Kicking out the politicians for good... A Pure Internet Democracy. Give us your best ideas

Thank you for reading... I promise to be brief.

I've been studying the economic decline of the US for 14 years. I've reached the most important conclusion of the root cause, which has by no coincidence toppled every civilization prior. Corruption is intrinsic within human nature, and degrades the mechanism of representing the interests of the "greater good" of the people as a whole.

As long as human representatives of the people hold positions of power, they will forever be corruptible. Please entertain an "un-corruptable" internet voting system, which most perfectly represents the will of the people --> from vote tally to direct implementation - without corruptible human representatives. It has a flaw - it is only as good, that the people using it, are educated on issues in which they vote. Therefore I submit that an educated populace is central to the success of such an automated government.

Given much thought, I have realized that the technology which provides automated representation also presents a solution to educate the population. You have witnessed many opinions, political discussions, and debates on issues right here in this forum, and youTube. I would like you to consider, that for every resolution presented for voting by this system, could have a similar format to an ATS, or youTube, grouped by threads for each issue voted upon. These opinions could also be voted up or down similar to the number of stars of threads in this forum.

Finally, as a matter of execution, a bidding process could be used to carry out the work to implement these solutions - or perhaps many of you could suggest a better approach.

Thank you for reading, I'd like to get the best ideas from everyone for a test run in several currently existing organizations, and further expansion into a real world scenario.

Let the discussion begin.

I'd ask one question before going further. How do we reach a state of educated citizens to participate?

No sarcasm intended at all. We see it from man on the street interviews, to almost any stat number which measures literacy on general knowledge that matters in this context. I see it in the opinions and chat coming out of people at school and the profound difference between those just up from high school and those in mid life. Com College has plenty of both and it's a startling thing to see at times.

I don't suggest anyone is stupid, either, but when schools give no real priority to civics or social studies beyond 1 chapter coverage of whole time periods? Well..how deep can folks be expected to be on knowledge?

Back to the biggie though...... How do we realistically correct that for a direct participation system to have any success?

Originally posted by wrabbit2000
I'd ask one question before going further. How do we reach a state of educated citizens to participate?

Well, we educate them!

It's no coincidence that our education in political manners is the most limited possible, they want the general populace to not really understand and care about it.

reply to post by ATS4dummies


The best real vote is action.

Vote by participation.

The internet informs the individual as to how to best spend their available time and money.

reply to post by ATS4dummies


I have thought many times to your ideas and I think that we should still elect representatives that hold 50% of the voting power on all votes, while the rest of the population gets the 50% left.

But yeah, with the internet, a little education about politics and a conscious collective mentality, we could definitively have direct democracy and make it work.

It's a fabulous question, and in short, I don't have a perfect answer, but just a reasonable suggestion.

An educated populace is highly demographic... right down to the zip code. Start there and build out the system as infrastructure provides an educational forum on each issue for population participation. Forums such as ATS or YouTube, coupled with a Star ratings system per post, would bridge the gap to a reasonable degree, would you agree?

You could also explore requiring a minimum educational level to vote - while admittedly controversial... think about it... Do we let anyone have a driver's license without first passing a drivers test? A direct voting system requires additional responsibility, and therefore why not additional minimum competency requirements?

These are not perfect solutions - we all know. But do I think we can we provide solutions to address them to a reasonable degree? I think so.

reply to post by ATS4dummies


Sorry, this idea sounds scary to me.

We know polls and votes are easily rigged, or in this case maybe even hacked.
Power has to be limited and decentralized. Constitutionally. Always. That's all that counts.
No matter if the power is hold by the mob or by representatives.

I do agree on the educating part though... but even "education" can become indoctrination via propaganda.

reply to post by theMediator


(cough) Yeah... I figured education would probably play a role in that somewhere. lol....

I mean, changing the schools is a start but changes today will take 10-15 years to work, literally, up into voting and participation age. Most people are too busy making ends meet and keeping everything turned on these days to take significant time for remedial education on their own time. I really mean it in a sincere way.

The OP has a good line of thought here and really, this is how our system now was supposed to be for educated voters making it work well. Apathy and lack of education is what's killed this one. How to correct the core problem before building a new system on it?

...... Perhaps a mandate (paid) for local schools/colleges to offer basic adult civics/government classes to all citizens who ask? That would be money well spent for taxpayers in a world of wasted pork...

This is what we have to lose by staying with the current, TOTALLY CORRUPT system we have today.

reply to post by ATS4dummies


Corruption could be thought of as distortion, in an strategic way of thinking.

Ludwig Von MIses pointed out that any hierarchical system will have a perception deficit. The decision makers can't know everything and many individuals options are truncated by one size fits all.

Although corruption is usually abusive, I think the basic lack of ability to process all pertinent information by the self-appointed deciders is the reason for inevitable ruin.

reply to post by ATS4dummies


Yea, I have ideas on digital voting but I do not care to share them right now.

reply to post by wrabbit2000

I'd ask one question before going further. How do we reach a state of educated citizens to participate?

Sadly and realistically, evolution will decide when and how the average person gets educated. Education on this scale, without bias, can only come by the voluntary energy, instinct or fetish of each person.

The elite have this state of living, or will have it first. Whether the average person of today will eventually achieve it depends on the survival of the little people into some sort of real independence.

What you all have said is true... But this is currently the problem with "Big Money" advertising and news networks. My counter to this is the shining *example* of the ATS forum educating all of us in ways we have difficulty finding elsewhere... Are we not all here because we get news and information not offered by the elite controlled communication channels? The internet seems to be the antidote to elite money and power, and government indoctrination of dumbed-down public schooling.

Asumming hacking is thwarted by an "open source" voting system of dedicated coders - open for all to see and examine, similar to Linux in it's inception, Transparancy of both information, governing systems, and a core of "exceptional" individuals to remain vigilant, and the rapid response of a direct voting system to quickly correct oversights, does the internet provide ideal solutions to all of these issues? I think it might.

My own thoughts are that anyone wanting presidential power is corrupt. I'll explain. We all make mistakes in our own lives which we have to live with and take responsibility for but we can forgive ourselves because these mistakes are our own and for the most part, only affect ourselves. A president, prime minister or member of government can make a mistake that can affect many others; It can leave them homeless, unemployed, or result in death. I cannot understand anyone wanting to take that responsibility for others unless it is for personal gain, and i don't think anyone should be given that power over other people. Therefore, i'd suggest that our elected representatives should be no more than public servants. They should be people whose responsibility is to act on the wishes of their constituents in a democratic way.

At present, things are upside down. As an example, i can spend months being selected for jury service for some-one who has stolen a car, yet i have no input whether my country goes to war, which could result in death and poverty for millions. I have to spend hours completing government census forms, yet i cannot have any information on certain government issues. I can help vote some-one into power on promises they've made, yet that person can then break those promises.

So i have a solution:

I live in the Chelmsford, UK. Chelmsford has a population of approx. 110,000 and the representative is Simon Burns, MP. In parliament, Mr Burns will vote on either what he wants or what he thinks his constituents want. In either of these scenario's, Mr Burns will be wrong more often than he's right. Therefore, i would propose that instead of Mr Burns using his own judgement on important matters, he should take a number of constituents and let their vote decide.

In theory, i would have 2 information sheets; One an argument for and the other against. He could randomly select 100 people, give them each a copy of each sheet and let them privately ballot. Each represented member of parliament could do the same. In this way, any bias would be eliminated and you would be guaranteed the true voice of the people. It would also increase the contentment of the population, safe in the knowledge that they weren't being misrepresented or being sold out for the greed of individuals.

reply to post by ATS4dummies


No democracy. Majority rule is tyrannical. If you are going to use a system of voting, a decision should only go into motion if the votes are unanimous for or against.

I'm sure you agree, statistically speaking, a unanimous consensus rarely happens - and is thereby counterproductive.

I believe the founding fathers of the USA made a compromise by requiring a two-thirds vote by congress. That seems to be a workable solution, or at least variations upon the same theme, does that seem to be a fair approach?

reply to post by ATS4dummies

I'm sure you agree, statistically speaking, a unanimous consensus rarely happens - and is thereby counterproductive.

So? That's the point. You stop the majority from trampling the minority, and vice versa. It would force compromise and deliberation on issues.

I belive the founding fathers of the USA made a compromise by requiring a two-thirds vote by congress. That seems to be a workable solution, or at least variations upon the same theme, would you agree?

Congressional decisions were supposed to be unanimous, and still should be. It was Alexander Hamilton and his ilk who used political lies to create the 4/5 of the house rule.

Think about it. If congress had to make unanimous decisions, then it would only take one vote by one of our senators to stop something stupid from passing like... Obamacare.

reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon


The problem is that compromise always leaves the door open for corruption.

OK scorchio, I read your proposal:
"I would propose that instead of Mr Burns using his own judgement on important matters, he should take a number of constituents and let their vote decide. "

So... In that case, the representative Mr.Burns, has no contribution to the outcome.
Ironically, we both agree that when people decide, the results reflect the needs of the people more by restricting the input a human representative has.

Sounds like Mr. Burns is obsolete. Have I understood you correctly? because if I have, I am in complete agreement that a machine like the internet - makes the human representative unnecessary.

How about we choose 500 people for the Senate and 500
for the House of Reps like a lottery or jury summons?

Then they receive an official voting computer to vote on bills.
All from the very economic comfort of their living room.

After 1 year we choose another lot, and they do the same.
Maybe the lobbiests can take us out to dinner buy us vacation homes and cars
and thereby pull the middle class out of poverty, 1000 people at a time?