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

I'm all for it and biometrics that read fingerprints by connecting a simple usb device would not be that difficult for voters to come by. The results should be open, yet confidential in some way.... like a number system that you can go back and verify your own number on a list and any unverifiable entries will be suspect. What I mean is that it could be open to different tallying organization for tallying and cross tallying etc etc and with less campaigning and more people going back to the facts and information published on the issues (which should be subject to penalty of some kind if information is touted as true but turns up being false or fiction on a published page) and with so much of the voting rigamarole eliminated from the system, we'd have more time to scrutinize the results and make sure they are not tainted.

Our democracy's campaigning traditions are a shameful waste of money... and no one listens to the people. It's a joke. Even if there were some snags with internet voting, it would be better than what we've got. Majority rule is better than any other method of group decision making on most topics, but at the same time government can STILL be limited. More limits on government with more of the public opinion being heard. there may be some things that should entail unanimous results...such as war, but on most things I think an internet based majority rule system would be a great idea. And even if this gives all the ignorant the chance to have their say, it will still be more unbiased that what we've got. We could really get the ball rolling on decision making without all the wasteful wheeling and dealing that voting entails.

Face it.... these people in government are all about fake smiles, professional clothes and grasping at dollars so the rich man can have his way and the people will think it's fair and square because they have the nerve to call it democracy. They're useless. Like speedbumps on the road to progress. They probably wouldn't know how to properly cook my "freedom fries"

ive been developing this idea of technocracy for about 10 years now.

im looking to crowdsource it now to get an agreeable platform to establish parties and actually run in real elections.

PM if your interested

the idea of direct representation using technology to join us all together is a brilliant one. and i want to see it developed to teh stage where we can at least run some representatives.

PM me if you want to chat more.

another board member here is Maslo .. he loves this stuff

Originally posted by Unity_99
It can't be done this way as people, including minorities, have infinite sovereign rights and its not up to popular opinion and witch hunts, who gets dealt what.

What we need instead, is grass roots councils in every town or region peopled by us and especially by the oppressed. And almost jury duty for some roles. And problem solving, voting in different council members in town hall, changing bylaws so eco farms spring up and the homeless have land donated. Changing things, solving problems and gaining really good networking and communication skills to be able to sit down and negotiate with the leaders, who incidentally, would be replaced by real citizens in time, for people would start growing up and governing themselves, and learn to flex muscles and especially learn to get along and create abundance locally, in win/wins that included both freedom and free enterprise grass roots businesses that were ethical and clean tech, but also, looking after your own with dignity and not forcing people to work when they're ill, elderly, disabled, or looking after family. Growing up and being the best of the left and the best of the right combined into a people solution, doing things by trial and error and flexibility to chagne on a moments notice anything that harms anyone.

When we can grow up and care about everyone, and don't need fascists at the top, they won't be there.

However, I don't think majority should have the power to veto the rights of minorities, for the first premise of anything is:

Common law, thou shalt not harm others litany,

sovereign infinite rights of all people

and a constitution that protects their infinite rights from all corrupt leaders.

We don't want armchair opinions that are immature and reactionary to be done from computer boxes.

You need to work in the community with all the people and help the grass roots level of needy and homeless have a voice.

Only when you can be family and friends and work for win wins with compassion and problem solve well, in community DO YOU EVEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO OPINIONS. Otherwise if you vote with them your opinons can really harm others.

edit on 8-9-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

this is kinda the premise i have been working on.
a local level of actual governance. (think you rlocal council) and an elected but powerless "service provider" in place of governemnt

the service providers role is to provide hospitals/roads/education/security
at the request of local provinces.
i have spent years working out how i like it, and im now at the crowdsourcing stage to try to determine a decent system thats mostly agreeable (:

therer are all sorts fo problems with any new system, but with enough people contributing, we can resolve or at least try to head off any issues before we even run a platform

PM me if you want to talk more!

reply to post by ATS4dummies


Democracy vs Republic

www.lexrex.com...

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.

The U.S. is SUPPOSED to be a REPUBLIC, not a Democracy. I'm looking at the title of the thread here and asking myself, "Does the op know the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, and if so .... does the op really want a Democracy?" I know I don't want a Democracy. As the old saying goes, a Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Guess what's for dinner? Go on, GUESS!

I'm against this idea. While I have no issue with incorporating technology in order to vote, there are several major issues with the OP's suggestion:

1. Pure democracy is bad. I know a lot of people disagree with this, because we teach in schools that democracy means freedom and that it's the greatest thing ever, but it's just flat out not true. A pure democracy is nothing more than mob rule. This is scary enough, but it gets even worse when the corporate power structure ends up with all the votes, which ultimately happens if people want to keep their jobs (or if things don't get that bad... simple advertising, it does work). The founders got it right when creating a Republic, the rights of the minority are an important thing to preserve in order to have a functional society.

2. A voting public can't be trusted. This isn't to say I'm against voting, I actually quite like it. I'm not going to go on a masked anti liberal tirade about "low information voters" the way some right wing radio hosts do either. Instead the problem is deeper than that and exists on several levels, we'll start with Education. The education system in the US is terrible, and the prospects for fixing it are even worse. It's getting torn along partisan lines, in some cases religious lines, and curriculum aside we have a very dangerous level of corruption taking place in order to get federal money by not enforcing academic standards. I don't want to get too deep into this or I'll go off topic, but needless to say our schools are not producing educated individuals. Next we have a culture of most adults simply not wanting to be informed. People would rather watch popular movies/television shows than research issues, this problem isn't as bleak though. With record numbers of people not trusting the tv news anymore some people are actually looking for more information. An informed population however still ultimately relies on people wanting to be informed to the detriment of using that time on entertainment and recreation. Most people just don't function that way.

3. Corporations can't be trusted. Corporations will attempt to brainwash their employees into voting in the corporations interests rather than the individuals interest. Since the corporations are the employers in the country that gives them massive leverage when pushing their agendas. A campaign could be run for more "business friendly" laws like lower environmental regulations, lower wages, fewer benefits, and less taxes. If the large corporations then threaten layoffs or other punishment if this law doesn't pass, the individual is put into a no win situation. If votes were publicly recorded this becomes even worse as punitive action could be taken against anyone who didn't stand with their employers interests. On top of all that, advertising works. Ad campaigns determine how people will vote, and it puts a friendly face on mind control. A pure democracy in this day and age of media consumption is really just a backdoor to fascism.


I have my own ideas on how to fix the system.
1. More political parties need to come into being. Republics have been shown to work in several cases worldwide, however all functional ones have one thing in common: They have several parties. We currently have two parties and are on track to have one party soon. There's already a strong argument that we're at that one party point in actions if not in name.

2. The public needs to outspend the corporations. Corporations have a lot of purchasing power compared to an individual, but compared to 310 million of us, even the largest multinationals can't compete. We need to give politicians more money than the corporations do, in order to have our interests represented over theirs.

The base of our existing system is quite good, we simply need to reduce corporate influence in a way that congress will vote to approve (hint: they won't vote for anything that doesn't improve their own position), and we need more parties in order to promote actual diplomacy over political games.

reply to post by ATS4dummies



I am a big proponent of the Mission Statement and core values. Before anyone can move forward we need to prioritize and more clearly define our mutual goals and values in the order of importance.

Originally posted by Khaleesi
reply to post by ATS4dummies

 

Democracy vs Republic

www.lexrex.com...

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.

The U.S. is SUPPOSED to be a REPUBLIC, not a Democracy. I'm looking at the title of the thread here and asking myself, "Does the op know the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, and if so .... does the op really want a Democracy?" I know I don't want a Democracy. As the old saying goes, a Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Guess what's for dinner? Go on, GUESS!

I wonder if you know that one is not versus the other. We are a Democratic Republic. Either way it isn't working because what we actually have is a country run by corporatism. We have an Oligarchy secreted within the Democratic Republic and THAT is running things unbeknownst to almost everyone but themselves.

1. A person cannot vote by default or compulsorily- they must 'qualify' for the right to vote. In the same way as you cannot hold a driver's license without a test, you cannot vote unless you can demonstrate a basic knowledge of politics, economics, global affairs etc. That is, a dullard's vote cannot carry the same weight as an informed person's as this undermines the very notion of democracy being the 'best of the rest' political system.

2. Drug use decriminalised, with 'soft' or 'party' drugs (e.g., Marijuana, Ecstasy) government controlled, à la prescription medicine.

3. Homicide punishable by death unless clearly evidence to be in self defence of in defence of another in grave danger.

4. Serious rape cases and recidivist rapists to be subjected to chemical castration and / or life imprisonment under the supposition of being a menace to society.

5. Paedophiles (not 'ephebophiles' in sexual relationships deemed consensual) to undergo chemical castration.

6. Indoctrination of children under the age of 18 years with religion, in the home or elsewhere, to be punishable in the same way 'tradition' (physical / sexual) child abuse is now. No child molested kid ever grew up to scream the name of their abuser as they pulled the pin on the C4 strapped to their chest while in the middle of a crowded marketplace, so why should a form of abuse that does manifest this kind of deranged behaviour be accepted?

7. Objective history studies to be made compulsory and prioritised in school curriculae at all year levels of primary and secondary school. Languages other than English to be made compulsory, such that at least two additional tongues are to be spoken with reasonable fluency before the child's secondary education is completed.

It's amazing how we mentally distort the definition of words Republic means "public matter" (Latin: res publica),
Democracy = Greek δημοκρατία (dēmokratía) "rule of the people" anything beyond that has been applied/distorted subjectively, there is no reason why a Democratic Republic cannot exist.

I'm pleased to see a discussion on this subject as I believe it is the single most important issue we face ie. ALL things are effected by our form of Governance, religion, health, morality.... you name it.

I'm saddened that most of the sheople turn away from Direct Democracy Initiatives, I believe many think they will be forced to vote on stuff they know absolutely nothing about. This is a kickback from our current so-called Democracy where EVERYONE applicable is encouraged to vote! Should we really be forcing 19 year old Johnny to choose whether the country needs a High Speed Rail line or not??? He's got other things on his mind ;-)

We need a 180 degree about turn in voting attitude so that it is completely socially acceptable NOT to vote. If your entirely not interested then please don't take part!!!!

As a Transitional phase we could keep Parliament & MP's but make them more accountable

Meritocratic Direct Democracy

I advocate a transitional Electronic Democracy Forum financed entirely by a 50% Lobby Tax, this should be/have:-

1] Open Source/Transparent Code
2] Have paid researchers that can provide statistics
on request
3] Have a layered structure to prevent collusion for personal benefit ie.
Take votes that carry initiatives (along with formatted Pro's and Con's) to the forum layer above for further discussion or fail them
4] Allow individual members to move to a higher level (Karma, number of posts etc)
5] Initiatives (always start at the bottom layer) that reach the top level should be picked up and pursued by Professional Lobbyists
6] When an initiative is being promoted by the Top Layer Lobbyists a Status page is generated showing the collated Pro's n Con's along with an individual MP's response to the eLobbyists and their subsequent Vote in Parliament
7] Everyone can vote/have a say but not all are actively encouraged (new comers start at the bottom layer forum)

Overall what we need is a number of Direct Democracy Design Patterns/Options like the above to choose from and not the just the Swiss model that the MSM always throw at us.

Here's hoping that an up a coming political party formats and promotes this idea to the public and wins the next election ;-)

reply to post by wrabbit2000


We have been manipulated into being unengaged, apathetic dullards.

Charlotte Iserbyte is a whistleblower who has been saying it for a couple of decades.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

We have been manipulated into being unengaged, apathetic dullards.

Oh... You're killing me here! That hit me with such force of truth...yet so unexpected, I almost didn't catch myself in time to laugh out loud. (There are times and places...lol)

I have to say though, to sum it up in once sentence? I've rarely seen it put better. Very rarely.

reply to post by ATS4dummies


I don't know if you've ever read the book The Prefect:

en.wikipedia.org...

it's all about this same sort of thing, and a very interesting read!

I think that it is a good idea. Just make sure there is a constitution and a set of rights which would need 3/4 to be amended and it would work better than what's in place now.

Those saying that things need to be unanimous need to remember that only 30% voted for indedendence from England during the revolutionary war and if they had not bullied through despite not having a unanimous vote, the colonies would have remained royal subjects.

Loveaduck

Originally posted by Khaleesi
reply to post by ATS4dummies

 

Democracy vs Republic

www.lexrex.com...

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.

The U.S. is SUPPOSED to be a REPUBLIC, not a Democracy. I'm looking at the title of the thread here and asking myself, "Does the op know the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, and if so .... does the op really want a Democracy?" I know I don't want a Democracy. As the old saying goes, a Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Guess what's for dinner? Go on, GUESS!

I wonder if you know that one is not versus the other. We are a Democratic Republic. Either way it isn't working because what we actually have is a country run by corporatism. We have an Oligarchy secreted within the Democratic Republic and THAT is running things unbeknownst to almost everyone but themselves.

Did you read the article I linked? Yes Democracy and Republic are antithetical. I do know that our government has been corrupted and is no longer a Republic. My point is the thread title says DEMOCRACY. You can call it a Democratic Republic if you choose, but it was set up as a REPUBLIC. Again, read the article I posted. It makes it quite clear that Democracy and Republic are antithetical.

Corruption may be intrinsic to human nature but it only becomes an issue when we allow it to be done from a position of authority. Borrowing a Larken Rose example, Hitler was a twisted and sociopathic individual. But on his own he had the ability to do very little harm. It was only when he was put into a position of authority (that is, when people believed he had a right to rule and were thereby obligated to obey) was he able to do the damage he did. As long as we hand over our individual autonomy and give others the right to have 'authority' over us we remain at-risk for what we have seen. This privileged ruling-class that we've created have become emboldened to take from, control, and deprive everyone else.

What's the ultimate solution? I'm not sure. But what I am sure of is that we need to pull the rug out from under the current establishment as quickly and suddenly as we possibly can. I continue to call for a complete and utter boycott and vilification of bot the Republican and Democratic parties and ALL of their associates. One or both have been 'in charge' and have done nothing to protect us from the economic, social, and international crap that has befallen us. None have stood up to even call for fixing what's broken. Neither have done anything in our collective best interest. They have only done what serves them and their benefactors with no regard to We the People.

reply to post by ATS4dummies


What would stop what I call the tyranny of the masses? Or as what we have today which is large cities carry the vote for the whole state despite the reality of a rural populace?

reply to post by ATS4dummies


Suppose it were possible for the Elected Government to be paid - seeing as they are in charge- while the opposition are told they would not be paid and must simply continue their position/s UNPAID ie Voluntarily. Why pay a bunch who moan and groan yet lack the power to do anything???? This would either return a group of self enriched Billionaires - as members of the opposition - and not as usually secretised governors of the invisible establishment. Might get a fair deal then ? and at all times only the Elected would have a salary to collect - until they became the opposition.

reply to post by ATS4dummies

As long as human representatives of the people hold positions of power, they will forever be corruptible.

True.

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 was tried in ancient Greece. Students of political science call it 'assembly democracy'.

It works so long as the voting population is small and has many interests in common.

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.

No, that is not its main flaw — though you're not the first to have thought so. Its main flaw is that a large number of people can never agree on anything, and disgruntled minorities often sabotage the process. The result is paralysis, followed by a series of events that result in dictatorship or oligargchy.

Representative democracy is the only way. Properly set up, it recognises that humans are corruptible and tries to create systems that make representatives both accountable to the people and limited in their terms of office. It is far from perfect but it still works best. How it will evolve in the future, though, is anyone's guess.