This conversation is closed.

A website that shifts the focus of politics to bureaucracy by ranking civil servants on their ability to pass legislation proposed by users.

This is a website, a social interaction, and a game for voting US citizens >18 years old (with a focus on young and elderly voters). Because right now we elect politicians who simply don't do what we want. By measuring the ability of elected officials to represent their districts you encourage proper civil service. With the right data set you could create a ranked bracket, which would visually display who is the best representative. From here you add forums to enable users to: discuss policy, generate proposals, vote on proposals, show your representative what you expect them to do.

To me, the best part about this idea is that it has nothing to do with Republican vs Democrat or any other political angle. It makes voting out to be a simple choice, pick the person with the best rating. Fortunately that rating is determined by how effective they are at listening and bureaucracy. This website, if adopted, would apply continuous pressure to better preform.

I am very eager to work on this.

  • thumb
    Oct 1 2012: Your proposal, in my opinion, has some serious flaws.

    1. Your assumption is the average citizen who votes SHOULD have all of his/her ideas and wants implemented. I disagree. Most people who complain about "The Economy", what is wrong with it, and what they would do to fix it, can't even tell you the difference between macro and micro economics. They would tell you the U.S. economy "failed" because of the housing crisis four years ago, so it needs to be replaced with something that won't fail. The fact is, the economy did NOT fail as a whole...only a segment of it did. And any replacement economy would be subjuct to the same type of segmented failures within it's economic structure also. You can discover the same irrational logic in people's complaints about Democracy failing, politics failing, and any other subject you choose.

    2. Depending on how your "democracy" is structured, if your government operates as a REPUBLIC, you get to cast a vote for an elected official. Once you cast that vote, the politician (if elected) is NOT obligated to do what you want them to do. Their obligation is to make decisions needed to keep the country "running". Your vote granted them to make decisions FOR you, not the decisions you WANT them to make. Which is probably a good thing, 'cos getting 350 million people to agree on any course of action when needed would be impossible in any case, and disasterous in a crisis situation.

    "A Government" is a separate entity all by itself. It is an abstract entity. "The Government" consists of people...just like you and me...who have to make daily decisions to keep that entity functioning. The truth is if we threw out all the politicians and replaced them with "average citizens" today, you would have the SAME problems of people complaining about the average citizen's decisions who were now the new elected officials.

    Just because a citizen makes a proposal doesn't mean it's a good idea to implement it.
  • Oct 3 2012: Hi guys, thanks for the replies.

    @Ryan, our government certainly is a republic, we elect officials to, REPRESENT us. I agree that currently, a vote for a candidate is a vote for them to make decisions on our behalf, but they are not acting in our best interests. With the approval rating for congress around 10 percent its hardly fair to say that they are representing us as should be done in a republic.

    Let me be more clear about my idea, because you are making assumptions as well. I am not proposing to throw out all the politicians, simply to measure their performance, in a non political way and encourage their improvement through positive reenforcement (game mechanics). I also plan to start this on the state or even local government level.

    If as you suggest the opinions/desires of the common citizen should not be represented, then the type of government you are talking about is thinly veiled oligarchy at best, and a dictatorship at worst. Groups of average people have been shown to be more intelligent (except in specific environments discussed later) then single specialists, so based on the research your opinion is simply incorrect.

    Under the wrong conditions:
    >Homogeneity
    >Centralization
    >Division
    >Imitation
    >Emotionality

    Crowd wisdom fails as "group think" takes over. Unfortunately each one of these traits describes our current political system. Fortunately, a website by its very nature, would start to break these habits. The rest of the conditions can be prevented through web design and a user policy that mandates civil debate.

    -----------

    @ Fritzie, Yes I did mean legislators specifically. I was using the term civil servants overabundantly in an attempt to highlight the missing service component of current legislator.

    I suppose, "voted for a piece of legislation" would be one way to indicate that your representative had put his vote in the right or wrong direction. On the local government level it becomes easier to track (but only slightly)
  • thumb
    Oct 1 2012: You refer to civil servants. In the United States, everyone who works in government is a civil servant, including those in the executive and judicial branches who are not empowered to pass laws. Police officers, those who collect the garbage and clean the streets, and those who read your electric meter are civil servants.

    Do you mean specifically legislators?

    Further, how can you decide who has the "ability to pass legislation?" Do you mean those who voted for a piece of legislation you like that passed?