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

The American government was supposed to have enumerated powers and the legislature was there to prevent its unnecessary expansion.

We have the opposite. The government has control of whatever it can grab and the legislature is there to find new ways to apply governmental power.

Since the government got control of compulsory education, the media and the monetary system there has been no real democratic modifier.

I think direct voting via the internet treats the symptom rather than the disease.

reply to post by sealing


In reply to Sealing - Ha ha, well, while not really pertinent to this discussion... your humor is duly noted, and appreciated!

reply to post by ATS4dummies


Yeah, that's exactly what i'm saying. Whether we're talking about a British MP or a US Senator, they should be public servants and only offer a true representation of their constituents. Their role should be no more than the collection of data, ensuring that the information is collected in a safe, secure and checkable way, and eliminating any possibility of corruption.

Personally, i wouldn't trust the internet for voting. There are far too many ways that a vote, an identity or a count could be corrupted. I believe that with the technology available, we should always be striving to make things as safe, as fair and as truly representative as possible.

reply to post by Scorchio

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.

That is what elected representatives are supposed to do. Before the party system, a representative was chosen to represent their whole constituency, not one party in it. There were no parties during the Articles of Confederation period. The party system formed in response to the Constitutional Convention-- pro Federalist, con Democratic Republican.

Also, the representatives formed a body of able men in the capitol, something like a militia, compared to the formative executive branch. According to the original ratio of one rep to 50,000 citizens, we (the US) should have 6,000 representatives in the capitol. The internet would help a lot with that.

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.

reply to post by ATS4dummies


I think the internet should change the voting forever. I think it makes it possible for everyone to vote and everyone gets a vote i.d. and every vote is intrinsically tied to a voter. Also instead of having a government entity counting them internet allows real time voting and multiple independent public groups should all be allowed the same information to count votes.

Of course they don't want this. The internet makes it too easy. Actually the internet eliminates the need for representatives in the current sense. Representatives were to go and represent people that were in hollers and couldn't communicate their will. Now EVERYONE can speak up so representatives should not make any decisions at all but simply vote how the people from their region vote. They can now exactly what we want and we can vote on every issue with the internet.

Yep, and it's fair to bring this up Scorchio: if you really want to boil it down, system security is an engineering task.

It's a serious undertaking, for sure. We have tools we can use right now, available today.
Encryption, Virtual Private Networks, Biometrics, and even Fraud Detection using anomalous pattern detection - used extensively by credit card companies - but the technology is applicable to voting patterns too.

Add to this the transparency of a government built on "open source" code and a core of exceptional individuals to spot holes in it, I think we have an impressive list of tools at our disposal to solve this.

It's fair to say the major security breeches we hear on the news have been from organizations that did *not* have all of these in place. If the system is truly transparent - Somebody is going to see a problem - and this is good.

reply to post by Unity_99


But we have local councils in every town, run by the local people. And they're all jumping on the bandwagon of personal greed. Salaries are huge, pay rises far above inflation, pensions that run into millions and still no accountability.

The big problem here is that it's not just government officials who are greedy; People in general are greedy and will do whatever they can to feather their own nest, within the legal remit. And what makes it worse is that the media seem to encourage this, even promote it. True values are a thing of the past with most people and we now seem to be at a point where money is everything.

reply to post by Unity_99


Unity_99 I hear you totally, but that is why we have a core of laws called the Bill of Rights. It ensures that no matter whether you are part of a majority OR minority, your essential needs to live are not enfringed upon. Those laws are supreme and require EXCEPTIONAL effort to change them. Things like your freedom, privacy, personal defense, your right to vote etc... are guaranteed.

All other laws are subservient to those higher ones.

reply to post by ATS4dummies

It's a serious undertaking, for sure. We have tools we can use right now, available today.
Encryption, Virtual Private Networks, Biometrics, and even Fraud Detection using anomalous pattern detection - used extensively by credit card companies - but the technology is applicable to voting patterns too.

Add to this the transparency of a government built on "open source" code and a core of exceptional individuals to spot holes in it, I think we have an impressive list of tools at our disposal to solve this.

Actually, such a system could replace the government. An impartial, disinterested record center for storing contracts and identities.

reply to post by ATS4dummies


Where as i'd agree that it's an improvement, in effect it's just polishing a turd. What we really need to look at is the information and how it's presented.

To give an example, if you went out in the street now and randomly asked 100 people why we went to war with Iraq, the answers you'd be given would be the exact ones the media gave out as fact. Some would say that it was to spread democracy, others that it was because Iraq had nuclear weapons, the capacity for nuclear weapons, scud missile attacks on Jordan, murdering Kurds, because Saddam was evil, etc. Why? Because this is all anyone heard on the TV or radio, or read in the newspapers.

How many newspapers were saying that it was because we wanted to rape them of natural resources and give the Rothschild banking cartel a foothold in their country? How many news channels? How many radio stations?

So if a vote came up to decide whether we went to war with Iraq at that time, it's probably fairly accurate to say that people would have voted in favour of it. But this would be based on false and agenda driven information. The choice would be to go with popular opinion or be labelled a traitor.

Likewise, with a general election. Whether i vote conservative or labour, nothing will change other than my taxes increasing and my freedoms decreasing. These people spend 4 years between elections belittling each others policies but do nothing to reverse those policies once in power. Indeed, they continue to syphon money out of the people through legal means and for personal gain, using the laws and acts that they themselves have implemented.

I've never voted in my 45 years because i see no difference between Satan and Lucifer and won't give my support to either name. It really doesn't matter how i enter my vote, ballot box or online if the information that i get is incorrect, biased and agenda driven.

reply to post by ATS4dummies


Wow, big topic and some great thoughts and commentary.

The points regarding fraud are the major limiting factor to any attempt to have electronic voting of any kind. Asymmetric cryptography has the potential to resolve part of the problem but isn't a panacea.

Essentially, digital/analog voting aside, I think the question here is:

"How do we reconcile the best interests of the individual with the best interests of the collective?"

Pure democracy is the tyranny of the majority. An example of a pure digital democracy would be Star Trek's Borg (sans Borg Queen). I think we can all agree that isn't desirable.

Pure (insert ideology here) is probably not going to be tenable.

I think that the answer can be found in limiting government power. Minimizing the damage that is inevitable when allocating responsibility to bureaucracy.

I deleted most of my pontifications because, guess what, I don't have the answer either. There is a reason we haven't figured this out.

I should have the answer tomorrow and we can fix this whole society thing then.

I like the idealistic approach but I will play a little devils advocate here.

- who wants a 1000 bucks for their votes of 2014? the rich buy their own votes
- get a free iPhone 10x if you vote for a tax reduction for the company
- who controls the voting system? is it open source? Is it Anon? How to check the numbers
- if its open and clear who votes what and why? How to prevent voting for friends sake? how to prevent I agree because I want to fit in?
- if it is anonymous and closed to prevent previous statement. Who controls it sincerity and prevents idfraud?
- educate the people to make them aware of the subject. Well... Who chooses the information to educate? probably again the people who are most 'in trend' in the population not necessarily the ones most knowledgeable. Or the companies with the best commercials. Or the religious with the most followers and best preachers
- who decides on what IS important? We can't all be busy with politics 24/7 How to prevent society to have a vote about a new format for ATS?

How to make society aware about what is a necessity and what is luxury?
-...

I could go on and on.

There is just one thing that I would like to bring up and it is a bit complex. Its twofold.
If all members of society (ignoring ages and metal capability etc) are eligible to participate in voting.... Do we need a 50% of the total people choosing for a subject or do we need a 50% of voting people choosing for a subject to implement it? In the first case how do we make sure that things are thought and voted about and not derailed by the ones that disagree by filling the voting system by adding thousands and thousands of irrelevant but trending topics? In the second case, how do we make sure that some important subjects are not hidden and overlooked by the mass because they are hidden in thousands and thousand of irrelevant subjects and only voted on by a selected few that knew on forehand what they are voting for.

Lol I'm I clear or just a regular dumbass?

Semicollegiate, YES!

Actually, such a system could replace the government. An impartial, disinterested record center for storing contracts and identities.

Exactly!

I have thought about this possibility many times in my life. The system we have at this point is outdated and corrupted through and through. We need to take the core values of what made this country great and modernize them to a point that the system itself is utterly un-corruptable.

One day my father recommended me two books. Written by Daniel Suarez, Daemon and Freedom(TM) is about a computer programmer who created multiple highly successful MMORPG's etc. Upon his death, a chain of events happen that seem to be tied to a rogue computer program (the Daemon) that has spread itself throughout the world. That rogue program ends up being a real-life augmented reality MMORPG that gives people around the world a new economy, way of living, ways to innovate and disconnect from the current corrupted one. The system that gets put into place is a new renaissance for humanity.

The Daemon is very helpful, but ruthless at the same time. It follows the will of it's local and global users according to approval and what your skill levels are. It routes out spies, spammers, murderers and rapists while cleaning the clock of the global elite and rewarding the working citizens for advancing civilization. It allows ZERO corruption. What's even more crazy is that most of the tech in the books is based on existing tech.. Especially augmented reality.

On his website:

The technology depicted in Daemon and FreedomTM may seem like science fiction, but it actually exists . . .

LINK TO TECH REFERENCES

I know what you're thinking. A psychopathic dictatorial computer that answers to no one should govern over us? I agree, it does sound very frightening. I cannot do these books justice with my summarizations. Suarez really covers all bases for how things COULD work if done the right way though. I highly recommend these two books to anyone who is interested in the matter.

A former systems consultant to Fortune 1000 companies, Daniel Suarez has designed and developed mission-critical software for the defense, finance, and entertainment industries. An avid gamer and technologist, he lives in Los Angeles, California.

So what if we could institute a computer program that literally could never do harm to a growing, thriving society. A program that just plain doesn't allow robber-barrons, or eugenics programs, or political corruption to exist. A program that takes the idea of individual freedoms and opinions so seriously that it IS the engine of the program itself! Every participant will be connected live to voice their uncensored opinions directly to the entire global community. The internet as we know it is censored. We still have the ability to voice our opinions, but it has it's flaws.

Just thinkin'...

Originally posted by Scorchio
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon

 

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

Then vote against it and the result won't be unanimous, then the corruption can't win.

Enacting any kind of change is a task that is almost impossible however i do believe that the only way to go about it is through education..

Education is without doubt the most important issue and this doesn't stop being true because of borders.... our need for education reform is a global issue...

i flirt with the issue in this thread...... 3 steps to change

In my Opinion the system of democracy is not one that is sustainable in the long term, i feel that the only way for us to successfully govern ourselves is in our local communities... my ideas go as far as abolishing our monetary system and creating local economies through trade in our community and with our local neighbors...

However like i said any kind of change borders on impossible especially with the scale i am talking about....

Creating a pure internet democracy is something that could easily be manipulated for the benefit of certain parties and as you said corruption is human nature and that will always be what holds us back from having a truly fair and pure system of government

Originally posted by Scorchio
reply to post by Unity_99

 

But we have local councils in every town, run by the local people. And they're all jumping on the bandwagon of personal greed. Salaries are huge, pay rises far above inflation, pensions that run into millions and still no accountability.

The big problem here is that it's not just government officials who are greedy; People in general are greedy and will do whatever they can to feather their own nest, within the legal remit. And what makes it worse is that the media seem to encourage this, even promote it. True values are a thing of the past with most people and we now seem to be at a point where money is everything.

Our councils that every person belongs to. Councils of citizens and even teenage involvement. We're not supposed to sit down at the tv and let things slide, we're supposed to be the first level, the real mover and shaker level, of government and grow up. Children who don't care, and are too lazy end up with fascist daddy systems over their head really harming a lot of people.

We need to grow some teeth, big muscles, and big hearts, and deal with all the mafia bad guys running the show.

its like that saying from the native elders (paraphrased here by me): that instead of waiting for a leader to show up, we're supposed to step up to the plate, to be the leader you want to show up.

reply to post by ATS4dummies


Get rid of presidency, split US up into an odd number of zones, perhaps 5 zones of 10 states each.

Each zone has its own prime minister, congress, house of reps. This way no one man has absolute power, like we see Obama saying he's going into Syria regardless. With 5 zones, there is no puppet to be influenced by bankers, illuminati, military complex.

Get rid of all lobbyists, which is basically legal bribery.

Make each of the 5 zones specialize in various home grown industry. Start farming programs, like what Cuba did to make themselves self sufficient in food production.

All politicians need to go through empathy and justice training programs, annual lie detector tests.

And the most vital point: we need 3 major parties, not 2. Reps, Dems, and independents. With the odd number, it breaks up the monotony.

Limit the amount of kids a couple can have based on education. If you look at studies, kids in households with no fathers, end up in trouble later. Mandatory college education.

List goes on and on

reply to post by peacenotgreed

The Daemon is very helpful, but ruthless at the same time. It follows the will of it's local and global users according to approval and what your skill levels are.

Sounds like the ideal legal system. I bet the books have an exciting dynamic of doing your best when it counts.

Broaching an idea is easier in the universal monolithic case. At the risk of contradicting myself, I wouldn't want a single, only-one-in-the-world institution of any kind. Just like banks and credit card companies can issue competing money, any real world service should have a naturally occurring and competitive market in which businesses offer what their customers prefer.

I say "should have a naturally occurring" because the best systems happen naturally, by voluntary action, and then later get perverted, becoming unnatural, possibly in a well meaning attempt to speed a specific desired result or something.

Everyone with a SS number gets one vote on every item they wish to vote on. Have one national voting site. I would recommend getting rid of the central bankers and letting the people control the newly created money to do with as they wish.