intelligently describes the quantity that person needs.

The decision lies to make vaccines or insulin. 2 people are diabetic whilst 80 people want vaccines. The production planning algorythm skews heavily to vaccines while leaving the diabetics incapable of sourcing needed quantitties of insulin even if they could pay the extra amount for it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Az
I was talking about the Kibbutzim, as small communities with direct democracy. as I've stated, no attempts at direct democracy have been made yet.

small. (the largest was about 800 right?) Homogeneous. New members carefully vetted. Members born there carefully indoctrinated Intense social pressures. Etc, etc.

And even the kibbutzim, when they developed industries employing outsiders, adopted a quasi-capitalist approach - paid wages, and didnt let employees vote on management (though IIUC they did encourage some degree of ownership)

When youve got anything larger or more complex to manage, the "bandwidth" burden of direct democracy quickly becomes excessive.

[Az]

Members born there carefully indoctrinated

As to the kibbutzim and the model you've described, they're not socialist anymore.

When youve got anything larger or more complex to manage, the "bandwidth" burden of direct democracy quickly becomes excessive.

Are you referring to the fact there are much more desicisons to be made? yes, that's true. So let's make less people vote - having randomly selected a certain percentage, distributing these things. Plus, there still will be a government, and an executive.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Az]whatever dude. If this is your best comeback, might as well save up on electronic ink.[/q]



If you think that "voting with votes" is going to result in a more accountable politician than "voting with dollars", then you are deluding yourself. They'll just do whatever they can to stay in power (as most politicians, from what I've seen, are more interested in power than money). If that requires secret deals, then that's what'll happen.

[Az]

If you think that "voting with votes" is going to result in a more accountable politician than "voting with dollars", then you are deluding yourself.

I didn't say that. re-read.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I'm presupposing a representative-less type of direct democracy is what Az is presenting. The issue as LotM describes is that the shear volume of decisions required by these citizens would prevent the general citizenry from doing anything other than vote with their votes In most likely a most uninformed way (worse IMO than the uninformed voting for representatives today). Likely scenarios would be all types of product advocacy groups making the advertising businesses of today look downright saintly in comparison as the stakes are much greater and hence the corruption as well.

[Arrian]

Az says there will still be a government. So I would guess he's got some sort of limits on the direct part of direct democracy...

-Arrian

[Az]

The only limit should be what is plausible with current technology and way of life. What I am saying is of importance not only to socialism, but to any society that strives for democracy: The representatives in parliament are just that - OUR reps. They're surrogates to our vote. That is the only reason they are there - you couldn't govern a country if you had to assemble constantly from different parts of the land the representatives of the people. Well, now, WE CAN. If we can minimize their role, or dispense with them, we should. It is my firm belief that with our current technology we can minimize their role to the proposers of bills and constitutional ammendments, and the executive. In the states, they've taken the old role of the judge, and this has been the case for centuries, which brings me to my next point - We don't have to all vote for all the bills presented. Random polling, while less than completely accurate, will still paint a much closer picture of the reality of the people's wishes than the representative system.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I'm presupposing a representative-less type of direct democracy is what Az is presenting. The issue as LotM describes is that the shear volume of decisions required by these citizens would prevent the general citizenry from doing anything other than vote with their votes In most likely a most uninformed way (worse IMO than the uninformed voting for representatives today). Likely scenarios would be all types of product advocacy groups making the advertising businesses of today look downright saintly in comparison as the stakes are much greater and hence the corruption as well.

Bingo. Az, you basically did say it would result in more accountable politicians. The 'politicians' are your random select group. They'll vote for power. Things which will maximize them over others. If you think by randomizing you are going to dilute this, then you are mistaken. All that will happen is the major groupings will continue to vote for their own power and probably be told the best way by special interest groups engaging in secret deals with groups of people.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Az

Members born there carefully indoctrinated

As to the kibbutzim and the model you've described, they're not socialist anymore.

When youve got anything larger or more complex to manage, the "bandwidth" burden of direct democracy quickly becomes excessive.

Are you referring to the fact there are much more desicisons to be made? yes, that's true. So let's make less people vote - having randomly selected a certain percentage, distributing these things. Plus, there still will be a government, and an executive.

not just the number of decisions, but the degree of interaction among the decison makers. A kibbutz general meeting, like the athenian assembly, is a face to face, deliberateive body - people make speeches, confront each other, raise issues, amend proposals, form coalitions, make tradeoffs, etc. All the things that legislative bodies do. Which referenda dont do. a problem that isnt fixed by polling a representative sample.

Look we use referenda extensively in certain American states esp California. The problem isnt only lack of info and consequent reliance on paid propanda - its ALSO the absence of deliberation, and the need to give an up and down vote. Which puts incredible power into the hands of whoever frames the issue - words the referendum. Determines the sequence of choices in cases where there are more than one option. Theres an entire economics literature on the problems involved, Az. Anthony Downs is the name to google on. AFAIK few of the problems involved are resolved through technology.

oh, and Ken Arrow, of course

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem

and of course technology, even if it makes democratic decision making easier, also makes the price mechanism more efficient.


But you mention a mixed system. One that integrates perhaps improved referenda with a representative system. Well id take that one step further - integrate democracy with the price system. Where there are key tradeoffs to be made that the market CANT make - how to value greenhouse gas emissions vs economic growth, for example - use the new mechanisms for democratic decision making (but dont forget to integrate deliberative mechanisms that allow for tradeoffs, etc) where you have decisions that the market is good at (like what the price of a pound of Grade A Colombian coffee should be) use the market. Where you have different issues ( i want the market to determine the intensity of preference for different grades of coffee, but I want to express public will on the issue of improving the lives of Colombian peasants) find creative ways to integrate democratic decisions with the market.

[Az]

If you think by randomizing you are going to dilute this, then you are mistaken. All that will happen is the major groupings will continue to vote for their own power and probably be told the best way by special interest groups engaging in secret deals with groups of people.

Not if the decision on who votes or doesn't is made instantly, and the person has a relatively short time to vote, i.e. gets an e-mail on their palm of the proposition, reads it, has 10 minutes to confirm it, otherwise, another person is selected, again, at random. from confirmation, they have an hour to vote. Will people vote ideologically? yes, probably, even most certainly. But that's not a problem. I'd rather have them vote ideologically, than have politicians that vote on shady deals, pork etc.

With people voting, personally, after looking through relevant material on the web, for example, they'll be able to vote. They aren't bound by lobbying and backdoor alliances nearly as much as the people in parliament.

Bingo. Az, you basically did say it would result in more accountable politicians.

I was actually referring to the executive. If you mean the legislature, then yes, you're right.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Az
[I'd rather have them vote ideologically, than have politicians that vote on shady deals, pork etc.

With people voting, personally, after looking through relevant material on the web, for example, they'll be able to vote. They aren't bound by lobbying and backdoor alliances nearly as much as the people in parliament.

but backdoor alliances are good. Thats what makes possible tradeoffs, and makes it possible to weigh intensity of preferences. Thats what the market gives, and thats what democratic decision making by a legislative body does. What referenda doesnt.

You want people to vote on whether to rebuild ward ten in New Orleans based on ten minutes consideration? With no technical info - with no lobbying by the former residents? you want them to pick what kind of transportation system to build? How to regulate the internet? By ideology?

[lord of the mark]

see this also (Less technical than the piece on Ken Arrow)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice