[FoRK] Money and Campaigns Re: My sentiments exactly...

John Parsons bullwinklemouth at yahoo.ca
Sun Jan 24 12:18:53 PST 2010

The suggestions you outline would indeed be a good thing, at least for the likely small minority that would take advantage of them (i.e. A) may still apply). With distractions like omnibus bills and the like, the answer to C) would continue to remain elusive without direct voter involvement in the formative stages. As to B), the voter still only has a coarse effect on outcomes. Barring very rare cases of recalls, impeachments and the like, the voter only has a limited, periodic chance of directly affecting anything. Still, as you point out, existing technology (some scaling may be required) can definitely improve the situation.

It occurs to me that the technology also exists to move towards a more direct form of democracy, up to and possibly eliminating the need for representation as it currently exists.  Your "system of systems" would require only slight modifications to jump to this function, and would in any case, probably be a necessary intermediate step. 

Representative democracy was the only logical, feasible way to function when our consitution(s) were drafted, and it has changed little since its inception. From a heritage and ceremonial standpoint, this is all well and good, however, the system clearly is under strain from today's societal requirements, as this thread would indicate.

Obviously, there are huge vested interests to overcome, but prima facie, direct democracy would seem a desirable outcome. What could be more truly libertarian than having every issue and appropriation open to every voter? I'm posing this for discussion purposes, in that I have not explored all the issues in depth. However, most of the available dissent of direct democracy seems to be premised on an elitist standpoint.


--- On Sat, 1/23/10, Stephen Williams <sdw at lig.net> wrote:
The solution to A) voter disengagement, B) representative malfeasance, and C) countering, curbing, or counteracting/counterbalancing corporate influence seems obvious and only a couple hops out: real cyber tracking of issues, rationale, voting, money/poll cause and effects, etc.  We have some transparency now, and we'll not get full transparency to the whole process, however we can do far better than we have.  Concurrent with A) much better communication and polling about what constituents want and B) fully analyzed tracking of legislator actions, we must also have some kind of dynamic "education" of voters on the concepts, issues, and position rationale, complete with CBO and/or CBO-like analysis of hard facts and actuarials.  This system of systems will necessarily have some (emergent?) way of voters to argue out positions and rationale within some shared organizational framework.

This again brings me back to thoughts about problems with and solutions to information representation and interaction.  If you think about our current communication of legislative and judiciary knowledge, it is extremely fragmented, piecemeal, and more or less useless for most people. 

Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! 


More information about the FoRK mailing list