Icelandic Citizens Support Crowdsourced Constitution
from the good-for-them dept
Earlier this year, we wrote about plans by Iceland to crowdsource its new Constitution, and over the weekend, residents in Iceland voted (overwhelmingly) to say that they were pleased with the result. Nearly half of Iceland's eligible voters participated, with 66% voting in favor of the new Constitution -- which was put together by a 25-person committee, but which made extensive use of social media and other means to crowdsource input. There are a lot of really interesting things related to the internet and internet freedom happening in Iceland these days, and countries that ignore what's happening there do so at their own peril.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: constitution, crowdsourced, iceland, politics
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Our Turn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Our Turn
That said, I would love to have a new Constitution written in this fashion for Oklahoma. Oklahoma's Constitution is the longest in the nation and is filled with a bunch of crap that shouldn't even be there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Our Turn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Our Turn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Our Turn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Iceland will become a piracy/big search/anti-IP/anti-paywall/anti-industry haven
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and "almost half" of people able to vote actully voting, then only just over half agreeing with it it not a very good result.
all that has happend is what normally happens, a committee draws up a constitution, and the people vote on it..
crowd sourced would mean the citizens of the country drafted the constitution, then ratified it by vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"which was put together by a 25-person committee, but which made extensive use of social media and other means to crowdsource input."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
After all, that would require him to pause in his rantings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How about these rules for the politicians.
Every candidate must submit to a drug test and be tested at random times during her/his time in office.
Is 4 times a year too much for representatives who.
With the stroke of a pen can start wars or put the people into unplayable debt?
Every candidate must write down what he/she will and will not do while in office.
Any deviation from what they wrote and they are fired immediately.
Also the section on international law superseding Iceland's law!!
What if international law says you must bail out banks or no country can have a constitution!
It would make all this pretty pointless wouldn't it.
Its a constitution that results in Iceland losing its sovereignty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just under 50% voted, and 66% of those approved. Basically, an approval rate of about 35%? Yes, overwhelmingly, they ignored the process.
Yes, other countries should pay attention: The people were not interested enough to bother!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...Your point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
50% of the people cared enough one way or another to go out and make their voices heard. Of those 50%, 66% were emphatically in support of the new constitution. This means that 35% were all for it, 15% were completely against it, and 50% were indifferent.
Being indifferent does not mean opposed to the concept. It just means that they would be content either way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Approx 57% voted in the US in 2004 and 2008, and just over 50% got a president elected. That's under 30% of the electorate.
How did you think it worked?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mike wrote the post as if the whole country supported this stuff, which it clearly does not. 33% of the people voted in favor, nobody else did. That looks like a failure to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Jeff was pointing out that the voting turnout was similar in the USA when they voted Obama in. You just missed the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In the case of referendums, the non-participation rate is a good indication of people who don't care, aren't interested, or who realize that there isn't enough general interest for their vote (for or against) to really matter.
Generally, people who turn out in a low vote count referendum are "for", they are the ones motivated to make the change. It's only when the opposite side (against) mounts a significant campaign that you actually get some action.
33% voter approval ain't really much.
In the US, the electoral college means that many people in states that are heavily red or blue generally don't turn out. They know that their votes in the Presidential election don't count for much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
is the only nail in the government coffin we have. vote not guilty for most. empty the jails. If they can't prosecute dope smokers...or any other people for minor, made up crimes. Here is one. Cigarettes are natural and can't be regulated, ah duh, full of toxic chemicals and kill millions each year. Dope totally a illegal... kills... 8 people a year only because they forgot about the cigarette they set down and then fell asleep.
They are screwed. Look around a little... a mother wouldn't let a tsa agent touch her 14 yo daughters peach. she went to court and mom got punished. A jury could have said... hey government you over stepped your bounds. not guilty. The government says its the law so it is? that's bullsh!t.
If she exercised her right to find people not guilty she would be able to afford a normal life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The elected don't represent me, because when elected they can do as they please.
Fool me once shame on you. I stop voting. Fool voters every election. Voters are beyond help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From what I'm seeing in these comments, people seem to think that 100% of the people who didn't vote were against it.
This is starting to sound like schrodinger's vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Statistics fail
Similarly with Obama, if 57% voted for in the last election of those who did turn out, very close to 57% would have voted for him if 100% turned out.
This is why people can survey 1000 people and get extremely accurate results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Statistics fail
For the most part, in a referendum on a subject few people are passionate about, you get a lower turnout, and the vast majority vote with the group. That is to say that if the idea is to approve of something (as opposed to trying to ban or shut something down), generally the people who turn up are those involved in the topic - the supporters.
So what happens is that slightly less than 50% of the people even bothered to vote. You cannot draw much conclusion from those who voted, as they are the ones most passionate about the issue. Those not passionate about the issue are generally less likely to support change.
It should be noted that two additional things play here: It's not a binding vote, it doesn't force anything to happen, and second, the government still has to address the issue themselves.
You can't draw and statistical conclusions from those who voted, apathy usually means "no support".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(My wife agrees -- I should move to Iceland. *rimshot*)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It was not a vote on the constitution. They had not seen any draft as yet.
Then, as always the the criminals (committee) took that as a opportunity and said that Icelanders had voted on the constitution.
The criminals knew that the people would never vote yes on the fully prepared and awful constitution they had ready to go.
The criminals then presented the new constitution to the other criminals (Government) to sign into law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]