Saving Democracy With Web 2.0 190
Wired is running a piece about how "Web 2.0" (still hate that buzz word) can save democracy this upcoming election date. Web 2.0 hyperbole aside, the piece itself covers the extent of the different mapping tools, get out the vote, finding who funds a candidate and other election candies. Good round-up story.
How appropriate... (Score:2, Funny)
I've heard this bedtime story before (Score:3, Insightful)
More tools are great, and making information easily accessible is a Good Thing. Calling politicians on their sources of funding is always positive, and holding politicians accountable for the things they say and the promises they make is fantastic.
But no matter how available you make the information, it only matters if people care enough to find out. That's the advantage the traditional media have: given US culture, it's a push medium. It brings information to people, rather than wating for people retrieve the information. The implication of an article like this is that the threat to democracy is unavailability of information, which isn't true - or at least, is far from the whole story.
The real threat to democracy is people who don't really care about what's going on in government. People who have voted straight ticket in every election since they were 18 (and are proud of the fact!) are the problem. People who consider themselves members of a Team Republican or Team Democrat are the problem. People who don't know who's on the ballot until they show up to vote are the problem. It's a combination of apathy, cynicism, and misguided loyalty that is the problem.
This "web 2.0" phenomenon that the article discusses is, in a sense, the same as the "get out the vote" initiatives that come out every election cycle. When you come right down to it, if someone's only going to vote because MTV told them to, it's probably someone that shouldn't be voting*. If someone doesn't care enough about the process to know who stands for what and to take the time to go vote without being harangued by some celebrity, then that person should have just stayed home; we might as well roll dice to determine who gets elected.
All the tools that are now available for information disclosure are great tools, and they make the job of a responsible voter easier. But they won't make someone who doesn't care in the first place suddenly care unless the information is forced in front of him - which is exactly the information model that the web doesn't match up to. Helping informed voters become better informed is a great thing, but it's not going to save democracy.
*No, this doesn't mean I would ever advocate any kind of system to "validate" voters. Every citizen gets to vote if he wants to, and anything that begins to change that is abhorrent to the very idea of democracy. Nor would I restrict the right of any person or group to encourage people to vote. But that doesn't change the fact that the people who only vote because the TV told them to are very likely to cast unconsidered votes, which is not an ideal situation. Then, of course, there's the problem that any group pushing people to go vote is, almost certainly, pushing people to go vote the way that group wants them to - and the people being convinced don't even know that they're being pushed to a specific political position, rather than just being encouraged to exercise their franchise.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder how removing party designations from ballots, randomizing the candidate order on each ballot, or providing completely blank ballots and requiring a full name be written, would affect the polls, implementation issues aside. The goal would be minimizing the effect of ignorant votes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, providing a menu of all the offices to be filled on one side, and a menu of all the candidates on the other side (with no reference to the office for which each is running, of course)...then we'd be on to something.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the point. Why shouldn't voting be restricted to people that know what the candidate stands for, or at least has one reason for voting for that person over an opponent? Not that I'm necessarily in favour of it, just think it's an interesting point.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the candidates can each put a couple of short multiple choice questions? If you have a chance to talk to them face to face for a minute, every candidate has a few set things about themselves that they feel are important for people to know in order to make an informed decision, even if the voter doesn't know anything else.
For one candidate it might be his vote on a particular bill. For another candidate it might be an innovati
Re: (Score:2)
But, your proposal doesn't restrict voting at all, even if that would be a good thing. It just reduces one clear and impartial source of factual information that voters have available in making their decision, making them more vulnerable to voting based on false information from dirty tricks.
If you want to limit voting based on a poll test that evaluat
Re: (Score:2)
That is absolutely the best idea I have ever heard (as far as election reform goes). If you do not even know the name of the person you are voting for then why in the hell did you show up?
Unfortunatly they would probably just stick their heads out of the ballot box and ask a guy standing in line what that one "John" guy's last name is.
--
Re: (Score:2)
I knew the candidates (all of them)
I knew the positions, on the issues.
I know who best fit my views.
and I knew I was going to strategically vote for based on poll results.
But, for the life of me I would not be able to spell my candidates name without a crib sheet.
Re: (Score:2)
Thats where electronic ballots could come in. If you have a slight misspelling in the name it could give a suggestion (as far as the spelling goes) about who you want to vote for. But if you cannot even get phonetically close, or even have the foggiest idea what their last name is, then you dont really know that much about the candidates.
Wording matters (Score:2)
Sounds good, until you ask the question: who gets to write the survey that states the issues? How the question is asked can make quite a difference. Choosing which questions to ask also makes a difference. For example, I've seen very few politicians state their position on any environmental issue. I don't recall seeing any of the politicians I'm voting for in this election make any environmental statements. Maybe each party on the ticke
Re: (Score:2)
From the example you give I assume you'd be overjoyed to give pedophiles
Because lawyers write so clearly... (Score:2)
See, the problem is you want it to be unbiased AND understandable by most voters! The only thing worse than having lawyers write it would be to have those people who write the tech manuals write it! (Or perhaps to have me write it!)
I disagree in part (Score:2)
That system, which in a nutshell is "media conglomerates tell the unwashed masses what is true" can and will be outdated by decentralized tools. I don't think mySpace is going to save the proletariat, but the fact is that empowerment-in-general grew with the free flow of information, and it will grow again with reliable, obj
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"outdated by centralized tools" should be "outdated by decentralized tools."
Nothing like typos that completely invert the intent of what you wrote. Sorry, and all that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is part of the problem but the real basis of the problem is we've settled in to an entrenched two party system. Those two parties have established a complete strangehold on the electoral process and as long as they are both equally bad they get away with it, they can just ping pong power between each other while the country heads in to the dumper.
For example:
- The 2 parties have used numerous methods to
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that the two-party situation we're in is a deep, systemic flaw in our political landscape. It's not, however, fundamental. The fundamental problem is
How is this going to help, really? (Score:2)
But consider: is any of this stuff really the issue this election season? I mean, I don't want to come off as a "Democrats and Republicans are all the same" kind of guy -- I suspect you'd find at least subtle shades of D vs. R differences between the funding behind your candidates for House -- but none of this is really the issue right no
By the way: Don't forget to vote! (Score:2)
But on the other hand, if Some Guy on Slashdot tells them to vote, they're just the kind of folks we need to take back the government from those Republican Diebold-lovers, so Don't forget to vote in the US election tomorrow kids!
Well, presuming you're a US citizen. And presuming you're
Re: (Score:2)
I feel so ripped off.
Re: (Score:2)
I just picked MTV because their "Rock the Vote" campaign is the first thing that leapt to mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Complaining that it's the very existence of power that's the problem is, quite simply, either tectonically naive or a boring troll. When you can provide a system that eliminates power, then you can make your silly accus
Re: (Score:2)
I think maybe he believes that the system to determine who or what is in power is more important then the actual person or group in power.
On this point I agree with him.
"Voting the bums out." Will not help!
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless, your point I agree with, to a certain extent. Specifically, to the extent that our (the US') particular system has flaws that far outweigh the differences between or the flaws among our elected officials (this is based, primarily, on the fundamentally broken "one man, one vote" winner-take-all system. Incidentally, from the "
Re: (Score:2)
sorry for being of topic for a second, but I have always loved Starship troopers of this quote:
any way back on topic:
I suppose you could be correct. I tho
Re: (Score:2)
You're bringing your friends? I'll bring my friends.
And now we're back to square 1.
Do you really think that removing the government completely would change anything for the better?
FTA (Score:2)
This is exactly the problem. I wonder if this will help though. Beware the media/government/corporate complex and interlocking directorships.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but... (Score:2)
More distraction (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you *do* have a choice (Score:2)
Look, are you a Republican shill? That seems to be one of their talking points for forums like this that they perceive as being liberal/left: "Oh, there's no damn difference between Democrats and Republicans. I'm going to stay home. Anyone with me?".
In the United States we have a clear choice at the polls on Tuesday: we get to
Re: (Score:2)
Web 2.0 Saving Democracy? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
out of curiosity... (Score:2)
I mean, c'mon now, the old voting systems were nearly always rigged. It became so common place people joked about it. Government has ALWAYS been about who had the money.
Ever since the Big Deal, when we started being more concerned having the government look after us, instead of us watching the government it does not matter who is in power. People are apathetic because they cannot see how they can do anything.
Go
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that makes a lot more sense than being told who to vote for by God, or TV or talk radio hosts. After all, a union is usually pretty involved in issues that effect the members directly. Sure, they may be wrong a lot of the time, or even corrupt. But if you're not going to bother researching candidates directly, then wouldn't it be better to be told who to vote by someone who represents your employment than so
Re: (Score:2)
Well the simple explanation is that this just isn't true, however it is a popular form of smoke blown by Republican sock-puppets.
The reason everyone is worried about the electoral system just now is that we all know that the forms of electronic voting machines that were pushed into use are horribly vulnerable to wholesale fraud... the fear is that it's not just a finger on the scale
Re: (Score:2)
Its an arms race. A lot of the threats to effective democracy are enhanced or enabled by technology (fine-grained political gerrymandering, targetted misinformation and push-polling, astroturfing in every medium known to mankind, etc.) So, yes, those interested in preserving democracy rather than allowing a narrow elite to run the government by control of information and elections need to make effective use of technology,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, anonymous, we're worried that "democracy is dead" because the Republicans have got electoral corruption down to a fine art, and the media can't be bothered to notice.
One of the reasons I'm going to be voting Democrat
Easily rigged machines (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Web 1.0 can do that (Score:2)
Other Features of Web 2.0 Include: (Score:3, Funny)
* Cure cancer
* Revive the dead
* Talk to God
* End poverty
* Find your soul mate
* Kill Chuck Norris
What else am I missing? Help me out, people!
You had me, up till (Score:2)
No laws against missleading web pages... (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, there's nothing stopping me from saying things like Mesure A (a public transit initiative where I am) will kill babies, and all who support it will feast on the baby meat!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, yes they do.
my wish for election 2006 (Score:2)
My one major wish for this election is for the mainstream press to give some breakdown numbers that show precinct-by-precinct-by-ballot-type totals. Does Diebold seem as party-neutral as other electronic tally machines? Do paper-trailed machines disagree strongly with pull-lever machine totals? Does optical scan seem to lean to the Preservatives? Does punchcard seem to go to the Libertines?
Even if everything looks mostly kosher with regards to the final vote totals, it would plant the seed that shows
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(I'm from Britain, not the US)
Cheers,
Roger
Re: (Score:2)
No more opinion pieces, no more endorsing candidates, and NO MORE POLLS.
They just publish what the candidates say?
Re: (Score:2)
Like,
Candidate R: My opponent supports terrorism and hate America!
Candidate D: My opponent is a fascist and hate America!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah yeah yeah except it really doesn't matter (Score:2)
e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_represe
Re: (Score:2)
But, is it not also an option to Limit the power of these hidden groups with "Funding laws", "Bribery laws", "lobbying laws", "an Independent auditor general", "Arms length Taxpayers owned Mass Media corporations", "Freedom of Information Laws"?
We get the governments we deserve (Score:2)
If it's in Wired, you know it's crap. (Score:2)
If it's in "Wired", you know it's crap.
Realize this: Democracy is wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found
incompatible with personal security or the rights of property:
and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent
in their deaths.
-James Madison
That is why our country was founded as a Constitutional Republic where FREEDOM, not democracy, was the ideal. Unfortunately, we are drifting away from freedom towards democracy, which has given us a bigger, more instrusive, and more corrupt federal government.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, the rights of the minority are nonexistent. Better hope you don't end up in that minority.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that means you TB.
Bring on proportional representation ...
Re: (Score:2)
I see people that dont vote as happy with the majority decision. If they wern't happy, they'd vote.
Why save democracy? (Score:2, Insightful)
Depends on what you value (Score:2)
Vote NO! to Web 2.0! (Score:2)
Web 2.0 has done nothing to protect the environment. Under Web 2.0's watch our harmful green house gas emissions have INCREASED!
Web 2.0 has never prosecuted violent offenders!
Web 2.0 failed to vote for a resolution that would put child molesters behind bars!
Web 2.0 funnels millions of dollars through thousands of corporations and special interest groups. There have even been ties to Phillip Morris (big tabacco)!
Web 2.0 stood by doing nothing while A
Re: (Score:2)
what a huge amount of BS. (Score:2)
I.E. it's all you young people's fault the system is as screwed up as it is! if you got your butt to the polls and voted on EVERY election the voter turnout would be higher, the young to incredibly old voter ratio would change and the 90+ year old undead that are maintaining seats in the senate and
Re: (Score:2)
voting machines are rigged. we all know that.
I wish it wasn't true, but it surely is.
bring back paper ballots and I'll go spend my time to vote. but as it is now, we're all being duped into THINKING our votes count.
Go out and vote tomorrow (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's been cheecked into svn for weeks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Benjamin Franklin observed that democracy is two wolves and a sheep holding an election to decide what to have for dinner, and that liberty is a well-armed sheep vigorously contesting the election result."
The problem with that statement in today's government is that if you were to do so, you would be labeled a domestic terrorist. You would be detained, your rights to habias corpus stripped, shipped overseas, tortured, a
Re: (Score:2)
The 2nd has a horrendous track record of protecting the 1st.
The ACLU, however, has a much better track record.
Re: (Score:2)
What you need is politicians who are regular people, close to the rest of the people; media that first and foremost scrutinize everything the politicians do, well aware that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance; a
Re: (Score:2)
generally the idea is that
Citizens have the right to overrule, and initiate laws.
ie
Should the Government be given a petition signed by X% of the citizens and meeting criteria A, B, and C. The Government *MUST* bring forth a bill for a vote in the house within Time T on the subject of the petition.
Should the Government be given a petition signed by X% of the citizens and meeting criteria A, B, and C, regarding a law
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me unfortunate that the same term "direct democracy" is used for two radically different systems. What you describe seems to me a representative democracy with strong referendum rules. There should be separate terms for this system, and for the other meaning of "direct democracy", a system where everything is decided by referendum.
Re: (Score:2)
But most people who I talk about it with refer to that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy [wikipedia.org]
there is usually lots of talk about "town halls", and "public consultation" and what not.
Now but to defend the two terms as being somthing simmilar. They both start by recognizing that the "sovereignty" of a nation is in "the citizens" of the countr
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't vote don't complain, if you don't know the issues you vote on, don't complain, but you've had the opportunity even if you didn't know. The fact you know nothing about the voting process isn't an excuse.
While this is representational democracy for the most part, you don't vote once every four years, if you actually care you vote EVERY YEAR! If you belong to a
Re: (Score:2)
Direct Democracy by Delegable Proxy [antioch.edu].
The technology to do it and make sure it is secure is years away, but it is a very cool idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Midterms (Score:2)
Theoretically possible (Score:2)
But highly improbable. Many political scientists have pointed out that in the real world, having enough people who prefer A to B to C, enough people who prefer B to C to A, and enough people who prefer C to A to B, means that the Condorcet method is perfectly viable. If you want to make it as good as the current system, just state that in the extremely unlikely scenario above, the one with the most first-place (or least last-place if you prefer) votes wins.
Re: (Score:2)
* more then 2 choices
AND
* more than 1 voter
and in the US you only have "2 choices" Therefor you elections are fair!
QED.
any way, all joking aside look into Direct Democracy by Delegable Proxy [antioch.edu] its a very cool idea, from a theoretical view.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you told these people? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about "database backed websites"? Or how about just "website", since more often than not they're dat