Digital Democracy will save America from Revolution
Kevin Chavis
our government. We feel as though we can not truly get what we want,
instead most vote for the lesser of two evils. This type of system is
as outdated as a 1954 IBM. (in actuality it became outdated for new
grassroot ideas starting in the 1890's with the coming of ballot
access laws)
America needs a new democracy, one that truly REPRESENTS each person
as much as possible. This system would have to be digital. I dub it a
"Digital Democracy." In a digital democracy we would split up the
votes for each senator and house representative based on their popular
vote. The "winner" would still go to the capitol and present bills,
but he/she would only have the percentage of popular vote they took at
the election. The others who did not win but at least received 5% of
the vote would be able to vote online on a secure server.
A digital democracy would succeed in bringing more people to the
polls. In 2002 54% of Americans voted, which I consider dismal.Mainly
3rd world countries have participation that low. Some say that the 46%
do not vote because they are content with the current way things are
being run. I disagree completely. All those I know who do not vote
feel that the entire system is a sham made only to help those already
in charge (aka the only 2 parties in American minds).
A digital democracy would allow people to feel they are at least being
represented. How much more empowered would many feel to know that
their vote actually counted? Imagine the Green Party and Libertarians
taking 5% of the house and senate EACH? That would change American
politics forever. A vote for a third party would no longer be called a
"wasted vote."
The only races I feel that a "winner takes all" should be token races
such as President, Governor, and local boards. The 2 parties will
continue to win these until they are forced to change or leave by
those who begin to vote.
How can such a system be implemented? It must be brought into the
public conscience. Either by media such as the internet or through the
third parties.
I believe that the candidates that want this idea implemented on
either a local or national level must take the "Digital Democracy
Challenge." The "Digital Democracy Challenge" is that you will
present and vote for a bill allowing this type of democracy to exist.
Any opponents must also be asked whether they will take the Challenge.
These candidates should be supported by a non-partisan Digital
Democracy network or organization.
Our nation has and is changing as a society and moving into the
post-industrial era. Let's have our democracy move to the 21st century
as well.
It will take a long term effort to undertake a task of this
proportion.
Anyone interested in making Digital Democracy a reality in America
contact me.
Daniel J. Fornadel
parts of Europe...
"Kevin Chavis" <digitald...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:69204512.0307...@posting.google.com...
Comrade
> Your ideas have been needed for a long time. They do something similar in
> parts of Europe...
well, the logistics of true democracy can be achieved in voting, but the
process of implementing "what gets voted on" falls apart
unless each vote, is a true referendum and criticism of EVERY step before
it, in that we do not vote, we suggest, and then suggestion is what
government does
this means, a lot of chance that EVERYTHING would change around a lot, and
considering "the status quo" does need challenged, I like it
BUT, in the mean time, we are stuck with republicanism
"Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?" - Juvenal, Satires, VI, 347
"Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?" - Juvenal, Satires, VI, 347
"Who watches the Watchmen?"
we can watch the watchmen VERY easily
sociology is just as much of a science as information systems, when there
is a reliability problem in information systems, redundancy is the answer
so, we institute 1 level of watchdog government, at a time, until there
are enough levels of watchdogging
and perhaps that will not be, until MOST citizens are actually working
for government in this capacity, but I don't think it would take that many
levels
now, you say this sounds absurd? WELL, it is not this approach that is
absurd, BUT, the fact we need this approach that is an absurdity, and I am
using science to fix the problem
ALSO
1) socialized elections, no private money, if you get enough signatures on
foot, grass roots, no private money, then you get an election fund, the
"grunt" can compete
--
Comrade
see my friend Average Joe's site
http://www.mysolution.ws
the aristocracy was the problem in 1776
the aristocracy is the problem today
http://www.aclu.org/dissentreport
we must close the door by which aristocracy arises
John Shafto
>
> so, we institute 1 level of watchdog government, at a time, until there
> are enough levels of watchdogging
>
> and perhaps that will not be, until MOST citizens are actually working
> for government in this capacity, but I don't think it would take that many
> levels
I think MOST citizens already are working for government,
if not dejure, defacto. Only trouble is, they aren't watching,
just trying to shift the burden up the income ladder, while
simultaneously trying to milk the system for all it's worth...
never-the-wiser about the ways in which the burden is
shifted right back onto them each time they get their way.
"If pigs could vote, the man with the slop bucket would be elected
swineherd every time, no matter how much slaughtering he did
on the side." --Orson Scott Card
[...]
> we must close the door by which aristocracy arises
That would be the government "door", Comrade Monty.
Comrade
> I think MOST citizens already are working for government,
> if not dejure, defacto. Only trouble is, they aren't watching,
> just trying to shift the burden up the income ladder, while
> simultaneously trying to milk the system for all it's worth...
> never-the-wiser about the ways in which the burden is
> shifted right back onto them each time they get their way.
yes, people are always looking for a way out, and many are susceptible to
the whipping boys that are no real solution
--
Comrade
see my friend Average Joe's site
http://www.mysolution.ws
the aristocracy was the problem in 1776
the aristocracy is the problem today
http://www.aclu.org/dissentreport
Steve
> Our nation has and is changing as a society and moving into the
> post-industrial era. Let's have our democracy move to the 21st century
> as well.
>
> It will take a long term effort to undertake a task of this
> proportion.
> Anyone interested in making Digital Democracy a reality in America
> contact me.
Don't get too tied up in the technology.
What you are describing is known as proportional representation....and it is
how over 80% of the world's democracies conduct their affairs - andhave
done for decades.
Instead of "winner take all" as happens in the US today, seats in the
legislature are, instead, allocated according to the proportion of the vote
received.
All those new democracies created in recent years have adopted proprortional
voting systems almost without exception.
How does it work? That depends on how you set it up, but broadly speaking
if the Greens or Libertarians get 5% of the vote (millions of votes) - they
get 5% of the seats.
There are differnt forms of PR, but they break down into two types:
1. Lists of party candidates. You vote for the party - and the folks at the
top of the list are elected up to the proportion of the vote received. Most
European countries use variations on this theme.
Some have "open" lists where voters can rank the people on the party list as
well as vote for the party. Others combine list seats with local seats -
but with the overall result being proportional.
2. Multi-member electorates where you vote in order of preference. For
example, if there were seven to be elected from your district, you would
choose seven people - and number them 1 to 7. This method allows you to
vote explicitly for the people.....while still delivering a result that is
close to proportional overall. This is known as "STV" (Single transferable
Vote).
STV would probably be best for the US as it would not require any
consitutional amendments. Only Federal Statutes and state electoral laws
would need to be changed.
The US Constitution is silent on the method of voting. It specifies only how
many Congressional reps - as a minimum - can come from particular states.
What would it mean? It would mean when you go to vote, you actually have
some REAL choice....and your vote will ALWAYS count toward electing
someone....unlike in the present system.
--
Steve
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
Steve
> Your ideas have been needed for a long time. They do something similar in
> parts of Europe...
Almost all of Europe.
In Europe the only countries that do NOT use proportional representation are
the UK and France.
Even the UK is moving toward PR. The Scottish Parliament is elected by
proportional representation, as are the UK European MEPs to the EU
Parliament in Brussels. The EU Parliament itself is proportionally elected
within each country. For example, if the UK Labour party gets 30% of the
vote, then 30% of the UK group of MEPs will be Labour MEPs.
In France, they used PR when the Socialists were in power, and dumped it
when the conservatives took power. They use, instead, a system of run-off
elections.....
But the rest of Europe is proportional. Russia is proprortional. South
Africa.....I think the list is 88 countries in all.
Whereas "Winner take all" is used in the UK, Canada and the US.....and not
many other places.
New Zealand dumped winner take all in 1996 and went proportional.
In the US: http://www.fairvote.org/pr/index.html
--
Steve
Mage
Whats really amazing is eleceted officials can say with a straight face "if
you don't vote for me, you are wasting your vote"
Or how someone can get 1/2 million votes and still have no representation!!
"Daniel J. Fornadel" <dfor...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:UTsOa.2870$GL4.1914@rwcrnsc53...
Winston Smith
digitald...@juno.com (Kevin Chavis) wrote:
You haven't read about the tyranny of the majority?
A black lady was quoted in the Texas redistricting debate that "blacks
need to be represented by a black." What if a white person said that with
the colors reversed? Since the US has a majority of whites, does that mean
that blacks are not allowed to be president? Read the Federalist papers
about the tyranny of the majority.
Democracy: "Two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."
> Most Americans have become disenfranchised with the current status of
> our government. We feel as though we can not truly get what we want,
> instead most vote for the lesser of two evils. This type of system is
> as outdated as a 1954 IBM. (in actuality it became outdated for new
> grassroot ideas starting in the 1890's with the coming of ballot
> access laws)
>
> America needs a new democracy, one that truly REPRESENTS each person
> as much as possible. This system would have to be digital. I dub it a
> "Digital Democracy." In a digital democracy we would split up the
> votes for each senator and house representative based on their popular
> vote. The "winner" would still go to the capitol and present bills,
> but he/she would only have the percentage of popular vote they took at
> the election. The others who did not win but at least received 5% of
> the vote would be able to vote online on a secure server.
>
> A digital democracy would succeed in bringing more people to the
> polls.
This might seem like a good idea if they had a clue. We don't need a
hundred million morons voting who don't understand anything deeper than
the titillation between their legs. There are lots of people who don't
know who the president and vice president are. Should people vote on
color? How about nice sounding names like William Jefferson Blythe III?