I have solved a (potential) problem in Direct Democracy

[Havet]

Ok so one of the common arguments against direct democracy aka participatory democracy is that it would physically impossible for everyone to vote on every matter requested by the community, let alone a country, because there would be so many things to deal with that nobody would have time.

I have solved this problem using currently existing technology. I call it:

Cyber Democracy

1. Use current governmental database which has citizen's I.D.s to give citizens an username and password. (non-mandatory)

2. Create a software compatible with most cellphones and operating systems which allows for each citizen to log in by using his I.D.

3. Allow each citizen to create topics on which to vote for (topics must be catalogued into themes). Citizens would be automatically subscribed to public-resource themes, and would have the option to subscribe to other user-created themes (company management, unions, recreational activities, etc).

IMPORTANT (guidelines to prevent malfunction)

- The main operating system must allow a vote to occur ONLY when a pre-established number of citizens are online (pre-established by initial vote)

- The main operating system must be heavily protected from physical and cybernetic attacks. This can be done through scattering the physical location of the system and taking advantage of cloud computing.

- The main operating system must be created in such a way that its maintenance is requested by democratic vote (i.e: It senses an error and automatically sends a vote to everyone who uses the system, with info on the specifics needed for maintenance, as well as a list of engineers with higher skills which will be voted to fix the system, if they (engineers) so desire, that is).

- Votes will have the ability to be boycotted if too low or too many options are included (to prevent unrealistic choices).

- The duration of votes will generally last a day (In the beginning of the implementation of the system, there can be an initial vote on the optimum duration of the following votes, each user-created theme being able to freely set their standards). The option to increase or decrease the duration is also subject to posterior vote if the subscribers so desire.

- Specifics on who can vote will be set equal to the current standards as a default, but can also be changed through vote a posteriori (typically the voters must have a valid I.D. and +18 years old to vote).

The end

I hereby release this into public domain. Feel free to edit and alter it, as well as share it. This last edit was performed 8th February 2010 by myself.

Thank me later :cool:

[Zanthorus]

Cyber/internet voting systems are notoriously unreliable from what I've heard. Until you can make the system practically foolproof then this isn't a viable idea.

[Havet]

Cyber/internet voting systems are notoriously unreliable from what I've heard. Until you can make the system practically foolproof then this isn't a viable idea.

I'm not talking of current internet voting systems.

Where is "teh flaw" in my system? Why didn't you bother to type it? Is it sooooo self-evident?

[Havet]

This is of course assuming that most people have access to a cellphone or computer (which is a realistic assumption).

Man, wouldn't it be nice to just receive a text message and vote instantly?

[GPDP]

Cyber/internet voting systems are notoriously unreliable from what I've heard. Until you can make the system practically foolproof then this isn't a viable idea.

Indeed.

I still say there's nothing wrong with just having directly accountable and re-callable delegates to represent each community in matters of higher regional levels. As long as those delegates have little to no power of their own, they can coexist alongside direct democracy in local matters.

[Salyut]

Ditch the username and password for PGP. Way more secure.

[Havet]

Ditch the username and password for PGP. Way more secure.

Good idea. Perhaps we could even have fingerprint recognition in the cellphones for increased reliability (although someone might lose their thumbs...)

[ComradeMan]

I don't think it would work... it sounds to much like RevLeft... LOL!!!!:D

On a more serious side, it would require people to have computers and cellphones and that could be problematic, as well as this I think it would fade away after the novelty wore off- people would no longer be bothered to vote because the Cup Final were on live streaming....;)

I also think that people would not trust this system- rightly or wrongly there would be suspicions of hacking and manipulation.

It's a shame, because there is a good idea nestling in there- brought down by logistical and technical problems.

[Havet]

I don't think it would work... it sounds to much like RevLeft... LOL!!!!:D

On a more serious side, it would require people to have computers and cellphones and that could be problematic, as well as this I think it would fade away after the novelty wore off- people would no longer be bothered to vote because the Cup Final were on live streaming....

Well it would be far more easier than now - where people have to currently get their ass of their chair and go to a voting location.


I also think that people would not trust this system- rightly or wrongly there would be suspicions of hacking and manipulation.

There's suspicion everytime xD! Just look at the ukranian elections recently.

[danyboy27]

well, its interresting.

i think its a workable idea, but would require heavy duty infrastructure.
if you really want it safe, you would want this system to have its own parallel physical infrastructure.

[Revolutionary Pseudonym]

Only about 1/4 of the world have access to the internet, most of whom are concerntrated in 'the Western World'. Although I am all for direct democracy this method would result in a bias with thosewho have access to such systems required and could possibly result in a class divide of those with an those without Internet access.
Although this system could be implemented partially as a secondary method to the traditional method and/or for voting on local topics in areas where Internet access is high this could not be the primary voting method whilst still satisfying the majority.

[Lyev]

Didn't Paul Cockshott suggest a thing similiar to this in a presentation of his? It was a presentation about labour-tokens and whatnot in the transitional period and the gradual dissolving of capitalism, forward into communism. Does anyone know the one I'm talking about? It was the one where the was a good economic discussion in learning a while ago.

[Salyut]

Didn't Paul Cockshott suggest a thing similiar to this in a presentation of his? It was a presentation about labour-tokens and whatnot in the transitional period and the gradual dissolving of capitalism, forward into communism. Does anyone know the one I'm talking about? It was the one where the was a good economic discussion in learning a while ago.

Towards a New Socialism? I haven't gotten around to reading it, but he has a Revleft account...

[Ovi]

Well it's not exactly anything new (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_voting) . I'm not that worried about voting though. Most of the things in a communist society can simply be accomplished by direct action. There is little need to vote on most of the stuff and since an anarchist society is a confederation of communes, local councils can be established say every Sunday and discuss the issues whose solutions would affect everyone. After all direct democracy it's not only about voting, it's about democratically proposing solutions and discussing them beforehand.

[whore]

it is not only not new, it also isn't a real solution.

it's actually really easy to have internet voting that works. using a server which presents simple html (which can be understand by all user-agents made within the last 10 years), it is possible to have a system that works "every where".

two problems with your "solution" however, imediently present themselves. "government database"? why would you trust them. the other is a little less obvious perhaps. how can you decide that the person with the username and password hasn't had it beaten out of them? how can you know that there isn't a thug making a person vote a particular way?

i personally suggest that if you want electronic voting, you have it in booths, like polling booths. these can be protected from those problems.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Why not have open-source voting in the same way Wikipedia works? Wikipedia's methodology, despite what many people suspected, has proved to be quite effective.

[Paul Cockshott]

Ok so one of the common arguments against direct democracy aka participatory democracy is that it would physically impossible for everyone to vote on every matter requested by the community, let alone a country, because there would be so many things to deal with that nobody would have time.

I have solved this problem using currently existing technology. I call it:

Cyber Democracy

1. Use current governmental database which has citizen's I.D.s to give citizens an username and password. (non-mandatory)

2. Create a software compatible with most cellphones and operating systems which allows for each citizen to log in by using his I.D.

3. Allow each citizen to create topics on which to vote for (topics must be catalogued into themes). Citizens would be automatically subscribed to public-resource themes, and would have the option to subscribe to other user-created themes (company management, unions, recreational activities, etc). ....

Thank me later :cool:
That is a useful contribution. We have been doing some practical experiments with setting up an evoting system for direct democracy detailed here :
http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/#edem

[Paul Cockshott]

it is not only not new, it also isn't a real solution.

it's actually really easy to have internet voting that works. using a server which presents simple html (which can be understand by all user-agents made within the last 10 years), it is possible to have a system that works "every where".

two problems with your "solution" however, imediently present themselves. "government database"? why would you trust them. the other is a little less obvious perhaps. how can you decide that the person with the username and password hasn't had it beaten out of them? how can you know that there isn't a thug making a person vote a particular way?

i personally suggest that if you want electronic voting, you have it in booths, like polling booths. these can be protected from those problems.
The systems that I describe on the web page that I linked to are designed to get around these difficulties with anonymity and distrust of those running the voting system. The goal is that the voters themselves can check how their vote went and check the validity of the count so that the system uses the people themselves as the scrutineers.

[RGacky3]

For Gods Sake,

First of all, this problem is'nt a problem at all, why on earth would it be nessesary for EVERYONE to vote on EVERYSINGLE matter in an issue? Its rediculous, for example, I could care less on how the milk factory is run as long as I get my milk.

Democracy does not equal, every one needs to vote on everything, there are some things that are simply personaly desicions, things that need to be voted on only need to be voted on my those who are involved, You know how rediculous it would be to recieve text messages all the time about voting to plant new shrubs in a park miles away, or whether or not management in a milk factory should be rotated, or about road construction in farmland where you never go? For anarchists, democracy is'nt a system, its a tool to get things done.

[Paul Cockshott]

For Gods Sake,

First of all, this problem is'nt a problem at all, why on earth would it be nessesary for EVERYONE to vote on EVERYSINGLE matter in an issue? Its rediculous, for example, I could care less on how the milk factory is run as long as I get my milk.

Democracy does not equal, every one needs to vote on everything, there are some things that are simply personaly desicions, things that need to be voted on only need to be voted on my those who are involved, You know how rediculous it would be to recieve text messages all the time about voting to plant new shrubs in a park miles away, or whether or not management in a milk factory should be rotated, or about road construction in farmland where you never go? For anarchists, democracy is'nt a system, its a tool to get things done.
The main headings of the budget should be democratically decided : how much on education, healthcare, environment protection etc.
The problem is how to express these quantitative questions democratically rather than leaving it to a cabinet or polibureau.

[RGacky3]

Budget? Are you sure we're talking about the same thing here? I want decentralization, meaning, community deiscions, with decentralization, you don't need a national budget, things can be decided workplace by workplace, community by community, and when it effects other places, you'll need dialog and desicion making.

However I don't see any need to centralize things.

[Havet]

"government database"? why would you trust them.

The point of this "measure" was to be a reformist step towards your ideal society. You can replace the "government" by a local council of communes anytime.


person with the username and password hasn't had it beaten out of them?

You think that enough people are going to get violently beaten up without raising any suspicious? Not likely.


how can you know that there isn't a thug making a person vote a particular way?

How do you know that now? Again, not likely.

[Paul Cockshott]

Budget? Are you sure we're talking about the same thing here? I want decentralization, meaning, community deiscions, with decentralization, you don't need a national budget, things can be decided workplace by workplace, community by community, and when it effects other places, you'll need dialog and desicion making.

However I don't see any need to centralize things.A budget in labour hours still involves the same type of decisions. Try and consider real world problems.

[Paul Cockshott]

The point of this "measure" was to be a reformist step towards your ideal society. You can replace the "government" by a local council of communes anytime.



You think that enough people are going to get violently beaten up without raising any suspicious? Not likely.



How do you know that now? Again, not likely.
The point is that you vote using a voters number that only you know. You choose the voters number by picking it out of a jar of sealed envelopes so nobody but you knows who has which number. The votes as cast are then listed by voter number with the last 4 digits missed out. You can see if your vote went the way you voted unlike the US system which is so open to manipulation

[Havet]

The point is that you vote using a voters number that only you know. You choose the voters number by picking it out of a jar of sealed envelopes so nobody but you knows who has which number. The votes as cast are then listed by voter number with the last 4 digits missed out. You can see if your vote went the way you voted unlike the US system which is so open to manipulation

That complete undermines the whole point of my proposal - stop the need of people to be physically present in special locations to vote, when they could perfectly do it anywhere with the current technology.

[Ovi]

That complete undermines the whole point of my proposal - stop the need of people to be physically present in special locations to vote, when they could perfectly do it anywhere with the current technology.
And who will propose the solutions that we need to vote on? A leader? The people? How, by sending text messages? We should all be engaged in every point of the decision making process, not be mere spectators. And how about discussing the issue? People need to be informed on the meaning of what they're voting on. How will we do that? Talk-shows on tv? Hopefully not.

[Paul Cockshott]

That complete undermines the whole point of my proposal - stop the need of people to be physically present in special locations to vote, when they could perfectly do it anywhere with the current technology.
No no, you vote by mobile phone wherever you are. But you need to register as a voter every few years and do that in person.

[Paul Cockshott]

And who will propose the solutions that we need to vote on? A leader? The people? How, by sending text messages? We should all be engaged in every point of the decision making process, not be mere spectators. And how about discussing the issue? People need to be informed on the meaning of what they're voting on. How will we do that? Talk-shows on tv? Hopefully not.

A variety of mechanisms are possible. One that was used in ancient democracy is to have what amounts to a jury chosen by lot that has the job of preparing agendas for the assembly. The equivalent would be a jury chosen by lot that proposed items to be put to the popular electronic vote.

[Havet]

And who will propose the solutions that we need to vote on? A leader? The people?

If you actually READ what I wrote you wouldn't look like a fool now, asking that. Anyone can propose a vote, but there are pre-established premises (agreed upon by vote) to follow (minimum people online, people have option to boycott the vote if too low or too much options are presented, etc)


How, by sending text messages? We should all be engaged in every point of the decision making process, not be mere spectators.

Duh, that's the whole point?! By allowing someone to vote on their mobile phone, you decrease the barrier to vote (because now its easier).


And how about discussing the issue? People need to be informed on the meaning of what they're voting on. How will we do that? Talk-shows on tv? Hopefully not.

Again, if you read what I said you wouldn't look like an ignoramus making those questions. In the beginning it is set by vote how much time the following votes will last (i suspect around a day), so people have about a day to discuss the issues. Additionally, one can announce the vote previously, discuss it, and then actually propose the vote.

[Havet]

No no, you vote by mobile phone wherever you are. But you need to register as a voter every few years and do that in person.

Ah, i understand now. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[RGacky3]

A budget in labour hours still involves the same type of decisions. Try and consider real world problems.

I did'nt say anything about labour hours, I thought we are fighting to end the wage system, real world problems differ in scope and nature, you don't need a national vote on all those issues, nor do you need national budgets, a federated anarcho-syndicalist system would'nt really have much of a need for large scale national budgets.

[Paul Cockshott]

I did'nt say anything about labour hours, I thought we are fighting to end the wage system, real world problems differ in scope and nature, you don't need a national vote on all those issues, nor do you need national budgets, a federated anarcho-syndicalist system would'nt really have much of a need for large scale national budgets.
Yes but abolishing the wages system involves moving from money to a system of labour time calculation. Unless you propose a regression of the division of labour to a much more primitive level than exists at the present socialism will involve large scale co-ordinated production - probably under current conditions at least continental level coordination. This implies big projects that involve billions of labour hours being spent on them. Such projects will entail a budget that is not national but contintental in scale, and key decisions like that have to be made democratically.

[revolution inaction]

Yes but abolishing the wages system involves moving from money to a system of labour time calculation.

why?

[Jazzratt]

why?

There are only 24 hours in a day. Even if every single person was prepared to commit every joule of energy they could possibly expend we would still need to know maximum labour levels, it's still not the only thing though; with increased automation it's also important to calculate expended energy. Without a genuinely infinite source of energy humanity will always need to calculate a "budget" of one sort or another, the difference is whether we use an ad hoc system dictated by bourgeois interests (the market) or a democratic system decided by human interests (collective distribution).

[Paul Cockshott]

There are only 24 hours in a day. Even if every single person was prepared to commit every joule of energy they could possibly expend we would still need to know maximum labour levels, it's still not the only thing though; with increased automation it's also important to calculate expended energy. Without a genuinely infinite source of energy humanity will always need to calculate a "budget" of one sort or another, the difference is whether we use an ad hoc system dictated by bourgeois interests (the market) or a democratic system decided by human interests (collective distribution).

You are right that we face constraints other than human time - carbon dioxide emissions, the carrying capacity of the ecosystem etc. These can be factored into a socialist planning system as constraints.

The point about my latest paper was to show how quantitative decisions can be collectively taken by mobile phone voting in the presence of constraints. Since I am presenting it to an audience of scientists rather than socialists I present these constraints in terms of monetary budgets, but the same methodology can be used to factor in other environmental constraints. The aim is to get a decision that best reflects popular will on issues where there are both interdependencies and overriding constraints.
The combination of socialist planning and e-democracy allows this in a way that the market + parliamentary / cabinet rule does not.

[revolution inaction]

There are only 24 hours in a day. Even if every single person was prepared to commit every joule of energy they could possibly expend we would still need to know maximum labour levels, it's still not the only thing though; with increased automation it's also important to calculate expended energy. Without a genuinely infinite source of energy humanity will always need to calculate a "budget" of one sort or another, the difference is whether we use an ad hoc system dictated by bourgeois interests (the market) or a democratic system decided by human interests (collective distribution).

Its vary oblivious that the available resources need to be taken into account when planing something. But Paul Cockshott seems to be talking about replacing money with labour time, and claming that is the only alterniative to money and markets. so i want to know why he thinks the only alternative to money is a money like system and why he doesn't appear to consider communism.
And how people could vote on what other people do with there labour time, which is implyed by this?

This implies big projects that involve billions of labour hours being spent on them. Such projects will entail a budget that is not national but contintental in scale, and key decisions like that have to be made democratically.

[revolution inaction]

You are right that we face constraints other than human time - carbon dioxide emissions, the carrying capacity of the ecosystem etc. These can be factored into a socialist planning system as constraints.

The point about my latest paper was to show how quantitative decisions can be collectively taken by mobile phone voting in the presence of constraints. Since I am presenting it to an audience of scientists rather than socialists I present these constraints in terms of monetary budgets, but the same methodology can be used to factor in other environmental constraints. The aim is to get a decision that best reflects popular will on issues where there are both interdependencies and overriding constraints.
The combination of socialist planning and e-democracy allows this in a way that the market + parliamentary / cabinet rule does not.

Theres more to being in control of society/the means of production than voting on stuff. people need to accturly take part in discussions on stuff, so they know what the desicions are about, and are able to present there own issues and opnions. just presenting people with a load of yes no choises doesn't give them any power over things. and how would you decide what was going to be voted on any way?

[Havet]

just presenting people with a load of yes no choises doesn't give them any power over things.

Like I said, people would have time to discuss about the issues prior to the vote being proposed


how would you decide what was going to be voted on any way?

Anyone can call in a vote about whatever matter. If its a public matter (public resources, etc), everyone gets an instant notification. If its a more local matter, only those subscribed to that "theme" receive the notification. People have the option to boycott votes if there are too many or too low choices in the vote (in order to keep the vote realistic and to prevent attacks), as well as there are specifications as to when can votes occur (X numbers of subscribers of that theme must be online, and the period of voting must be accessible (done by vote too))

[Paul Cockshott]

Its vary oblivious that the available resources need to be taken into account when planing something. But Paul Cockshott seems to be talking about replacing money with labour time, and claming that is the only alterniative to money and markets. so i want to know why he thinks the only alternative to money is a money like system and why he doesn't appear to consider communism.
And how people could vote on what other people do with there labour time, which is implyed by this?

The position I and Allin elaborate is that put forward. in skeleton form, by Marx in Critique of the Gotha programme, which he describes as the first phase of communism. I thus do not consider that the disctinction you imply is correct.

[RGacky3]

Yes but abolishing the wages system involves moving from money to a system of labour time calculation.

I dissagree, I don't think you even need a compensation economy, so no calculation as to work being done needs to be done. I just don't see why that sort of economy would be neccesary.

[Paul Cockshott]

I dissagree, I don't think you even need a compensation economy, so no calculation as to work being done needs to be done. I just don't see why that sort of economy would be neccesary.

Well that was not Marx's view, and he had good reasons for his position
1. Labour remains our fundamental resource and would do unless robots of the science ficton sort are invented.
2. Given that work remains necessary, people will expect some compensation for their labour.

We cannot credibly object to capitalist exploitation and then propose that people work for nothing.

[Paul Cockshott]

I dissagree, I don't think you even need a compensation economy, so no calculation as to work being done needs to be done. I just don't see why that sort of economy would be neccesary.
I should add, that even if people were willing to work for nothing, decisons on the social allocation of labour would still be necessary, and thus budgetary decisions in terms of labour would still be needed. You must distinguish between labour performed and labour recieved. Labour performed is finite and its allocation between activities still has to be decided upon.

[Ele'ill]

You can't stop the signal.

[RGacky3]

Well that was not Marx's view, and he had good reasons for his position
1. Labour remains our fundamental resource and would do unless robots of the science ficton sort are invented.
2. Given that work remains necessary, people will expect some compensation for their labour.

We cannot credibly object to capitalist exploitation and then propose that people work for nothing.

In a communist society, who owns the means of production? The workers, which means who are they working for? Themselves, why are they working? Because they decide certain things need to be done or produced.

You don't need compensation for something your doing for yourself, when you wash the dishes, you do'nt expect compensation, you expect clean dishes.

Compensation is nessesary in Capitalism or a class system because labor is done for someone else, without and benefit to the worker.

IN a communist system its a whole different ball game.

[Paul Cockshott]

In a communist society, who owns the means of production? The workers, which means who are they working for? Themselves, why are they working? Because they decide certain things need to be done or produced.


It is at this point that society would have to decide how much of its labour time to allocate to different products and activities. The mechanism I was proposing was a way of doing that.

[RGacky3]

Ok, I guess the question is just a matter of how much planning would be needed.

[Sogdian]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkvxplDtjDw