TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

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/


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jun 8 2013: Interesting conversation, I help manage the E2D site although I am not directly involved in any of the E2D parties.

    Just to clarify E2D was set up by a number of electronic direct democracy parties around the world to support each other, and hopefully build a collective like the Pirate Party.

    A couple of notes on the comments in this conversation:

    - Tyranny of the majority: It is an important consideration, what would have happened to Japanese Americans immediately after the bombing of Pearl Harbor if the majority of Americans decided policy? Well in a representative democracy many were imprisoned without trial... but it is still important to consider and there are unlimited forms a DD system can take, it is up to the original designers of the system (the DD parties at this point), and then that system will probably incorporate paths to evolve according to the populations wishes. There is no reason why a DD system could not continue to have a bill of rights and constitution protecting minorities etc..

    An example: SenatorOnline party Australia (if I remember correctly) only wants to field candidates for the senate, which has one senator per state, the senators are like the rubber stamp on policy created in the lower house, so the old political system exists were elected representatives debate and create policy, then the DD system acts through its elected senator/s as a public rubber stamp on all policy - the public gets to vote on whether any legislation is allowed to pass - majority rule.

    - Online Party of Canada is active and is fielding a number of candidates and has active debates: http://www.onlineparty.ca/

    - USA: I have come across a number of initiatives there but none like standard E2D parties: http://e2d-international.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=137

    If anyone wants to join in the E2D forums let me know (Jimmy, we have your party listed but I am not sure if you have an account?), currently new members are not registering due to too many spam accounts.
    • thumb
      Jun 8 2013: Hi Sven,

      I'm so pleased that you decided to join this Conversation, and I'd like to give you a warm welcome to the TED community! Thanks for your explanation about E2D (and DD), any backup that I get on this Conversation saves me a lot of effort and time. And it also strengthens our message if we are more that are putting up different perspectives and explanations for E2D.

      I haven't checked the forum section on E2D at all actually, I usually keep to the Swedish party's website concerning questions on DD and E2D.
      I would be grateful if you could give a heads up when it's possible to register once again and I'll do that and join a discussion or two.
      • Jun 8 2013: Hi Jimmy (or anyone else interested)
        I believe you can still register at:

        But then an admin like myself will have to activate the account, if you can reply back here with the sign in name you created, or through the E2D Google Group, I will active the account.

        The Google Group has had some interesting conversations, I believe this link will allow you to request to join:

        There is not a lot of activity on E2D, most members are focused on their local regions, there is work to be done such as cleaning up the manifesto, statutes, etc..
      • Jun 10 2013: Hi Jimmy
        I believe your E2D forum account is activated now, let me know if any issues.
    • thumb
      Jun 8 2013: Thanks, Sven, for being willing to engage with people who have questions!
      • thumb
        Jun 9 2013: Fritzie, You asked some questions in a Conversation that has closed and there is no option of emailing you since your profile is protected so I'll leave a link to the conversation with the questions and answers to them here, I hope that's okay.

        Conversation Link: http://www.ted.com/conversations/18831/is_there_anywhere_irc_channel.html

        TED seems to welcome this. Part of mail from TED Conversations Admin Morton Bast:

        "I'd like to thank you as well for your enthusiastic "TED Improvement" conversation and wiki -- we're always happy to hear opinions and feedback -- but I'd also like to caution you that making changes to TED.com is a long process that requires the approval of quite a few very busy people. I'm very impressed with your community leadership, but I also want to make sure that you're prioritizing your efforts appropriately. Thank you so much for understanding."

        I am very well aware of Ladan's Conversation, it is link number two in the explanation of my Conversation. And when you read through it you'll see my comment's throughout that Conversation. The same goes for the Conversation (TED staff) Will True had. And just about every conversation about improving TED in some way.

        I've been on this for a long time.

        I do not wish to pressure TED in any way, I wish to collect and refine ideas about all aspects of improving TED, those ideas that are sound will be much more likely to be implemented when they are refined and presented in a comprehensible way.

        I'm not sure if you're asking if it's too "self-promotional " to have this conversation and Wiki or something like that with the last section? The Wiki clearly states that it's an "unofficial, user generated Wiki" right on the start page...

        I'd like to continue to answer any questions or statements you might have about the Conversation or Wiki as I don't think that we're completely in sync here, and I think that we can and should be.

        But it's perhaps best to do on the Conversation in question.
    • thumb
      Jun 8 2013: Sven

      The internment was reactionary and stupid which sums up the POTUS at that time.

      On the other hand slavery would not have been abolished if left to the rule of the majority or women's suffrage or prohibition.

      The collective is easily influenced. The danger of this is best illustrated by looking at the willing financial enslavement that the tyranny of the majority produces in most western countries.

      In other words it creates a consensus, the fundamental problem is that truth comes from individuals not collectives.
      • Jun 8 2013: Tyranny of the majority:

        "Limits on the decisions that can be made by majorities, as through supermajority rules, constitutional limits on the powers of a legislative body, or the introduction of a Bill of Rights, have been used to counter the problem"

        There is no reason why these protections could not exist in a DD system.

        An effective DD system like E2D parties wish to create has never been tested on a social level before so it is impossible to say whether this theoretical problem would develop, there are many who say it would not and that minorities would be safer under a DD than the concentration of power in the hands of the few which exists in a Representative Democracy.

        Most E2D parties wish to initially function within existing government frameworks so courts, separation of powers, presidential veto's etc would all still exist, it is not an overnight jump into a pure direct democracy and these dangers could be tested and controlled, if the population feels the system is safe it could evolve accordingly.
        • thumb
          Jun 9 2013: I see a problem with that, our constitution is set up differently very much focused on assuaging the problems of the tyranny of the majority. But no doubt the current POTUS has demonstrated his willingness to pervert the constitution so who knows?

          I guess my main point would be that if you reduce the cost of goverment it will be much harder for the lobbyists or the cronys or the majority to get something for nothing as the money just is not there.

          Truthfully this is just a math problem, the balance sheet of the U.S. and most of the western countries simply is FUBAR. We have 20 trillion in current debt with at least another 100 (maybe 200) trillion in unfunded liabilities. So looking at which is the best form of democracy is really rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. We either steer around the ice berg (which is probably impossible now) or your point is MOOT.
      • thumb
        Jun 9 2013: Pat,

        How do you think that the slaves and women would have voted on the issue of them being free and equal?
        And OBVIOUSLY there were a lot of men who thought that everyone should be free and equal. By majority rule these things would have happened a lot quicker and without all the bloodshed.
        • thumb
          Jun 9 2013: The point is tyranny of the majority which in both cases the majority of the voters did not want them to have the right to vote.

          In the south the majority did not want abolition, what the slaves wanted was irrelevant to the voters of the south. Lincoln himself did not free the slaves in the north, only the southern slaves to aid the north in the war.

          Women's suffrage was less popular than giving the vote to Blacks.

          In western countries the majority (which are more socialist than free market) of voters vote for economic enslavement to as much as 70% of their income to pay the taxes of the government who de facto has no accountability to the people. Absolutely tyranny of the majority.

          Again you are talking about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
        • Jun 10 2013: If the majority of the population is socialist and believes in funding a central government for socialist projects, and a minority of the population is free market, but government policy is dictated to the majority by the free market minority, isn't that tyranny by a minority?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.