TED Conversations

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Does your country have an Electronic Direct Democratic (E2D) party?

I'm curious to find TEDsters who know of, or are members of any E2D party that might exist in your home country.

I'd like to hear some of the success stories you've had and how the general implementation of the party is going.

I'd also really like to talk to and/or help anyone thinking of starting a new E2D party in a country.

In case you haven't heard of E2D (which most of you likely haven't) I'll provide a link to the manifesto here: http://e2d-international.org/manifesto/

+5
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jun 3 2013: A more efficient way to exercise the tyranny of the majority?
    • thumb
      Jun 3 2013: Is that a question?

      Does it in any way respond to any question asked above?
      I claim that your question is simply an irrelevant snide remark.
      I designed the question to keep people like you, and (especially you) out of this.
      This Conversation is not a debate about if it's right or wrong or who the tyrant is (you'd make a great tyrant btw, always thinking you know better). It is a conversation meant to help like minded people share ideas and stories about a new way to govern.
      If you wish to have a debate about who the biggest tyrant is you should start a conversation about it, I however would not join you in it.
      • thumb
        Jun 3 2013: Oh dear I'm being ostracized again. Maybe TED is elitist after all?

        It is a question and a protest of socialist propaganda and the smug attitude that goes with it.
        • thumb
          Jun 5 2013: Yes Pat, If you can't keep on topic or answer a sub question in the explanation then your general negative attitude is not welcome.

          I would not come to a capitalistic conversation of yours with a short out of the blue, off-topic statement like " You just want capitalistic tyranny!".

          I wonder why you keep being ostracized everywhere... Strange really, you're so likable!
        • thumb
          Jun 5 2013: Pat I'm sorry but you're wrong here. It plainly states at the top that it is DEMOCRATIC. I don't sense the "smugness" either Pat. Jimmy simply explained logically why your input was invalid. It is completely off topic and to further that you brought up socialists which doesn't make sense. People still vote and are not forced to do so or threatened in any manner to sway their vote. Before you even try to say elitist to me I'll define myself. 23, African American/Caucasian decent, Single parent household, Unemployed, College Drop Out, "Bleeding Heart" by some, Humanitarian by others, No strong religious belief, No strong political affiliations or bias. Take it for what it is Pat, Don't assume such wild things :D We love all thoughts here except ones that are unfounded and ludicrous in nature. Hope your day brightens up man!
      • Jun 4 2013: I rarely agree with Pat (nothing personal Pat) however here he is correct and you are incapable of reading between the line(s).
        The manifesto you refer to is a recipe for mob rule or a tyranny of the majority as Pat suggests.
        A democracy only works if you have an informed population. You suggest personal involvement in government without checks or balances.
        It is difficult to imagine a more horrible scenario. (well.. I can but then I've got a really warped imagination).
        • thumb
          Jun 4 2013: Gordon if you want to disagree with me you are going to have to get in line, nothing personal, the line forms about a mile down the road.
        • thumb
          Jun 5 2013: Gordon,

          By your definition no democracy works as they are now, as I'm guessing that you don't consider any nations majority of citizens to be informed (enough) to know what is best.

          Are they however informed enough to choose their leaders in a political process that very few understand?

          Switzerland, for example, has this kind of "tyranny" and it's working fine there, only they actually have to get out to the town square every time they have to vote.
        • thumb
          Jun 5 2013: Gordon, As i stated in my comment above the people need to be educated to allow this to be effective. We are not truly educated by design ( the design of the school system molds us into this "educated yet stupid" cut outs). This rationalizes why education costs so much at higher levels. Only the elitist are giving a fighting chance to understand how the government works. No one ever said do away with checks and balances either. That is your assumption. This merely say the people will vote on all legislation via electronic devices. In this case the people would become Congress. The population of the nation would check and balance the other two branches of government. The people have to power to veto the government. The people have the power to say "No Mr.President we are(n't) going to war." The people simply have the power. It would be an adjustment but it would be nothing like you are stating. Change someones mindset and you will change their actions, motivations, and overall goals. Only with mindsets such as yours would things that you imagine become truths.
      • thumb
        Jun 5 2013: Jah

        It is very much on topic. What is the definition of the tyranny of the majority?

        Do you see any smugness in the below quote?

        "Yeah, that's what I've been thinking as well. I think that the US really needs a system like this to get rid much of the stupidity and corruption."



        PS this is a response to Jimmies post just below:

        "You have a model for ruling my world, I'm advocating a model for people to rule."

        That is not true.

        By definition learning requires comparing notes. If information is not compared to anything else it just so much noise and of no value.

        You have decided that everything I say is noise. Therefore you have not noticed that the very core of my agenda is to promote the freedom of the individual.

        The difference is that you believe in the power of the collective, that will give power to the people, I do not.

        I believe freedom is given to people by giving them freedom, especially freedom of choice.
        • thumb
          Jun 5 2013: I'm sorry, that's all I've been hearing from every TED Talk and Conversation on politics. That it's either stupid and/or corrupt.
          You have a model for ruling my world, I'm advocating a model for people to rule.
        • thumb
          Jun 5 2013: I have no specific question. I am only hoping to promote inclusive conversation in which diverse perspectives are welcome and for everyone to take the high road.
        • thumb
          Jun 10 2013: Pat,

          I think you struck a key note here, we both want basically the same thing, freedom. But we see different ways of getting there.

          I do not consider your comments as noise, I once shared many of your viewpoints so I understand them better then you might think.
      • thumb
        Jun 5 2013: I think Pat's question is connected to the question you pose, Jimmy, because it seeks clarification of what you consider "success."

        There would be no harm in your replying with a short explanation of the particular merits you see in such a party and any natural safeguards against the scenarios that concern Pat.
        • thumb
          Jun 5 2013: Fritzie,
          I have respect for you and most comments that I've read have been both insightful and diplomatic.

          I do however beg to differ. Pats question is as follows
          "A more efficient way to exercise the tyranny of the majority?"
          It does not seek clarification on what i consider a success, it is nothing more then a snide remark aimed at me and my political conviction. And neither of them have anything to do with this Conversation.

          How did you come to the conclusion that he's wondering about what a success for a political party would be? I have seen debates on many wordings here on TED but the word success is in this case just a word that's in there, for everyone to interpret as they see fit, and if they have a story that they think is a success story then I'd like to hear about it.
          It's very easy.

          And I would walk the high road, but not with Pat. There's no use in trying to explain anything like this to him because he's made up his mind and he's just here to disrupt (which is in violation of the Terms of use).

          Upon checking them again I see that they've changed since last. Apparently you don't have to stay on topic anymore so Pat is free to write whatever he wants here.


          There would be no harm in replying with the short explanation but I have already explained this to Pat on other Conversations and provided links to information.
          If he has any questions he is free to ask them in a polite manner and I will do my best to answer them.

          The same goes for you Fritzie, if you have any questions say concerning safeguards and such it would be nice if you asked them in a new post so that it all doesn't get jumbled together.
    • thumb
      Jun 4 2013: Tyranny of the majority? You mean something might actually get done? Citizens might have to become informed about their community, country and take direct responsibility for it's actions? We've gotten this far, it's time evolve to a higher level.
      • thumb
        Jun 5 2013: Precisely Madeleine!

        I haven't found any reference to any such party in the US, do you perhaps know of any?
        • thumb
          Jun 5 2013: Not that I've found so far, but I feel like it can't be long in the coming because it's a really popular idea here and the citizens are fed up with the insane inefficiency of the system.
      • thumb
        Jun 5 2013: Yeah, that's what I've been thinking as well. I think that the US really needs a system like this to get rid much of the stupidity and corruption. And I'm kind of hoping that this conversation might serve as a gathering point for those who wish to start this kind of thing in the US.
        • thumb
          Jun 5 2013: That would great. I really haven't seen a more effective model presented, honestly. I'd be very interested to see what would happen.

          Unfortunately, I'm still a Canadian citizen so I'm fairly useless in that respect.
        • thumb
          Jun 5 2013: The Swede and Canadian stating what is best for the U.S. and stating their opinion as to the intelligence and ethical standard within the U.S.

          This is similar to what happens with the tyranny of the majority as in the scenario where the government robs from Peter to pay Paul you can always count on the support of Paul. When Paul is the majority you have the end of the country and more importantly with it the end of liberty for the individual.
      • thumb
        Jun 5 2013: Oh, I just checked your location and thought that you were from the US...
        I'm not sure if you're aware that you have the Online Party of Canada since November last year. I have no more information then that they exist and go under the E2D manifesto...
        Here's a link http://www.onlineparty.ca/
        • thumb
          Jun 5 2013: Canadian citizen living in the US, I think that's badass that they have got the ball rolling on that, though.
      • Jun 5 2013: Things might get done but what things???
        Who would protect the rights of the unpopular. I could see gay rights evaporating in the US south in about 5 minutes
        The debates possible over a media like this are poor replacements for a face to face discussion and should not be the platform that government is directed from.
        The number of ways an opposing point of view can hijack a debate in an electronic forum are to numerous for this to be a safe, governing body.
        I can see it now. Lets build a bridge here. Yeah - everybody agrees we need a bridge here. It'll cost this much. Holy Shit - cancel the bridge.
        We will enter a time of brittleness in action and appropriation.
        No thanks.
        • thumb
          Jun 5 2013: Gordon,

          In my party we use an algorithm to make sure that no vote is made to swiftly. For example the speed of which a vote is decided is dependent on the number of voters (and a few other things). If I were to propose a law change on something and I would be the only one in Sweden to propose this the voting would be open for more then 100 years.

          You may visualize the voting process as a tug-of-war with a huge weigh in the middle to prevent a single person from grabbing the rope and running away...

          I hope that answers at least a bit of your question.

          If you have more of wish me to clarify on something would you please make a new post of it so that it comes on top?
    • thumb
      Jun 10 2013: Pat, I should apologize for my initial comment to you. I did not know that "tyranny of the majority" was a concept and I thought that you were just making outrageous accusations about the majority of people being tyrants.

      Well you basically did (and I disagree) but you did ask a valid question. It was my lack of knowledge that lead to that misunderstanding. Apologies.
      • thumb
        Jun 10 2013: No apology necessary, but thank you.

        Debate is actually a way of learning by comparison of ideas, so it is good.

        The problem is that most people do not get to a point of genuine communication.

        With that said what about the concept of financial enslavement, high taxes? The idea of ruining a life with government welfare?
        • thumb
          Jun 10 2013: What you call financial enslavement and high taxes I view as financial aid and... well, low taxes. Are you talking about corporate or income tax?
      • thumb
        Jun 10 2013: What you call financial aid I call enslavement. Which gets people addicted to government transfers. In effect robbing them of a life, the road to hell is lined with good intentions. The core of what is missing is a metric for these good intentions and more importantly the correct metric not one that is picked by a self serving politician. This is the very foundation of the scientific method.

        I'm talking about the aggregate, in the U.S. it is a minimum of 50% unless you are in the lowest quintile

        ZX Style on TED was complaining of 70% tax in the Netherlands.
        • thumb
          Jun 10 2013: Pat,

          I'm not sure how you measure the aggregate, could you tell me and I will check it here in Sweden. I'm quite curious about this as I've never heard the measure before. Perhaps it's being hidden from me in my socialistic country (somewhat sarcastic).
      • thumb
        Jun 10 2013: Don't know in your country but in the U.S. it just adding up the taxes:

        State income tax varies but maybe 5% to 11%
        Sales tax varies as well but maybe 8%
        Income tax 15% to 35% (has been as high as 92%)
        Social Security/Medicare 15.4%
        Property tax varies .2-4% of the property value (if you rent the cost is added into the rent)
        Gasoline tax varies .3 per gallon or roughly 8% of your gas cost
        If you smoke or drink
        Tobacco .37 to 4.35 per pack
        Alcohol varies too much

        Anyway I guess around 50% for the average person

        I'm sure I'm missing some not to mention tickets and fines. The other day I got a ticket for heinous crime of not using a seat belt = $172.00
        • Jun 10 2013: I think a key point Pat works towards is "pay the taxes of the government who de facto has no accountability to the people".

          I have ideas about taxation but I believe basically any taxation system is correct, if the funds are spent according to how the population wants them to be spent. The current problem is tax dollars are spent according to power games between politicians and their powerful supporters.

          Conservatives: reduce taxes on the rich and corporations, deregulate industry, strip education and social programs so the poor have no support. Trickle down economics. Every person for themselves mentality resulting in lack of opportunity for those born into low socioeconomic homes.

          Liberals: Throw money at inefficient social programs, bow to unions, overtax industry to support an inefficient public sector.

          I believe the average person is more centrist than this, why politics swing from one party to the other every few elections cycles, Liberals come in then after a while the population feels they are too liberal, Conservatives come in and they are too conservative.

          If the population had control of the purse strings they would demand efficient social programs and effective support for industry, they would promote hard work and creativity by allowing individuals to achieve wealth, while reducing wealth disparity (ie reduce the super wealthy class that holds an unethical amount of power).

          Special interest groups and unions would have to negotiate with the public, not with politicians to whom they can offer support in the next election in return for political favors.
      • thumb
        Jun 11 2013: Sven

        There is actually a certain amount of skill required to intelligently sift through the details. Which make the public that much more vulnerable to manipulation.

        In this post you yourself have stated a couple of points that are specious and indicate that you subscribe to straw men arguments which indicates your ignorance regarding economic matters.


        This is not a matter of me regurgitating rhetoric, just a basic understanding of economics.

        The accountability will not matter if it falls on deaf ears. You are ignoring the reality of people's ignorance.
        • Jun 11 2013: I accept that many people are ignorant, myself included, but no-one can know everything about everything. One person may understand international economics but not understand global warming, or macro economics, or understand how faith is interwoven into many peoples lives.

          If people are ignorant we should not give them the vote? How do we judge ignorance? People in the Bible Belt of USA would have a different interpretation of ignorance than a graduate of Johns Hopkins University, or for that matter a rural Asian farmer who looks at peaceful co-existence with nature and their fellow person as important, and thirst for material wealth to be ignorant.

          If we only let intelligent people make decisions, who dictates intelligence? Other "intelligent" people? My brother followed through a couple of doctorates at Stanford University and had settled in to the Academic path, but had to get out, he was sick of the "politics" of Academia, people taking credit for others work, playing the publishing game to gain fellowships and so on.

          I believe in education but any time you concentrate power you will have corruption, the more you spread power out the more difficult it is to corrupt.

          I agree with many of your arguments but I do not yet understand what your preferable solution is, you wrote "education", that is pretty vague. Maybe you mean policy should be dictated by scientific evidence, that is fair enough and many people supporting the DD movement agree but how do you implement it, which scientists do you follow, how do they become a trusted scientist. Can you elaborate on what you think is the correct path.
      • thumb
        Jun 11 2013: I stated somewhere a remedial education in economics. It could be done on TV on a national scale. In order to save this country from implosion (and with it other countries) the people have to be educated about budgets (not sequester BS), entitlements, and economics, a move to repeal of the central bank .

        Another tact that could be taken would be just to get an alternative money system as this is central to economic problems.
        • Jun 11 2013: These are all social policy changes, how are you going to enact them under a representative system that sustains itself by not enacting policy such as this?

          I do not specifically disagree with any of the ideas you present, but I do not see how it will happen unless the public has a some form of control over policy. The solution I believe in is a direct democracy. The direct democracy is the foundation that allows public focused and supported policy to come about.

          Are you opposed to a direct democracy? Do you support a representative democracy system? Or do you feel any system is fine as long as these policies come into place. If you think any system is fine, which do you think would achieve these policies quicker, if at all.

          If neither a direct or a representative system would achieve them, what would?
      • thumb
        Jun 11 2013: My concern as stated initially is the tyranny of the majority, I do not see how this can be circumvented. In actual fact the best example of this is the belt way as a new politician is co opted into the corruption by the existing politicians. So in reality the idea of a republic is blunted as well.

        Which brings me back to education.

        The only thing a politician cares about is reelection. If you educate the voters the politicians will respond. If you create a culture in the people by changing their ideas and (tacit) agreements we have a force that politicians will have to listen to or be gone. Look at what McCarthy was able to do on this subject. Not that I'm endorsing a witch hunt but it sure changed the culture on the beltway. Or look at Commons Sense written by Thomas Paine sold 500,000 copies in the first year in 1776, keep in mind that the population then was 2.5 million. If anyone was seminal in the American Revolution it was Paine. Or look at what Voltaire did regarding this earlier in France. Or listen to Simon Sinek talk about how Martin Luther King attracted a crowd of 250,000 in 1963 with out any promo. Me thinks you underestimate the power of ideas?

        My main concern is simply the math of the debt and dearth of freedom it creates.

        I think the constitution was written by some pretty smart fellers which resulted in the most successful country in the world by producing the most improvement in the standard of living and the most freedom the world has seen. I would not be in too big of hurry on this else we might throw out the baby with the bath water. I just want to enhance the natural law that is organic to people and diminish what is not organic to him.
        • Jun 11 2013: All democratic systems risk tyranny of the majority as they all incorporate some sort of majority rules voting. The representative system is no exception, so protections are put in place.

          Many of the same protections can exist in a DD, for example in the US you could have a DD political party, some of their candidates get voted in, for legislature that is voted on the DD representatives vote according to a majority vote of the population. But the presidential veto still exists, the bill of rights and constitution still exist, the protections are still there.

          You did not address these possible protections against tyranny of the majority, if they work in a representative system why not a direct system?

          Education is wonderful, strong moving ideas are great, but if the governing system concentrates power in the few, for example in representatives, you will often be taking one step forward and two steps back, the corrupt will be attracted to that power and will always find ways to abuse it. You may get some legislation passed improving education, restricting media, regulating financial institutions, but in time it will be eroded and back doors will intentionally be put in place.

          The people who wrote the constitution were smart yes, moral for sure, but they were not superhuman, they were not deities, it is not a bible that the human race has to follow forever because "they" made it. They lived in very different times, representatives were needed because there was no effective form of mass or fast communication, maybe if they were drafting a system now they would have made it differently. It is not important, what is important is the system that has evolved from what they made has failings, a direct democracy may address those failings.

          p.s. Success means different things to different people, USA was the most powerful country in the world yes, richest yes, but most successful, depends on your interpretation (child obesity, child drug use, disparity of wealth, etc..)
      • thumb
        Jun 11 2013: The main point I'm making is that we need to focus on only what is important. Yes the American Republic has not produced as much freedom as it might have but it is better than anyone else's by results in freedom and standard of living.

        Better or worse I don't see DD as vital to effecting changes in freedom and a better standard of living.

        I'm not talking about legislation passed improving education, restricting media, regulating financial institutions. You miss my point completely.

        Everything erodes and dies, unless there is a miracle, including the U.S. but the fact is the world will be worse for it's demise.

        But the tool to effect change is along the lines of the book Common Sense by John Paine.
        • Jun 11 2013: I believe I understand where you are coming from, and I do not know whether a direct democracy will improve any countries standard of living or individual freedom. I think there is a high chance direct democracy, if it comes about quickly, would initially do damage to things like a countries economic standing in the world, until the population matures and realizes consequences have to be considered.

          There are reasons I still support direct democracy, one is I believe it is about time the human race matured and we started taking responsibility for our own future, our planet, the global community we are part of. We are connected like we have never been before, we have technology and education like we have never had before, the population of the world is exploding like it has never done before, we cannot continue acting like children, blaming elected representatives for the ills of the world, living our insulated polluting lives hoping everything will be OK and others will clean up after us.

          Another is the big problems that are bearing down on our children are not effectively being tackled by elected representatives, global warming if it is real, and most scientists believe it is, needs action to be taken and soon. Pollution of our worlds air, water, soil, over fishing of our oceans, antibiotic resistant drugs. All these things and many others mixed together with an increased world population is a recipe for disaster. The world needs to work together to address these issues, but politicians, at the call of special interest groups, often take us in the opposite direction.

          So I agree with you, direct democracy might not improve standard of living or individual freedom, but for better or worse it will empower society to move forwards in the way the society believes is right.

          I believe it would be for the better.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.