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/

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jun 29 2013: Second page.



    Delegated voting – If there is one reason to believe those wanting a specific outcome wouldn’t buy votes, you have failed to understand the human condition. Someone listed a few of the reasons people would sell their vote. The response you and others was essentially well this would only work if everyone was honest and didn’t do that and if they did, they would be caught and punished. It is a lot harder to do that under the current US system and we still have enough cases of this that it undermines trust in the current system. DD makes it 1000 times easier to accomplish buying votes undetected.

    At least one more page.

    Coercion of voter - Whether the vote is secret or not, there is always a way to know how you voted. Even in this paper balloting. But if done through the internet you seem to ignore the NSA collection methods that we now know is happening to US citizens. And most of us do not assume no one snoops through that collected data until they get permission. Just one simple example could be, I don’t want the gas company knowing I voted either for or against their desires. I don’t want the problems associated with the gas company’s response whether good notes or nasty ones.

    Vote box stuffing – I don’t know too much about how internet security or fire walls work, but I do know there are smart people out there and a few of them are not above using that intellect to, for lack of a better word, hack the system and modify a few hundred thousand votes. If everyone was honest, the current system would also work so much better.

    Human nature – One response in the long list of comments included, “…back to individual responsibility/accountability…” Oh if only everyone fit this. Well they are not and this is not a valid assumption we can use for your system, which would work so nice if this were the case. Well the current one would work much better if this were the case.
    • Jun 30 2013: Hi Milo
      I think many of the points you raise have been addressed or touched on in earlier posts but I am happy to respond with my thoughts.

      A first note is when a proponent of DD such as myself says DD will succeed it is only an assumption, and when an opponent says it will fail, this is also an assumption, until it is tested, and I would suggest in smaller local levels of government first, then it can prove itself (in fact it has existed for a long time in countries like Switzerland with the use of town councils).

      You wrote that we are speaking Utopia, I do not believe that, I wrote earlier that I think things will be rough at the start until the population matures or decides to educate itself. Also Utopia means different things for different people, for some having material goods, cars, clothes, travel, is Utopia, for others having a quiet life with a clean environment is Utopia. I simply feel the representative system is a flawed system of democracy that does not result in the wishes of the population being actioned, to me that is not good enough, I believe in democracy and want to see this changed.


      Delegated voting and vote buying - I do not believe the argument that people will buy/sell votes even if it is illegal, so we should not give people the freedom to vote, is a valid argument. It is like the argument I have heard that we should not over-tax the rich because they will evade taxes more resulting in less taxes received. There is another argument I have mentioned before, if people are stupid enough to sell their vote then, in a free society, they can have the power to do that. It happens in representative systems all the time, not directly buying but promises of more money, a stronger economy in return for voting in one power hungry corrupt group who enrich while in power (we see this very strongly in Thailand). People know it is happening but choose the promised money (because the alternative might give you nothing).
    • Jun 30 2013: Coercion of voter - this is valid and may happen, but again is it worth throwing away the populations direct power over its own destiny. Again you can make it illegal, will it still happen, yes probably, but if the gas company starts to cut off gas disproportionately to people who voted a certain way, do you think that would never go undetected, do you think the population would respond to such activity with a slap on the wrist.

      Additionally you need a LOT of resources to do what the NSA is doing, the sort of resources only huge public institutions have. In a DD those institutions would be answerable to the population, not politicians who have shown over and over again they are happy to chip away at your basic rights.


      Vote box stuffing - Yes there are security concerns, yes there are smart people who will try to hack the system, yes there are smart people who will try to protect the system, yes there may be set backs and breaches. Will it be worse than what exists today, who knows. These have to be planned for, monitored, again is it a good enough reason to not empower the population.


      Human nature - This should be an argument against representative systems and for direct democracy systems. In a representative system you only need a few corrupt/immoral/unethical/irresponsible people to instill bad policy. In direct democracy you are dealing with the collective morals of the population, the wishes of the majority, if a few people are immoral or irresponsible they are not in a position to overshadow the majority.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.