TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Hacking democracy: a simple, legal way to put the power in the hands of the people

Literally all the problems in the way we're governed right now are due to the people with decision making power being disconnected from their constituents. No one except those running the military industrial complex want our tax dollars to fund endless war. No one except the bankers want our tax dollars to bail them out.

Occupy wall street, anonymous hacking government emails, peaceful protestors yelling at passerbys on weekends, hundreds of thousands of people signing online petitions, anarchists dropping out of college to go live in the woods, these techniques have not proven at all effective in fixing the broken system. No one seems to want to get to the root of the problem, the power structure itself.

I propose an online direct democracy system that any registered voter can use (not only members of a particular political party) that would allow every citizen in a community to propose, edit, upvote, comment, and vote on legislation that impacts their community. But this system is toothless without the hacking democracy part of my plan.

A person (not a politician) runs for office under the platform that he will exclusively use this decentralized decision making process to make decisions. Imagine that instead of his own brain deciding whether or not to pass legislation, he agrees to submit to the whims of the people. He will still be proposing legislation through this system, but now everyone can. If he has good ideas, the citizens will vote for his legislation. If he doesn't, he can just execute the legislation his constituents come up with.

I have a million bulletproof counter-arguments for any criticism of direct democracy & I have the time to explain them to you, but the most important idea you need to consider is this: we need to incrementally improve the system. No one is going to come up with a plan tomorrow that fixes all of society's problems and instantaneous paradigm shifts aren't practical.

Check out my site: http://hackingdemocracy.wordpress.com


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Feb 25 2013: I agree that there must be decentralization of government so that the people can have a say, but....

    The problem with Democracy is the people usually vote for who promises them the most money or an easier way of life, then they are surprised when they merely get a pittance or no new opportunities appear at their door step.

    You also don't want people in New York and Chicago deciding how things should be in Oklahoma or Wyoming; further reason for decentralization.

    These lobbyists are a result of an out-of-control-tax-code; it is natural for Man to use any means possible to gain an advantage over their competition.

    A Federal Government must be severely limited in its scope, and localities must be empowered. However, in the United States today the localities are dependent upon the Feds giving them back their tax money or redistributing the tax money from a more prosperous region.

    Our system of government is broken, and to continue to seek an avenue where everyone gets what they think they WANT will only postpone the inevitable.
    • Feb 26 2013: This is another thing I didn't have space to clarify in the introduction: I mean decentralization of decision making, not government. There will still be the same political entities we have now: city, state, nation, etc. The only difference is that anyone living in one of these entities can affect legislation that applies to everyone in that entity.

      That's a little difficult to explain abstractly so here's an example. A DDD rep is elected to be mayor of your town. Now every citizen of your town has a say as to what legislation passes in your town. People who don't live in your town do not. Period. Now imagine a different DDD rep is also simultaneously elected to be president of your country. Every citizen of your country has a say in what happens in your country.

      What do you think the point of different sized political entities is in the first place? So people can pool their resources, while having different laws to live by as different laws work for different groups of people. The most general legislation that everyone can agree on would be at the national level. As you get more extreme (no guns, no homosexuals, etc) you want those laws to be contained to the small populations who desire them.

      So then why wouldn't everyone just live in their own isolated tribe with their own isolated laws? Because it benefits society as a whole to pool our individual resources. Those small towns aren't going to be able to defend themselves from external forces, but if they pooled all their resources with many other towns, they would be able to benefit from a national army.

      By the way, what do you think is inevitable? Complete societal collapse? You do realize that this was far more likely in the sixties and seventies right? If you really think there's a problem with democracy, using hacking democracy it is entirely possible to set up a socialist, fascist, or even anarchist state. You just have to get enough other people to agree with you that it's a good idea.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.