Originally posted by BULLPIN
reply to post by JaxCavalera
A techno-mobocracy huh? Carefull what you wish for...
I think we are as humans often afraid of the unknown and of change. This isn't a step towards the one world government, it's a step away from
There is a stigma out there that it is somehow easier to hack into a highly secured website than it would be to physically botch up a poll or vote
The majority of incidents where bank accounts have been "hacked" are where it was an inside job. Which means that often times, it was physical
access (usually carelessly leaving important details for staff , family, friends to find) that allowed the criminal/s to obtain virtual access to
If the online banking sector is now more secure than the physical banking sector with respect to the opportunities for financial theft, who's to say
that a voting system couldn't be just as secure?
Originally posted by alfa1
Although politicians have a long track record of making poor choices, I'm not convinced that the "popular vote", every single time, is a better
Also, by sheer numbers alone, the population simply dont have time to examine these things...
What Happened in the 110th Congress?
Total number of bills introduced: 11059 (3724 in Senate, 7335 in House)
The only people who could have the time to vote would be those employed by large corporations to do so, full time. (Much the same system as now,
I believe that there are always people from all sides of impactful debates that would have the time to research and post logical and useful
information that would be quickly made available using the star priority system. If we look at ATS to be a pre-decessor of what could be used for
passing down legislation. You get a variety of people that do the research and those that do not. It becomes clear who are reliable sources and who
Perhaps there might also be an overall rating system for reliability of information awarded so those providing what is found or thought to be false
information will quickly get a bad rep... and those that provide proven solid evidence.. will get a good rep... kinda of like the Ebay Seller Ratings
Originally posted by JaxCavalera
IF a piece of legislation does not receive over 75% of the total countries voting population's votes.. it would be put on hold
Looking at wikipedia, the voter turnout in Presidential elections isnt much more than 50 percent.
Under your "75 percent" rule, nothing would ever happen, ever again.
This is a very good point you raise, I was simply pulling a figure out that I felt would imply more than half the population of available voters had
in fact cast a vote. I think this high figure I have presented could in fact be lowered.
That being said, with the ease of access to vote being much quicker and simpler to do than a physical or mail poll, there is a very good chance that
those figures would improve significantly under the presented system.
To wrap up my responses, in Australia, we each are assigned a Tax File Number. This number could be used as your input code number combined with your
birth date and full name to ensure that each voter has cast their vote only once.
Combine that with security risks as you have mentioned and I don't deny that if a security system can be built.. it can be hacked.. the same goes for
any physical institutions.. there are always holes in them and ways to physically "hack" those too, does this mean we should abolish our current
system for that reason? I don't think so.
I do however think that it is impossible
for a single person to accurately represent the individual thoughts of all of their constituents that
voted them into power. This would be the tradeoff.. a little extra risk for a better shot at real democracy or at least a closer form of true
democracy where the public has a vote on all things the country does and not just a vote for who they want to make all the decisions for their country
and hope that they actually stick to their word.. which Australia for 1 example is finding.. just is NOT happening.