Apr 3 2012: Kevan, I think the TV show you described falls to some of the same problems. Not everyone has access to a television, either. Also, having select judges and individuals participating on this show while others assume a passive role from their living rooms is just another form of the system we have today, which is to say that some have more power than others. That is precisely the problem that I think needs to be addressed.
With regards to the accessibility issue, I don't believe it is too difficult to provide internet access to everyone. Public libraries already have free internet access, and it wouldn't require a huge amount of infrastructure to create new stations where people can use government-funded machines to participate in such a system. As I stated in my post, though, even the voting system we have today isn't perfect - not everyone can get out to the voting stations, but we do our best. If voting took place every day of the year on a wide range of issues, people would be more likely to be able to get to their local library to participate. Even if they could only get out once every couple of weeks, they would be participating.
I'm not sure what you mean when you talk about deciding eligibility - would not everyone be eligible to contribute to the discussion of any topic? To consider some eligible and others ineligible is undemocratic in my view.
1) This is certainly a valid concern. My thought is that even in today's democracies, it is not easy for everyone to get to a voting station on voting day. The accessibility of the internet, however, is becoming more and more ubiquitous. If my proposed system were to be implemented, it would certainly require that some resources were put towards ensuring that everyone had access to it. Also, I think you are right to think that even people who have access might not be interested in going through heaps and heaps of posts. However, people will certainly contribute to issues that are relevant to them and that they have some knowledge of. So, an individual's contribution would be directly proportionate to their desire to contribute (and their accessibility, which would increase over time!)
2) The forums should be community moderated - the details of which I am still working out, and which I think should also be determined by the community. Because this is at its core a non-hierarchical system, it would be against its philosophy to have any "moderators" who have more control than anyone else. A system related to comment threads (up and down rating) would likely be employed, but would need to be much more sophisticated than that.
3) I think the opinions would necessarily be public, however they could be made anonymously. Having private discussion would defeat the purpose! :P
Mar 16 2012: You're right in that a lot of hard work is required to get it off the ground - the reason I brought the idea here is that for this idea to really go anywhere it requires input from a wide range of people, for it is a collaborative project.
TEDCred score: 0.00 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Conversation: An online implementation of consensus-based direct democracy.
With regards to the accessibility issue, I don't believe it is too difficult to provide internet access to everyone. Public libraries already have free internet access, and it wouldn't require a huge amount of infrastructure to create new stations where people can use government-funded machines to participate in such a system. As I stated in my post, though, even the voting system we have today isn't perfect - not everyone can get out to the voting stations, but we do our best. If voting took place every day of the year on a wide range of issues, people would be more likely to be able to get to their local library to participate. Even if they could only get out once every couple of weeks, they would be participating.
I'm not sure what you mean when you talk about deciding eligibility - would not everyone be eligible to contribute to the discussion of any topic? To consider some eligible and others ineligible is undemocratic in my view.
-Chris
A reply on Conversation: An online implementation of consensus-based direct democracy.
In response to your concerns:
1) This is certainly a valid concern. My thought is that even in today's democracies, it is not easy for everyone to get to a voting station on voting day. The accessibility of the internet, however, is becoming more and more ubiquitous. If my proposed system were to be implemented, it would certainly require that some resources were put towards ensuring that everyone had access to it. Also, I think you are right to think that even people who have access might not be interested in going through heaps and heaps of posts. However, people will certainly contribute to issues that are relevant to them and that they have some knowledge of. So, an individual's contribution would be directly proportionate to their desire to contribute (and their accessibility, which would increase over time!)
2) The forums should be community moderated - the details of which I am still working out, and which I think should also be determined by the community. Because this is at its core a non-hierarchical system, it would be against its philosophy to have any "moderators" who have more control than anyone else. A system related to comment threads (up and down rating) would likely be employed, but would need to be much more sophisticated than that.
3) I think the opinions would necessarily be public, however they could be made anonymously. Having private discussion would defeat the purpose! :P
A reply on Conversation: An online implementation of consensus-based direct democracy.