Is a massive internet-based referendum possible?

Suppose hundreds of millions of people on the Internet suddenly demanded a referendum to seriously scale back financial institutions and their damage to the macroeconomy...seeing as the Senate and Parliamentary bodies in all developed nations are functionally useless for anything but cosmetic solutions. What if hundreds of millions of Internet users in the US, Canada, AUS/NZ, Russia, and East Asia simultaneosly demanded a transparent and fair market and a total annihilation of central banking-based cartels.

Could the widlfire start on the Internet? Could it be easier than we dare imagine?

Referendum is not a favorite tactic to use because many of "Dictators" that were "elected" first have used this tactic to overturn laws that bothered them (such as term limits) so that they could stay in power and destroy a Democratic Republic. We have even seen the EU recently have referendums after referendums until they get the "result" they want. Chavez did this as well until he got / gets the result of being "President for life". This is very dangerous in that respect.

But I do understand how it could be a good thing to pass "anti-corruption" legislation on politicians that they would NEVER pass on themselves. Those bills would never make it to the floor and would die in committee.

Overall, Referendums have led to "bad" results.

Of course,it is the harbinger of our soon to be seen global democracy.


The voice of every human on earth heard in real-time ,every single human voive heard and accounted for,no more scams.

One world government.it is the only way,imagine if we really achieved global equity?

Originally posted by one4all
Of course,it is the harbinger of our soon to be seen global democracy.


The voice of every human on earth heard in real-time ,every single human voive heard and accounted for,no more scams.

One world government.it is the only way,imagine if we really achieved global equity?

Yeah,

Computer voter fraud, a permanent elite political class and a bunch of permanent serfs...

Global.. no thank you.

Anything done over the internet or electronically can't be trusted. People will have to show up in person and cast paper ballots.

I believe these sort of systems work the best instead of having an minority organization make all the decisions for the majority.

If it's online, it can be subverted. The only way to protect a computer from one hundred percent of hacking attempts is to physically unplug the machine from the Internet, then put it in a locked room and make sure nobody gets in.

When the Census goes online in 2020, I suspect that we will see a whole lot more Jedi (or Discordians, or Mickey Mouse-worshippers, or whatever some bored hacker decides to insert) in the results than previous polls have indicated.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by The Parallelogram]

There is a knee-jerk reaction to think that nothing that happens on line can really effect the "real world." This is quite logical in a sense because the Internet hasn't really come close to the expectations that it could potentially fulfill. Go back and read some of the most passionate techno-utopians from, say, the early 90s when the net was just eveolving. They quickly became the object of ridicule in the mad stanpede to make money, but many of their underlying philisophical presemses are more than sound, if not exactly congruant with realpolitik.

At any rate, by changing the basic concept of what the net is, can do, and the change it effects, there is potential for new forms of hope we can only no barely dream of. It wouldn't even take much old-school "political polemics" or organization..think rhyzome tiimes a thousand. A Super-meme washing across seven continents at once. Utterly unprecidented autoconsesus mediated through networks of trusted "friends" and cortically imprinted. The old system could die in a single afternoon amid gales of webcam, instant-text-mediated laughter. Stranger things have happened.

The deepest, darkest secret of power is only fully grasped (in slightly different but uneasilty complementory way) by the most ancient of human institutions: The Tribal hunting/ military leaders and the Shamans. Both understood authority was essentially hallucinatory, and both devoted most of their time and powerclime to hiding this knoweldge from "COMMON FOLK." These two leaders of most ancient soceties of course grew into the various empire and state apparatuses that have ossified the (usually brutal) status systems rest of humanity since the dawn of agriculture. The net is the first thing since the orinting press to truly threaten this atavistic power structure.

The cheaply printed broadsids of both the French and the Russian revolutions were incaluclary powerful, as were images such as the "Don't Tread on Me" in 18th century America. The Internet is a Freak Flag several orders of magnitude more profound. The delicious irony of the PTB this time around is they, themselves are getting sucked into the vortex by the prospect of sbhort-term billions at the expense of their long-term benefits. Historians will puzzle over this obsecene paradox for centuries while I'll just sit back and have a hearty laugh.

[edit on 5/18/10 by silent thunder]

Originally posted by silent thunder
There is a knee-jerk reaction to think that nothing that happens on line can really effect the "real world."

If this post (with which I agree 100%) was directed at mine, I'd like to clarify that I am a passionate Transhumanist, and I feel that it is an objective, provable truth that the Internet is the most powerful force for communications which has ever existed.

The Internet is powerful; it has transformed, and will continue to transform, the way Humans live and think. But it is not secure.

Taken as a whole, the skills possessed by those who would abuse the power of the Internet are at least equal to, and in some cases greater than, those of the individuals who designed it and who are responsible for its security.



[edit on 18-5-2010 by The Parallelogram]

Before you can hava a referendum, you need to educate the people participating in the referendum, how else can they make the right choise. no-one can be specialized in everything.

And other questions are; who can protect the software?; who do you trust to protect the software, how do you prevent someone of voting twice or more? who do you trust to write the software, how can you prevent hacking?, etc...

Originally posted by Dumbass
Before you can hava a referendum, you need to educate the people participating in the referendum, how else can they make the right choise. no-one can be specialized in everything.

How do they make the choice to vote in elections? You simply can't 'educate' people to make a decision like that, otherwise are you really just brainwashing them?

Originally posted by infolurker

Referendum is not a favourite tactic to use because many of "Dictators" that were "elected" first have used this tactic to overturn laws that bothered them (such as term limits) so that they could stay in power and destroy a Democratic Republic.

Since referendums can be abused, you might as well have argued against elections too! Almost all dictators are (at some stage "elected") even if the election isn't democratic. In fact if, in say a few years time, the EU decided to abolishes national parliaments, I'd be surprised if this wasn't an argument they used!!!
Personally I'll always oppose dictators who abuse referendums, just as much as I oppose them when they abuse elections. But the fact referendums can be abused, means I know more oppose them, than I oppose general elections.

As referendums give the public a chance to be heard, they may become extra important, if (for the first time) in the UK a government can only end after a "fixed" 5 year period. It's because referendums carry the democratic will of the people into law, and they will succeed in representing the will of the people (even at the same time a divided parliament, remains incompetent). Tell me why, without referendums you have anything other than the "incompetent government" bit?

And I'm failing to see how democracies not holding referendums, actually limits the (practical) ability of a dictator to do.
But I do find it easy to understand how democracies refusing to hold referendums, can (and should) make a would-be dictator more popular (once he offers to do so). If the democracy is dysfunctional (like the UK's) then the fact parliament refuses to listen (much, if at all) to the populace; can only bolster the case for referendums (as well as the case of those who would advocate them) (whoever they may be!).

We have even seen the EU recently have referendums after referendums until they get the "result" they want.

No! We saw the EU opposed by almost EVERY referendum they have held for about the last 10 years. The only time they have actually held a referendum until they got what they wanted, was with Ireland (the one country in Europe to be allowed a referendum over the Lisbon Treaty).
But you can hardly argue the vote (for the Irish) was a bad thing! Because the first one represented the will of a free people of a free nation. The second one represented the will of a bribed people, of a bullied nation. At the end of the day the Irish still got lots of backhander's (for their nation) because of the first referendum, and merely revealed the democratic pretences of the EU, to be the plastic, transparent, clothing that it really is. Exposure isn't a bad thing, especially whenever what you discover is alarming.

Originally posted by Durant

Originally posted by Dumbass
Before you can hava a referendum, you need to educate the people participating in the referendum, how else can they make the right choise. no-one can be specialized in everything.

How do they make the choice to vote in elections? You simply can't 'educate' people to make a decision like that, otherwise are you really just brainwashing them?

Exactly. You can't. If you can't educate it is better to let them screw up once in 4 years instead of every day or every week, If you would have to decide togeteher every little detail of society.