This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Why don't we use technology to have a real Direct Democracy?
In democracy’s origin, all citizens gathered together to make decisions on relevant matters.
As populations grow this became impossible and the best choice to keep the model was electing representatives.
We currently have the technological capability to have a large part of the population or may be all the population (if we talk about cell phones)of many countries making choices real-time on topics each individual is interested in.
So we have a chance to get back to the ideal democracy and avoid many of the problems that arise from the representation model.
I think it’s time to get at least a hybrid model where people can easily and massively participate in the decision process.
I’m very interested in the TED community’s perspective on this.
the perspective is science based, publicly open and available to all.
A fine example here (thanks Lucas):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demoex
http://demoex.org/
http://CitizenME.org (thanks DK)
Other links provided in the posts:
http://www.ted.com/conversations/102/provide_the_tools_and_knowledg.html?c=194830
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/clay_shirky_how_cognitive_surplus_will_change_the_world.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/david_bismark_e_voting_without_fraud.html
www.lindsaynewlandbowker.posterous.com
http://www.peopleandparticipation.net/display/Methods/Consensus+Conference
http://www.whitehouse.gov/openforquestions
http://www.usnowfilm.com
http://www.whitehouse.gov/open
http://www.metagovernment.org/wiki/Active_projects
http://www.worldwork.org/
http://www.metagovernment.org/
http://www.dgsociety.org/
Regards!
JB
JF Frenette
We have recently started collaboratively drafting up an E2D Manifesto based on these basic founding principles:
1. Right to vote.
a) Every citizen of the jurisdiction, recognized by law, has the right to vote on every proposed Issue.
2. Right to propose law.
a) Every citizen of the jurisdiction must be given an equal opportunity to propose an Issue for debate and voting.
3. Political neutrality of the party, at the onset.
a) The Party is not, at the onset, governed by any other principles than Electronic Direct Democracy;
b) Once established, voting citizens will decide the direction of the Party in the democratic manner stated above.
4. Political neutrality of representatives, always.
a) When a party representative (e.g. candidate) is elected into legislature, the representative must always vote (e.g. on Bills) in accordance with the views expressed within the Party.
5. Voting by proxy (delegation).
a) If voting by proxy (delegation) is permitted within the Party, whereby a citizen may cast a vote on behalf of other citizen(s), there must be an official and public (or accountable) agreement between all citizens involved;
b) Regarding delegation, the direct citizen’s vote on issues must always override the delegate's vote and a citizen can change their delegate at any time (e.g. Recall).
6. Voting by (non)-members.
a) It is recommended that only members of the party be allowed to vote on internal matters of the Party (e.g. Statutes, Constitution, Candidates, etc.);
b) All Citizens and Members of other officially registered political parties (e.g. Liberal, Conservative, Labour, Green, etc.) are encouraged to vote on Issues while keeping their affiliation with their respective party; ensuring maximum representation of the citizenry.
JF Frenette
In Canada, we have just recently started a new political party called the Online Party of Canada:
http://www.onlineparty.ca/
It will be the country’s first non-partisan party and founded exclusively on the principles of electronic direct democracy (E2D): one citizen, one vote, real-time.
Let’s face it, we could debate the pros and cons of direct democracy vs. representative democracy all day -- no system is perfect (thanks for summarizing the major issues, Julian!) or… we can start demonstrating the ideas of E2D in practice and provide a tangible option to voters who wish to partake in political decision-making between elections.
Electors who disagree with direct democracy will still have the choice to vote for traditional parties and delegate their voting power to elected representatives, others can keep it for themselves or delegate it conditionally via liquid democracy. The fact remains, elections may be the only free and fair medium through which most of us can bring direct democracy to our countries (unless you live in Switzerland or have already some form of Citizens’ Initiative, Referendum or Recall law at the national level)… anything else would be undemocratic ;)
Dain Brammage
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
http://tom-atlee.posterous.com/iceland-is-crowdsourcing-their-constitutional
Julian Blanco 30+
JF Frenette
Demoex in Vallentuna, Sweden (local): http://demoex.net/en
Online Party of Canada (national): http://www.onlineparty.ca/
Citizens for Direct Democracy, Belgium (national): http://www.directdemocracy.be
Senator Online, Australia (national): http://senatoronline.org.au/
Aktiv Demokrati, Sweden (national): http://aktivdemokrati.se/
Partido de Internet, Spain (national): http://partidodeinternet.es/
Online Reglemented Party, Romania (national): www.votdirect.ro
Svojpolitik.si, Slovenia (national): http://svojpolitik.si/
Direct democracy is coming soon to a country near you!
"There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come"
- Victor Hugo
Southern Celt
JF Frenette
Your concerns about identity verification is directly related to anonymity. In fact, I'm surprised that more people haven't stated the obvious when it comes to e-voting: the problem is not the Internet, the problem is the "secret ballot". If you get rid of the secret ballot, you effectively get rid of all technical arguments against e-voting.
Let me put it this way, when citizens (e.g. candidates) run in elections, win and eventually vote on legislation in Parliament... they become "legislators", right?
If instead, we allow citizens to vote directly on legislation via the Internet (as opposed to electing politicians who will in turn vote on legislation on our behalf), then WE the People become the "legislators", right?
So why should our votes be kept secret?
Surely, you wouldn't accept that the identity of politicians and their votes on public affairs be kept from the "voters", right? In Canada, for example, you can keep track of how your Member of Parliament (MP) voted on each and every Bill ("Yay", "Nay" or "Abstention") by visiting the Parliament website: http://www.parl.gc.ca
And even if someone did manage to hack into the Parliament website and changed the votes, individual MPs would know how they voted and someone would alert the website administrator that there has been a breach in the system. Laws wouldn't get passed because of a hacker or webbot; the administrators would simply revert the votes and enhance security accordingly.
Similarly, when a member votes on an issue on the Online Party of Canada website (http://www.onlineparty.ca/), their vote is displayed for everyone to see. To address the issue of identity fraud, for members' votes to count toward the official position of the party, citizens first need to fill out and sign a paper membership form which can be cross-referenced with the National Registry of Electors. Therefore, only eligible citizens can officially register and hacking is futile.
Randy Williams
1. Direct Democracy is a true mob rule. The most popular idea, regardless of the harm it may impart to the under represented, will become the policy.
2. Most people in society do not have the passion or drive to be truly active on all the issues that they will be asked to form an opinion and vote. For a direct democracy to be effective the onus would be on the population to have as high a representative vote as possible for equality. Currently in the US we have voter turn out in the 35% range and consider that a good turn out. The problem is that the 35% figure is of registered voters, not total population. In the last presidential election, President Obama was elected by 20% of the population.
3. The average voter is too ignorant (not stupid, there is a distinction) on the issues to make an informed decision and will be very easily swayed by the "American Idol" style of lobbying that would become standard. An uninformed voter would be more dangerous than a truly malicious voter. The uninformed voting block would be very easily manipulated by the best lobbying, regardless of the impact of the legislation.
Southern Celt
Martin Ortmair
Anuraag Reddy
I believe facebook and similar platforms are already showing the polling of opinions and influencing trends. Though they may be limited to unorganized social pockets.
It is more so required, as it can add a new paradigm of giving much needed priority to our choices and decisions. Atleast the constraint of technology being a limitation doesn't exists any more.
Connor Dickie
Think of how easy it is to game current online polls!
To remedy this there is research being undertaken (that I participated in) at the MIT/Caltech voting technology project. Can we detect voter coercion, influence and general unsatisfactory voting conditions electronically?
As was stated in an earlier post, it's all about trust.
Harshil Gupta 500+
But when the question of reliability comes, would you trust facebook? Now if you dont trust facebook, whic evidently is the biggest social networking site, how do you trust a state owned portal for voting?
You make one and suddenly you'l have the chinese (pardon me pointing fingers :P) hackers hacking and suddenly you'l have Sarah Palin for president, now how disastrous is that? :P My sad humour aside, i hope you get the point that just having the resources doesnt make it worth using them. When its a nation's future at stake, reliability and security and reach are way more important.
Gad Baruch Hinkis
Martin Ortmair
Tim Bonnemann
The use of technology for the purpose of achieving more and better public participation is a very exciting area. In 2009, my company launched ParticipateDB (http://participatedb.com), a collaborative catalogue of tools for participation. The site aims to keep track of the ever-increasing number of tools and how they are being applied in practice. At 150+ tools, it's quickly grown to become the largest database of its kind world-wide.
You can follow our progress here:
Twitter: http://twitter.com/participatedb
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ParticipateDB
Blog: http://blog.participatedb.com
Please check it out and let us know which tools or projects we're missing. Thanks!
James Janisko
Also, I cant speel to save my lyfe. Sorry for the typos.
Sarah Caldwell
Robin Lutz
For example the fear of the Swiss of Muslims which led to forbid building of minarets in some parts of the Swiss. This is for me against human rights, and it was only possible, because a right-leaning populist party raised the fears against Muslims in the population.
Also a big problem is, that MANY people just didn't care about it, and they don't vote. So it was (for me) Muslims against people that fear Muslims. And in respect of the association "Terror = Muslims" these days, the result of the elections is clear. I am quite sure, that many of the people electing there, did not even know, what a Minaret is, but voted against it, because people fear what they don't know.
So as a conclusion, my main points against direct democracy:
1. fear of the people is much easier to produce than comprehension
2. people who are not interested don't vote, so you don't get "the real" opinion of the citizens
3. not everybody can get into every problem (i mean its a full-time job for politicians [should be])
I you wanna change the political crises in the US (we also have one here in germany, nearly same kind, but not as big), stop the parties depending on money from companies. For example: Clear is, when an oil company pays your election, you will not speak about global warming. And the people living in all these catastrophe areas in the US, they pay the bill.
Henrique Sanchez
Shaune Huolohan
Julian Blanco 30+
That applies to indirect democracy as well (“mob mentality” also impacts current elections), so you propose a dictatorship, monarchy? by who?
If we want non emotional non unbiased decisions, maybe we should have artificial intelligence.
(by definition, no political decision can be “right” or “unbiased”, you need a value judgment which will hardly be universal)
Regards!
JB
Stephan Ziemba
1. First is the problem of true democracy, which is, what do you do when really bad ideas become popular?
2. That brings us to the twin to the first issue: How do we qualify people to analyze issues for public dissemination without the spin of biases or simple ignorance?
Addressing 1:
I believe that we need to test and qualify all public servants regarding all the aspects of logic/reasoning, communication, and the math skills necessary to perform effectively and actively work to improve both government
and every day life, while these skills are taught just as vigorously to the public at large.
Addressing 2:
A comprehensive system needs to be developed of standards for human existence and behavior that are constitutionalized not just on a parchment, but in the development of all children of all ages and promotes diversity, while recognizing that actions that affect others and our environment are strictly limited to a range that promotes both our physical, social, and mental health.
Julian Blanco 30+
My thoughts on your objections:
1 I think it is far more likely that a small group of people push a really bad idea that a large group of people. I can happen in any case but I this is far less likely the larger amount of people you consult.
2 the group of representatives also have biases and ignorance, why should we prioritize theirs vs ours? Also my guess is that the vast majority of the input in this model will come from concerned well educated people and not from the large majority, but that I’m saying all will have the same right, some simply are more likely to use it than others…
About your solutions:
1 the definition of that curriculum for representatives would be a big fight, and even if applied that does not address the neutrality issue. About teaching people to be citizens and vote I totally agree.
2 agree in general terms, but you are adding values that are not necessarily universal, and that should also be debated, from a what and a how perspective.
Regards!
JB
Morgan Daly
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
Julian Blanco 30+
Let me see if I get your idea (my English is not perfect): you want us to use the TED site to cast an e-vote on each aspect of direct democracy?
If that is correct, propositions equal how would the structure/model of this democracy be.
Hopefully I'm getting it right, please confirm :)
I think the main issue with your proposal is that people commenting and reading are probably not the average citizen (by quantity).
On the other hand I think it makes total sense because the people that will predominantly participate in this type of political system will be involved and educated citizens (like the ones reading this).
Regards!
JB
Bob Thomas
C English 20+
Direct democracy is essentially mob rule. It is the version of democracy best described as "two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch". It suffers from the tyranny of the majority. This is exactly what happened with Proposition 8 in California in terms of the rights of homosexuals to marry. Rights or treatment of minorities is not something that should be left to the majority to decide. It must be instilled in the fundamental principles of the governing constitutions.
It also suffers from the ignorance of the majority. That is to say, the more specific an area of knowledge or specialty, the smaller the minority who hold it. "The people" are great at identifying problems. They are the best people to decide who to hire to solve these problems. They are not the best people to ask how to solve the problems. The majority are not economists. They are not criminologist. They are not diplomats. They are not defense experts, or intelligence experts. They don't know what the best scientific data says about many health issues, or about environmental impacts. People in general shouldn't be expected to be experts.
That is why we hire representatives. We hire them, via our votes, to bring their expertise at seeking out and aggregating relevant information, and to turn those into relevant policies. We hire them to recognize the pitfalls of proposed policies and bills, and to point them out.
It's far from perfect, but representational democracy far exceeds that of direct democracy in terms of ideal operating conditions.
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
Andrew Simon
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
I was really responding to the assumption that somehow the people we elect to represent us whether at the national or local level are somehow "more expert" than the average citizen.
That comes from first hand experience.over more than a decade of being the "policy wonk" behind the scenes who actually makes elected officials look smart by writing their NY Times OP ED pieces for them, writing their testimony on important issues writing their public comments on pending legislation etc. etc. Most elected officials are :talking heads" whose talk is provided by others.
When I wrote the post to which you replied many months ago, the freshman mid term legislators were just beginning to speak publicly. Michele Bachman for instance who seems to be even less well informed that Sarah Palin and on the strength of that is soraing to leadership and possible position at the highest level.
Lobbying is a very poor way for a newly elected legislator to "learn" on the job. That information is biased and serves interests that not only are not the public interest but often contray to the public interest..
I believe very deeply, as the founding fathers did, in the wisdom of the common man. I have profound respect for that. If each of us were actively involved in goverance and " we the people" made decisions on our own governance I know I would be a lot prouder of my country than I am now. Wisdm has nothing to do with education and I must say it is not taugt in law school from which many of our new legislators are launched.
A few months ago when I first joined TED I posted a discussion on my proposoal for "Legbook" a way to reunite "we the peope" with our own governance. Also see the post I made here recently on Icelands expereiment in dircet democracy. It can work, it will come to pass. It is what we need.
C English 20+
"America’s Founding Fathers, especially James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, backed the Romans. Indeed, in their guise of “Publius” in the “Federalist Papers”, Madison and Hamilton warn against the dangerous “passions” of the mob and the threat of “minority factions” (ie, special interests) seizing the democratic process. Proper democracy is far more than a perpetual ballot process. It must include deliberation, mature institutions and checks and balances such as those in the American constitution."
You can read more about real problems of direct democracy and government by referendum in the rest of the article: http://www.economist.com/node/18586520?story_id=18586520&fsrc=rss
The details of Federalist Paper #10 are here: http://www.southsearepublic.org/article/17/read/short_essay_on_federalist_paper_no10
You might also find relevant Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America and John Stuart Mills' On Liberty that spend much time on the problems of the "tyranny of the majority" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority).
Finally, the perspective from which I've come to the conclusion that direct democracy is a bad idea is via game theory, specifically the Prisoners Dilemma, which demonstrates that individual self-interest produces unstable and poor outcomes in areas where common agreement is required (as in legislation). This is discussed at length in (political scientist) Robert Axelrod's The Complexity of Cooperation (http://www.amazon.com/Complexity-Cooperation-Agent-Based-Competition-Collaboration/dp/0691015678).
I hope that clarifies some of the problems and why it has generally be avoided.
Southern Celt
C English 20+
The majority is not directly held responsible for their bad decisions. The majority of Easter Islanders who thought that cutting down trees would help save their dying culture didn't work. People in general are prone to a multitude of bad reasoning, from dogmatic beliefs to irrational economics, to susceptibility to "advertisement", popularity, rhetoric, propaganda, and confirmation bias. There are whole fields of psychology and behavioral economics dedicated to the poor decision making process of people.
When it comes to running things, there are people who do know better. You take your car to a mechanic because they know mechanics. You get your hair cut at a hairdressers because that is their specialty, and you hire good managers to manage things, including the use of evidence for policies. If they perform poorly, they get replaced. Who do you replace when the majority fails to follow the evidence?
The answer to corrupt representation is to demand more checks and balances. It's slow, and takes time, but if you are diligent and enough people care (and they will if it is bad enough), then corporate influence gets handled better.
I agree wholeheartedly that it takes education and intelligence, and you should know who you are voting for. Don't accept mindless rhetoric. Demand understanding, explanation, and evidence. And hold them accountable to performance. That's how you make good government.
Frank Grove
AI Agents developed as personalized representatives for each user will mitigate the data overload problems, as well as improve the ability for the system to deal with passionate minorities. These agents do not make decisions, but are simply assistants for each citizen to improve and streamline their ability to participate.
The ideal system is that of a Dynamic Direct Democracy, where citizens determine their individual level of representation. This allows each citizen to choose whether they will defer to a proxy vote, or assume the responsibility to vote for each decision on their own. Representatives can be allowed to proxy vote on a single topic, multiple topics, or even all topics.
We are making our framework available at http://code.google.com/p/pirate-politics/ In the future the functionality will be validated in peer-reviewed AI and eDemocracy literature.
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
pranoy sundar 20+
Drew Bixby
DK Holland 200+
This is what Citizen ME is about. We are approaching the idea of getting everyone involved by working with very young children (and up) to inculcate a culture of participation: to get across the tenets of democracy as concepts and then add the complications.
I think what we see now in our society is people who enter the conversation midway, ie, without the foundation that would help them think about the ramifications of actions and inactions - to themselves and others. Why the greater good is good for all.
Please check out CitizenME.org - look at our videos.
Tell us what do you think.
Julian Blanco 30+
Great initiative!
Scary comparison between Public and Private schools… (I know this is anecdotal, but is it the same from a statistical perspective?)
Questions for you:
Is the content you mention open and available for everyone? Where?
If we had a direct democracy, how would your current content work? Would it need to be updated?
I’m adding your link to the main subject and the education need to the “how to” list.
Thanks!
JB
Julian Blanco 30+
Fund a party Demoex style
TED talk by someone implementing this
TED active project
Add “citizen training” to the curriculum (DK)
Christophe:
Info should be shared ASAP to evaluate for accountability
1) Put all laws of a country online
2) Translate them to understandable language (for non-jurists)
3) Link the laws with the corresponding themes and search words
4) Let people discuss by topics and own chosen areas of expertise (much like Quora)
5) Proposals of people get voted up or down
6) Add the scientific data (psychological, economical, sociological, historical, biological,...) and debunk the ideas, do the math for finance...
Others:
Start local
Needs to be refined thru trial and error at small scale
What should we decide about?
Universal access to vote
Social network format
Protect anonymity
Open source system
Who should manage the system?
Clear success metrics
Build a priority list
Need check and balance? How?
Which power should be engaged?
A system that tracks the votes of representatives and shares the data.
Con:
People don’t have the knowledge/capacity/education to deal with the responsibility (the most persistent con by far)
People don’t have the time to understand and vote
Media Influence is so big, it will lead the decisions
Some things (diplomacy) should be secret
Complex terminology of the law
Minorities and rights protection
Difficult to plan long term
Decisions would not be made
Electronic fraud
Too many decisions
System data overload (massive participation in discussions)
Less need to discuss and reach agreements
Pro:
People would make their own decisions
information will be shared
Decentralize decisions
Can connect and empower people
People know best what they need/want than a representative
Less influence from parties
More control / less corruption
Lobbies would lose power
People assume responsibility
Growth of interest groups/ nontraditional media
It would be cheaper
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
Julian Blanco 30+
yes, all the links are on the main idea (not enough space for the links and the summary).
I'm glad you liked the summary, I spent a few hours at it.
Regards!
JB
AZAMM HASSAN
excue my english
Tim Colgan 50+
. representative government
. bicameral legislatures
. separate judiciary
Would/could a Demoex type system incorporate any such protective measures?
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
James Moloney
Regards Jamie