View Poll Results: I am in favor of:

Voters
11. You may not vote on this poll
  • eVoting with similar restrictions and safeguards to online taxes

    2 18.18%
  • randoming selecting people for issue-specifc civic duty

    2 18.18%
  • having to take a quiz to establish basic factual knowledge before being able to vote on an issue

    2 18.18%
  • none/other/this is bullshit

    8 72.73%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 46

Thread: eDemocracy

  1. #1
    TJ TeresaJ's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    mosquito-infested hell
    Posts
    2,365

    eDemocracy

    So I am pretty much a perpetual student. I've taken a few online courses, and even my traditional courses now include substantial online components. We take classes online. We do our taxes online. It's not perfect, but it's become the norm. It makes sense to me that we should also be able to govern ourselves online.

    I'm not saying that this would immediately fix everything in our society (far from it), but it seems like it could be structured in such a way as to facilitate improvements.

    Ideally this would be combined with a group of individuals randomly selected for the equivalent of jury duty, except it would be their job to research a certain issue up for vote and come to a list of pros and cons. This summary would then accompany every vote.

    And I bet that if this sort of system were implemented in the private sector first - some schools, some rural organizations, some holier-than-thou companies - if it were shown to be effective and became more and more popular, then people would get used to it and expect it all the time and then governments would wind up adopting it just out of a tide of changing culture.
    Too bad, Lady Une. You were far too lenient.
    As a soldier, yes. But as a civilian I lived an austere life.

  2. #2
    凸(ಠ_ರೃ )凸 stuck's Avatar
    Type
    xNxx
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,637
    Quote Originally Posted by TeresaJ View Post
    Ideally this would be combined with a group of individuals randomly selected for the equivalent of jury duty, except it would be their job to research a certain issue up for vote and come to a list of pros and cons. This summary would then accompany every vote.
    This should be a narrow AI instead of a group of random people.

  3. #3
    fluctuating Obfuscate's Avatar
    Type
    iNtP
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Idaho... this sometimes changes withought planning...
    Posts
    1,082
    INTPx Award Winner
    it is unclear in what capacity you mean... govern ourselves concerning what? what form would penalties take? would this ignore national borders? would there be a review/petition process? how would we be sure of the integrity of the system (i.e. be certain that the results weren't being manufactured by a particular person/group)? in other words, what exactly is the scope of this proposition?
    "The vanity of intelligence is that the intelligent man is often more committed to 'one-upping' his opponent than being truthful. When the idea of intelligence, rather than intelligence itself, becomes a staple, there is no wisdom in it."
    Criss Jami

    "When dealing with people, remember you are not dealing with creatures of logic, but creatures of emotion."
    "Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain but it takes character and self control to be understanding and forgiving."
    Dale Carnegie

  4. #4
    Member Viktor's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Urban suburbia.
    Posts
    98
    One could argue that the current state of our nation, and the trend it follows, is proof that we are incapable of effectively governing ourselves as a collective group.

  5. #5
    TJ TeresaJ's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    mosquito-infested hell
    Posts
    2,365
    Quote Originally Posted by stuck View Post
    This should be a narrow AI instead of a group of random people.
    I think the group should have access to an AI, but I don't trust an AI/[whoever programmed the AI] with full control.

    Similar to jury selection, there could be a process for weeding out so-called incompetents and extremists, but I don't know if that's necessary.
    Too bad, Lady Une. You were far too lenient.
    As a soldier, yes. But as a civilian I lived an austere life.

  6. #6
    TJ TeresaJ's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    mosquito-infested hell
    Posts
    2,365
    Quote Originally Posted by Obfuscate View Post
    it is unclear in what capacity you mean... govern ourselves concerning what? what form would penalties take? would this ignore national borders? would there be a review/petition process? how would we be sure of the integrity of the system (i.e. be certain that the results weren't being manufactured by a particular person/group)? in other words, what exactly is the scope of this proposition?
    I'm assuming that the same safeguards that prevent fraud when filing taxes online would be in place.

    As for scope, I see it being tested small-scale (school, small company) and then moving up to large scale (union, nation).
    Too bad, Lady Une. You were far too lenient.
    As a soldier, yes. But as a civilian I lived an austere life.

  7. #7
    TJ TeresaJ's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    mosquito-infested hell
    Posts
    2,365
    Quote Originally Posted by Viktor View Post
    One could argue that the current state of our nation, and the trend it follows, is proof that we are incapable of effectively governing ourselves as a collective group.
    On the contrary, I think that the current state of the union (be in the US/Europe/wherever) reflects a hyper-polarization of public discourse. I think that different methods could yield different, more productive results.

    That's all I'm looking for right now - is there a better way? I'm wondering if the system itself could encourage rationality rather than (as it currently does) inflame hysteria.
    Too bad, Lady Une. You were far too lenient.
    As a soldier, yes. But as a civilian I lived an austere life.

  8. #8
    Dr.Awkward Robcore's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,313
    I saw one guy who proposed eVoting by proxy, where you could say that you trust Scientist A when it came to environmental policies, so you could assign him as your representative, and whenever he voted on such issues, his vote would count as 1(his vote) + x(=number of individuals that elected him as their proxy). You could vote for RandomGuy B to represent you on matters of, say, foreign policy, or for Economist C to vote for you on matters relating to taxes...or you could issue your own votes on all those matters as well.

    I'm sure that the idea would have its limits, too. It could ultimately be taken to an extreme where 'politicians' essentially became mindless drones that served none other than to follow the commands issued by the voting system...but I'm sure that something well short of that would be more likely to manifest under such a system.

    There are experts out there already, so it seems simpler than the random jury assigned to draft a summary of the issue.
    ...the origin of emotional sickness lay in people’s belief that they were their personalities...
    "The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense, not between right and wrong." ~Carl Jung

  9. #9
    fluctuating Obfuscate's Avatar
    Type
    iNtP
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Idaho... this sometimes changes withought planning...
    Posts
    1,082
    INTPx Award Winner
    Quote Originally Posted by TeresaJ View Post
    I'm assuming that the same safeguards that prevent fraud when filing taxes online would be in place.

    As for scope, I see it being tested small-scale (school, small company) and then moving up to large scale (union, nation).
    safeguards: i meant what protects us (the people) from results fabricated from above... i trust the little old ladies at the schools to count votes, but i don't trust an entirely digital process... i want a paper trail, and private citizens performing the tally... there would need to be a way for both sides to verify results... with filing taxes it is a much more simple issue on our end... either the results match your records or they don't... the government can't say "you earned three trillion dollars, pay up." withought you catching on... with so many citizens involved in voting, it would be difficult to prove falsification... yes, it is important for the government to verify that each vote was "legitimate" but if it was handled by computer that would give them your personal voting preferences, and eliminate the anonymity that i find to be necessary to have a "free" and "democratic" process...

    regarding what: i was thinking perhaps you meant that private citizens should decide everything for themselves (law, tax rates, budget, military strategy, etc)...

    ignoring borders/penalties: i thought perhaps you meant the internet should regulate itself as a community...

    scope: i more or less meant what are the votes meant to be on... it is looking like you mean more or less all voting...
    "The vanity of intelligence is that the intelligent man is often more committed to 'one-upping' his opponent than being truthful. When the idea of intelligence, rather than intelligence itself, becomes a staple, there is no wisdom in it."
    Criss Jami

    "When dealing with people, remember you are not dealing with creatures of logic, but creatures of emotion."
    "Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain but it takes character and self control to be understanding and forgiving."
    Dale Carnegie

  10. #10
    TJ TeresaJ's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    mosquito-infested hell
    Posts
    2,365
    What I had in mind was more or less what we vote on now, though with this sort of system it would lend itself toward "more," which could be a problem in itself.

    Ideally the scope and purpose of democracy should be to reconcile conflicts of interest among public issues, not the line of a fence between farmer Joe and businesswoman Ann (or whoever). How to determine what gets voted on and what gets delegated is a good question.

    Also, we already use electronic voting machines. I don't think little old ladies are tallying votes so much as making sure that everyone stands quietly in line. This may be naive of me, but I'm assuming that our current protections on the counting end are adequate.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •