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.

  • Jun 16 2013: Hi Martin,
    There is concern about this, in a fluid DD each individual can take their vote away from someone they delegated their vote to at any time. So if the delegate acts in a way the individual does not accept they simply remove their delegation.

    There are a lot of smaller points to consider. For example there has to be an effective way of validating that all voters are legitimate, ie nobody has died or in a coma etc, their delegations have to be removed.

    I would suggest any person who has accepted delegated votes must confirm their vote a period before voting ends, so that there is no last minute switching and individuals can know how their vote is applied.

    I would also suggest people with large numbers of delegated votes have their votes and voting history made public. This would allow social commentators to report anything unusual which you would hope would filter to people who have passed their vote to them.

    There are also thoughts that people have to re-new their delegations periodically, you could tie it into a period similar to the existing representative election cycle, every 3-4 years, or it could be every year or whatever the population decides.

    Ultimately under a DD it is the populations right to vote any way they want, whether it is by following someones advice or delegating directly to that person, in either situation the person whose advice is being listened to may have been corrupted, but under a DD individuals can pull back and change their vote at any time.

    Under a DD media becomes very important, when the decisions are being made directly be the people, the information they receive will guide their decision making. This is something I believe the population has to figure out (because of its importance some DD parties are trying to incorporate unbiased commentary into their platforms).
    • thumb
      Jun 16 2013: Ultimately I'd be happy to put the idea of delegated votes to the membership and go with the flow of majority rule even if I did not agree with it.

      I say that because I think that we, as an accountable collective, will learn from our mistakes as much as from our success's, just as we do as individuals.
      • thumb
        Jun 17 2013: There is nothing dumber that the collective.
        • thumb
          Jun 17 2013: I can think of a few examples... For example many individuals are dumber then the collective...
        • thumb
          Jun 18 2013: Why would you say that Pat, would you please expand on your thought giving the reasoning for why you might feel that way?
      • thumb
        Jun 18 2013: Do tell
      • thumb
        Jun 18 2013: I mean real examples, so I can show that they are smarter than a collective.
      • thumb
        Jun 18 2013: Martin

        Try reasoning with a riot

        Try reasoning with a gang about the error of their ways

        It will be like talking to a stampede of cattle
        • thumb
          Jun 18 2013: Pat,

          Try reasoning with the WTO. Try walking up to Bush's ranch and knocking on his door.
          Powerful individuals are far more difficult to approach or sway, than a gang or a riot. Just as many examples on both sides.

          The trick I feel is to focus on what it is that group is seeking as opposed to what they think they are seeking. For example, a lynch mob may seem unreasonable as they appear to only want to lynch someone, yet at the heart of it they are in emotional pain over the root of their issues. One does not have to give in to the symptom, in order to address the root. Do that, and the entire situation will be defused.

          Pat I appreciate your fears, yet they are equally true if not more so of powerful individuals opposed to a persons line of thinking.

          You, are a reasonable person. I am a reasonable person. I feel most people are. Our people are far more educated, morally conscious, socially conscious than ever before in history.

          A wise person once told me it is "not enough to demonstrate the problem, we must also be prepared to offer solutions."

          Work with us Pat. Use your knowledge, experience and sway to help us design a system and set of safeguards that can enhance Direct Democracy bringing Democracy from the dark ages of unaccountability, into the light of full accountability to the people it purports to serve while protecting us from our baser emotions.

          We will survive/adapt/overcome and be atronger for it.

          When direct democracy eventually forms a majority government, the approval rating of anything government does will ALWAYS be a majority of all the citizens of that nation.

          Can this be said of powerful individuals and the system we have now?
    • thumb
      Jun 18 2013: Jimmy, That is impossible you do not show a collective anything it is done with an individual, collectives do not learn.

      Martin,

      This is why the tyranny of the majority is a very real danger. All you have to do is create a straw man and convince the collective that they are not the blame (cause, responsible, able) it is the nasty no good nick over there (insert rich guys name here) but fortunately I (insert politicians name here) am able to fix this problem for you.

      And so it goes over and over everywhere. In this country in the last 100yrs or so there were probably only 2 or 3 presidents who did not do this other than to the real cause which was the man behind the curtain.

      This is the scenario in most countries in the world.
      • Jun 20 2013: Pat, your argument seems to be in support of direct democracy over representative democracy, where politicians use a straw man argument to gain power then act irresponsibly. It is also used to justify unethical acts by those in power (eg: Saddam Hussein is supporting Al-Qaeda who attacked America, so we are invading Iraq), it does not matter if the majority disagree with the action but if you can just create enough doubt so that the majority are not sure, or do not demand you are impeached, then you can maintain your power.

        In these situations the media has been shown it is often ineffective at reporting the truth, when you concentrate power the media becomes reliant on that power to survive, or needs to stay in good standing with that power to continue to be allowed access.

        Yes the collective will likely react emotionally, be lied to, and make mistakes, but they will be responsible for the consequences and responsible for correcting them. When the population is convinced to follow a false path and later finds out that path was based on a lie, they can change path, they are not stuck with an untruthful representative for the duration of a term.


        p.s. Pat you have not responded to my suggestion that on a social level there is no such thing as "tyranny of the majority" because the term tyranny is defined by the majority. But if you are considering tyranny as how it is defined by a minority then every law is tyranny to some group, which leaves you with three governing choices:
        1: Anarchy
        2: Tyranny by the majority
        3: Tyranny by the minority
        • thumb
          Jun 20 2013: Either way I guarantee there will be some method of manipulation, as said the herd is easy to manipulate, and there are those who will manipulate.

          The only real solution is education.

          4 American style Republic

          If we could not keep what we already have then I would prefer, anarcho-capitalism whereby the voting would be done through what services we choose to purchase.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.