TED Community » Austin Mackell

More About Me

I'm passionate about

Real Time Democracy.

An idea worth spreading

Real Time Democracy. It's almost like Liquid Democracy that the Pirate Party do, but I think easier and fairer.

Talk to me about

How much I hate filling out online forms.

People don't know that I'm good at

I talk myself up pretty good. Don't think I have ever achieved anything without advertising it.

My TED Story

I wish there was an auto-complete for this form. Through my deeds thou shalt know me.

Comments

• TEDCred score: +0.20 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• A reply on Conversation: A divisible real time mandate system for representative democracy.

  Nov 1 2012: wait you're saying people pay to vote? that's repugnant and stupid.

• A reply on Conversation: A divisible real time mandate system for representative democracy.

  Oct 30 2012: Hi Mitch, there would be votes held on proposals in my system, which people could participate in directly or through reps. The question is, who would be writing the proposals you speak of and how would the voting be scheduled etc? Who ever is doing that should be subject to accountability as well.

• A reply on Conversation: A divisible real time mandate system for representative democracy.

  Oct 23 2012: You raise interesting issues...
  
  The problem with these kind of "democracy with exceptions" suggestions, which I often receive when discussing these ideas is that they presume a professional body capable of performing the reviews which would somehow not become a power centre in itself. If such a body did exist it too would have to be democratically controlled or become as unaccountable as Iran's Supreme leader. Similarly you talk about proposals being voted on without reps... well someone has to write the damn thing! we might a well know who. Also what reps allow for in a way I don't think pure direct democracy would, is compromise and the production of long sophisticated (and carefully scrutinized) documents: The Legislation.
  
  furhtermore while you point out several key roles, I don't think government is quite so easily definable. Best leave that up to the voters of the future!

• A reply on Conversation: A divisible real time mandate system for representative democracy.

  Oct 23 2012: Regarding "which model of democracy should we choose" - this is what my proposal hopes to answer (or go some way towards answering). Whether a simple 51-49 majority or (50.0000000000000001% to 49.9999999999999999999) is enough- well it seems a little silly. However consensus only works where no one is trying to game the system and fuck things up, when real power is being wielded and real interestes are at stake, this will be constant. Any number we pick (say 60%?) however, seems to be arbitrary.
  
  Something to discover through experimentation as models like this are used to run the revolutionary/reformist organisation(s).

• A reply on Conversation: A divisible real time mandate system for representative democracy.

  Oct 19 2012: He Gio,
  
  rather than "polling" I see this system first being used to run a protest movement. I think it should be called the "tribunate". This is based on a story from roman history. This is the cartoon version: The people were upset with the corrupt senate so they gathered in a field outside and elected some "tribunes" who the senate was then forced to listen too.
  
  The Tribunate would exist *as well as* rather than instead of current organisations, creating a way for the huge mass of social movements and activists who are out there, a vast number of whom share some key goals, to coordinate their efforts without submitting to a controlling top down structure.
  
  This would give us all kinds of leverage. That is about as far as I take the idea at this stage. But there is no reason it couldn't be introduced, say by a local council, and spread from there.
  
  Regarding separating the wheat from the chaff, the number of votes a rep got would also determine a kind of income in "discussion credits" or whatever you want to call them. reps would compete in auctions for opportunities to introduce bills etc. Important to note that a group of smaller reps could pool credits and introduce joint bills. The process would give precedence in the debate to ideas with the most support. I can't think of a fairer way of doing it.

• A reply on Conversation: A divisible real time mandate system for representative democracy.

  Oct 19 2012: good point about illiteracy. Also computer literacy and internet access. These are the things we should be working on helping people with any how.

• A reply on Conversation: A divisible real time mandate system for representative democracy.

  Oct 19 2012: Hi Occupy :). This model does allow people to participate directly where and how they like. You just click "Stand" and then you can vote directly on issues (whether or not you still have a pot for supporting other reps, or using it all to back yourself or whatever is a question i've not wrinkled out.) I also agree about having people voting on what effects them, but don't see why that can't be modelled by a global, regional, national, state, local structure, each with their own assemblies. People could stand in all, or in some, or just one, and delegate to people they trusted in the others. Staying atop the issues at five different levels would be too hard even as a full time job it seems to me. What I don't like is what activists traditionally go for which is the federated structure, where the local level chooses a rep, who goes to a state level council, where they choose a state rep, and on and up. This model seems to be fallen back on by default, but it puts more distance between people and the decisions than is necessary. I think something like this could help the generalised global uprising crystalise into a far more potent and permanent force.

• A reply on Conversation: A divisible real time mandate system for representative democracy.

  Oct 19 2012: That is an excellent way of phrasing it. Ideally there would be a bunch of smaller reps who had day jobs as well, but also hassled their co-workers and stuff, as well as those who had crossed a certain threshold and were being paid to work full time and lead an informed debate.

• A reply on Conversation: A divisible real time mandate system for representative democracy.

  Oct 17 2012: Reps who weren't informed of their voters perspectives would get quickly out competed in this system. Im not sure people are such bad choices of their leaders, and not sure where the "people don't know what's good for them" line takes us except towards fascism.

• A comment on Conversation: A divisible real time mandate system for representative democracy.

  Oct 11 2012: He Edward,
  
  Don't think online voting is impossible as you think. Of course interesting to consider options. Actually the recent Venezuelan election had a great concept. Vote on a machine, machine gies you recept for who you voted for, yo put receipt in ballot box - to cheat someone would have to rib both systems to exactly the same number. Pretty nifty eh? Jimmy Carter called them the "best elections in the world". Obviously this system exactly doesn't translate but it gives an idea the kind of innovations possible. Any, how, if we can do banking online, why is voting out o the question?