Techdirt Podcast Episode 80: Can Direct Democracy Work?
from the good-vote-bad-vote dept
Technology has made "direct democracy" — letting citizens vote on specific, granular issues instead of just electing representatives — more viable than ever, but does that mean it's a good idea? This week, we discuss the ins and outs of direct democracy, including a special addendum on the surprising results of the Brexit referendum.
Follow the Techdirt Podcast on Soundcloud, subscribe via iTunes, or grab the RSS feed. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes right here on Techdirt.
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: brexit, direct democracy, podcast, politics, voting
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
nope
No one WANTS it to work. If we cannot even keep an indirect Democracy, which is a Republic working how in the fuck sticks do you expect a direct democracy to work.
There is a fundamental problem with people in general. The majority cannot and will not effectively rule itself.
A democracy is two wolves and 1 lamb deciding what is for lunch.
A democracy will stand until they citizens learn that they can vote themselves largess through the government.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Electronic voting machines are as good as encryption with multiple back doors. Voting on the web is less secure.
The average person has basically no knowledge on which to make decisions. Look at the recent string of elected officials/candidates.
Democracy/Republic may be better than anything else, but they devolve to oligarchy backed by police states.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Electronic voting machines are as good as encryption with multiple back doors. Voting on the web is less secure.
The average person has basically no knowledge on which to make decisions. Look at the recent string of elected officials/candidates.
Democracy/Republic may be better than anything else, but they devolve to oligarchy backed by police states.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Problems of democracy?
However, I can take a shot at why technology is making things worse, and it comes down to bad economic models. Consider the google, for example. On the surface, it looks great and extremely profitable, but in their never-ending quest for more of your time and attention because they NEVER have a "big enough" profit, they are now focused on stuffing your eyeballs and earholes with exactly what you want to hear for fear of losing your attention.
Per my sig, freedom (as a justification for democracy) is about meaningful and unconstrained choice. Choice is NOT meaningful when all of the information has been slanted in favor of not offending you. Even worse, choice is NOT unconstrained when your personal information is being collected and used to manipulate you.
Not just the google, but I think they are probably the worst corporation on these lines. The 'no evil' thing is dead. The google's current motto must be "All your attention are belong to us, the google."
Weirdly enough, I think there is a solution, and it could begin on websites such as TechDirt. It would involve a different economic model focused on SOLVING the problems that the website's articles (or videos etc.) are telling us about.
My new motto is "Details available upon (polite) request, or even better if maybe you have a better idea."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
We can say the same for 99% of the politicians.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Our current system is broken due to First Past the Post voting.
They way to fix things is a truly representative government, which requires a change to the voting method. STV voting is the minimum fairly simple to explain. It focuses on making as many voters happy as possible and is a good topic for one of those famous California propositions.
CGP Grey recently did several videos on STV elections.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI for the first one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How about in congress?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ultimate direct democracy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why are majorities more tyranical than ruling minorities?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Christ, can someone shut up the loudmouth?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
24 States already have direct democracy and it works pretty well
Ballot initiatives are initiated by voters, so WE get to set the agenda. Referendums are referred by legislatures to voters. It's fair to say that the Brexit vote was an overreaction caused by the inability of the *citizens* of the European Union to set the agenda, with corporations in charge thru "Representatives."
This is an example of what 4-term New York Governor Al Smith said: "If there's a problem with democracy, the solution is more democracy." European voters need to set the agenda with ballot initiatives like voters in 24 US states.
Commenters are correct that internet is not secure for voting -because ballots are anonymous, unlike credit card or other financial transactions. While Flux, Liquid Voting, etc are very convenient, they are not necessary.
I've beenorking formore and better direct democracy for 27 years, including directly with Senator Mike Gravel. Here's my latest article: http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/4/2/1508657/-Why-Bernie-Sanders-should-put-Direct-Democracy-on- top-of-our-agenda
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Don't replace, improve
Our current election technology allows for much error and potential corruption. If an effort was made in the electronic voting arena that was wholly open source, software, hardware, firmware, wares I haven't thought of, and vetted for a long time on the Internets that it might become at least as reliable as our current technology, and maybe even better.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Idealistic
Also, government is a complex system. How it chooses between two outcomes is almost always irrelevant to my life. How does anyone know which is the right answer? There might not even be a right answer. Why should I invest any more time on it?
Many economists think voting is a waste of time.
And finally, is democracy important or the appearance of democracy? Does it actually matter if all we have is democracy theater?
[ link to this | view in thread ]