Electronic Direct Democracy?

[d3crypt]

How would exactly would it work?

[BIXX]

Click "Like" if you're against [Insert thing here].

Hahahaha, honestly, I would imagine it would just be kinda a bad idea to the genius of hackers etc... But I don't know exactly how it'd work.

[d3crypt]

Click "Like" if you're against [Insert thing here].

Hahahaha, honestly, I would imagine it would just be kinda a bad idea to the genius of hackers etc... But I don't know exactly how it'd work.

Thats why i asked... I have no idea how it works.

[tuwix]

It could work in many ways.
You could click on wbesite. You could sens SMS. You could send mail.

About hakcers: not all systems are possibel to hack. Have you ever heard that FED system of accounts was hacked? When there is put proper attention for safety, there is no way to hack.

[d3crypt]

It could work in many ways.
You could click on wbesite. You could sens SMS. You could send mail.

About hakcers: not all systems are possibel to hack. Have you ever heard that FED system of accounts was hacked? When there is put proper attention for safety, there is no way to hack.

That sounds like it should be implemented then. Regular ballots are pretty slow.

[The Idler]

Like Wikipedia?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Are you talking about this in communist society?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

It can't.
Laying aside the technical difficulties, which I don't know enough about, we still have practical difficulties.
Just think about the number of decisions that need to be made. Roads, communication, houses etc. In a communist society this would be even more because democratic decision-making will not be limited to political-life but also to economic-life. I think a pure direct-democracy is just impossible if you still want to get anything done. Doing it electronically would speed up the process but think about it, you wake up in the morning and check your inbox: "2 million proposals to vote on".

[BIXX]

It could work in many ways.
You could click on wbesite. You could sens SMS. You could send mail.

About hakcers: not all systems are possibel to hack. Have you ever heard that FED system of accounts was hacked? When there is put proper attention for safety, there is no way to hack.

No system is entirely unable to be hacked. They may be close, but no system is entirely unhackable.

[Sea]

It can't.
Laying aside the technical difficulties, which I don't know enough about, we still have practical difficulties.
Just think about the number of decisions that need to be made. Roads, communication, houses etc. In a communist society this would be even more because democratic decision-making will not be limited to political-life but also to economic-life. I think a pure direct-democracy is just impossible if you still want to get anything done. Doing it electronically would speed up the process but think about it, you wake up in the morning and check your inbox: "2 million proposals to vote on".Voting is only needed to decide which side of an issue is the "democratically approved" side. As such, it is tightly tied to bourgeois democracy, where the state is given a side to take. Spontaneous organization is just as democratic in the higher stage of communism, when not prejudiced by class interest. Direct democracy doesn't mean we need to vote on every little single thing.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Voting is only needed to decide which side of an issue is the "democratically approved" side. As such, it is tightly tied to bourgeois democracy, where the state is given a side to take. Spontaneous organization is just as democratic in the higher stage of communism, when not prejudiced by class interest. Direct democracy doesn't mean we need to vote on every little single thing.

I disagree that organization in the higher stage of communism will be spontaneous. I think new democratic forms of government, not to be confused with a state, that are not prejuidiced by class-interest will have to arise.

[Fourth Internationalist]

If this is for communist society I would see little reason to hack it.

[helot]

It can't.
Laying aside the technical difficulties, which I don't know enough about, we still have practical difficulties.
Just think about the number of decisions that need to be made. Roads, communication, houses etc. In a communist society this would be even more because democratic decision-making will not be limited to political-life but also to economic-life. I think a pure direct-democracy is just impossible if you still want to get anything done. Doing it electronically would speed up the process but think about it, you wake up in the morning and check your inbox: "2 million proposals to vote on".

It seems you're implying that direct democracy necessitates everyone deciding on the most minute of details yet I don't think anyone who advocates forms of direct democracy would, for example, think it prudent for people without the expertise to make decisions about how to best construct a bridge yet the community is more than capable of determining whether they need a bridge and, in conjunction with engineers and geologists, determining the best location to construct it.

Large scale direct democracy necessitates federalism, delegates and mandates.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

If this is for communist society I would see little reason to hack it.

In Communism disagreements about decisions will still exists, so I think it is a bit too utopian to assume someone wouldn't do that.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

It seems you're implying that direct democracy necessitates everyone deciding on the most minute of details yet I don't think anyone who advocates forms of direct democracy would, for example, think it prudent for people without the expertise to make decisions about how to best construct a bridge yet the community is more than capable of determining whether they need a bridge and, in conjunction with engineers and geologists, determining the best location to construct it.

Large scale direct democracy necessitates federalism, delegates and mandates.

Delegates wouldn't change that. Delegates vote what the group they delegate for want right? So there must be voted on what that group wants and so you still have the same issue. Representatives would be something different, also with problems of itself of course.

[helot]

Delegates wouldn't change that. Delegates vote what the group they delegate for want right? So there must be voted on what that group wants and so you still have the same issue. Representatives would be something different, also with problems of itself of course.

I never said they would, instead i denied your claim on other grounds, mainly that it's a strawman. My final sentence wasn't related to that hence a different paragraph.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I never said they would, instead i denied your claim on other grounds, mainly that it's a strawman. My final sentence wasn't related to that hence a different paragraph.

It's not a strawman I just see problems with your claim. Which incidentally was the same problem I stated earlier, hence the confusion.
Also, I don't see the need for such aggresive debate on a rather, well, calm subject.

We need to think about form of decision-making that aren't possible in our society.

An interesting essay on the subject is by Moshe Machover, Collective Decision-Making and Supervision in a Communist Society (PDF) (http://www.zcommunications.org/FCKFiles/image/Machover_socdem5.pdf)

The point he makes is this:

The foregoing discussion is not offered as an attempt to draw up a definite constitution for a future society of which we have no actual experience but only a hopeful projection. Nevertheless, I believe that discussing such matters now, albeit tentatively, is by no means a waste of time. Historical experience shows that many key ideas were originated and discussed theoretically well before they could possibly be implemented.


Also, discussion of various aspects of a future better society is at the same time, at least implicitly, a critique of the present social order: whose exploitative basic process is disguised as the operation of impersonal inexorable forces, and whose repressive and authoritarian mechanisms are barely cloaked under a thin mantle of curtailed democracy and confined freedom.


Yet, in order for a discussion of an imagined society to be of real future and present use, it must not indulge in naïve illusion and insouciant utopia. So, while no detailed decision-making arrangement proposed above should be taken as more than a purely tentative suggestion, I do insist on stressing some sober considerations.


First, a future communist commonwealth will not be a state of nirvana, nor will it run mostly on automatic pilot, with just the occasional light touch on the tiller. Its material and intellectual processes will be both complex and dynamic, requiring a very great number of intelligent social decisions at various levels of society, from the micro-local to the global. Most of these social decisions are likely to be about matters that today would be considered ‘managerial' or ‘economic' and are either made privately or not made consciously but left to impersonal ‘forces'.


Second, no human society can run like an ant colony, where each individual is almost an automaton, without an independent mind, but where sophisticated social decisions are made by a collective intelligence that has evolved over many millions of years. Humans are individuals with independent (albeit socially conditioned) intelligence; they are often contrary and sometimes bloody-minded. Moreover, not all human conflicts and interests are class based, and even in a classless society there will be conflicting interests, opinions and tastes. These will have to be resolved by decision-making whose structures and processes are efficient, transparent and fair. And the implementation of decisions will have to be supervised systematically and methodically.


Third, direct decision-making must play an important but restricted role. Due to the very large number of decisions that will have to be made at various levels, only decisions at the lowest (local) level and a small proportion of decisions at higher levels can be made directly by a meeting or referendum of all concerned. The vast majority of decisions at higher levels will have to be made by elected councils of delegates or assemblies of representatives.


Fourth, a pyramidal structure of councils on its own is inadequate, because it is too indirect and fails to satisfy some important principles of democracy, namely those concerned with individuals' rights, equality and empowerment. This does not mean that the council structure must be abandoned; but that it would need to be combined with a countervailing structure in order to resolve the tension between collectivism and individualism.


Fifth, a communist commonwealth will allow and promote methods of decision-making and election that are not feasible in today's anti-egalitarian society but only under conditions of material equality.

[helot]

It's not a strawman I just see problems with your claims.
Also, I don't see the need for such aggresive debate on a rather, well, calm subject.

We need to think about form of decision-making that aren't possible in our society.

An interesting essay on the subject is by Moshe Machover, Collective Decision-Making and Supervision in a Communist Society (PDF) (http://www.zcommunications.org/FCKFiles/image/Machover_socdem5.pdf)

The point he makes is this:


I'm not being aggressive at all. If you took my previous post as that my apologies.

Your post implied that direct democracy would necessitate everyone deciding about the tinest of details of everything which just isn't what those who advocate D.D. advocate. That was my claim. If i interpreted wrongly please correct me. I did have a separate claim that D.D. necessitates federalism, delegates and mandates. Which of these two separate claims do you see problems with and why?


As for electronic decision-making i favour face-to-face due to us being adapted for face-to-face interaction

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I'm not being aggressive at all. If you took my previous post as that my apologies.

Your post implied that direct democracy would necessitate everyone deciding about the tinest of details of everything which just isn't what those who advocate D.D. advocate. That was my claim. I did have a separate claim that D.D. necessitates federalism, delegates and mandates. Which of these two separate claims do you see problems with and why?


I have a third that i haven't expressed yet, namely that i favour face-to-face decision-making over electronic due to us being adapted for face-to-face interaction.

I don't think that delegates are that much different from just a referendum. Because people have to vote to decide what the delegate will vote, unlike a representative. So I do not see how this would ease or makes more practical direct democracy.

There is also a problem with delegates, which you did not claim but I'd like to note it anyways, that gets adressed in the article I linked in my previous post. That is the accountability, and this is even more of a problem with representatives, when you work in a pyramid-like system, with tiers.

I am undecided on the subject of federalism.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Moshe Machover also has a 2-part lecture where he talks about the ideas that are also in the book:
Socialism and Democracy-Part 1 (http://vimeo.com/14852939)
Socialism and Democracy-Part 2 (http://vimeo.com/14854566)

[helot]

I don't think that delegates are that much different from just a referendum. Because people have to vote to decide what the delegate will vote, unlike a representative. So I do not see how this would ease or makes more practical direct democracy.

There is also a problem with delegates, which you did not claim but I'd like to note it anyways, that gets adressed in the article I linked in my previous post. That is the accountability, and this is even more of a problem with representatives, when you work in a pyramid-like system, with tiers.

I am undecided on the subject of federalism.


A delegate is used for more than just passing on what's been decided but also to act. Even in a limited role delegates make co-ordination a hell of alot easier.


I admit i didn't read the article you linked so i can't really comment on what issues were raised however there is such a thing as recall.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

A delegate is used for more than just passing on what's been decided but also to act. Even in a limited role delegates make co-ordination a hell of alot easier.


I admit i didn't read the article you linked so i can't really comment on what issues were raised however there is such a thing as recall.

It has been a while, but I believe he mathematically proved that it would reduce accountability. I should re-read it. But this was with a tier system (after 2 or 3 tiers it starts to have less accountability).

I suggest you read it, it isn't a big read (50 pages), but it really is interesting for discussions like these. If you perhaps don't have the time, which I can understand, I suggest you watch the video. Then again, just a suggestion.

[helot]

It has been a while, but I believe he mathematically proved that it would reduce accountability. I should re-read it. But this was with a tier system (after 2 or 3 tiers it starts to have less accountability).

I suggest you read it, it isn't a big read (50 pages), but it really is interesting for discussions like these. If you perhaps don't have the time, which I can understand, I suggest you watch the video. Then again, just a suggestion.

Fair enough i'll check it out. I'm a bit skeptical of a mathematical proof as i think it'd be a tall order to create a formula that is comprehensive enough to reflect human behaviour but hopefully it can help stir some ideas for me.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Fair enough i'll check it out. I'm a bit skeptical of a mathematical proof as i think it'd be a tall order to create a formula that is comprehensive enough to reflect human behaviour but hopefully it can help stir some ideas for me.

Well, of course that is what itis for. It must by no means be regarded as the form of democracy that we will end up with, but more as a spark of debate to think about what kinds of systema we can have that aren't possible today, and their limits.

If you have doubts about his mathematics they are explained in the Appendix.
He teaches mathematics, or has, I believe. So I am inclined to accept it, since I know too little about maths to be able to understand it. So, I cannot say how much human behaviour is taken into consideration, if at all. You'd have to look for yourself.

[ckaihatsu]

How would exactly would it work?





It could work in many ways.
You could click on wbesite. You could sens SMS. You could send mail.


Agreed.





As for electronic decision-making i favour face-to-face due to us being adapted for face-to-face interaction





In Communism disagreements about decisions will still exists, so I think it is a bit too utopian to assume someone wouldn't do that [hack a voting process].





About hakcers: not all systems are possibel to hack. Have you ever heard that FED system of accounts was hacked? When there is put proper attention for safety, there is no way to hack.


I'll agree that, in our present digital- and net-based economic and social society, it's increasingly ridiculous to say that digital-based communications *can't* work -- already much of capitalistic commerce relies on the computer infrastructure for online purchases and money transfers:





E-Commerce has become an important tool for small and large businesses worldwide, not only to sell to customers, but also to engage them.[38][39]

In 2012, ecommerce sales topped $1 trillion for the first time in history.[40]




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-commerce#Global_trends





It can't.
Laying aside the technical difficulties, which I don't know enough about, we still have practical difficulties.
Just think about the number of decisions that need to be made. Roads, communication, houses etc. In a communist society this would be even more because democratic decision-making will not be limited to political-life but also to economic-life. I think a pure direct-democracy is just impossible if you still want to get anything done. Doing it electronically would speed up the process but think about it, you wake up in the morning and check your inbox: "2 million proposals to vote on".





It seems you're implying that direct democracy necessitates everyone deciding on the most minute of details yet I don't think anyone who advocates forms of direct democracy would, for example, think it prudent for people without the expertise to make decisions about how to best construct a bridge yet the community is more than capable of determining whether they need a bridge


I'll agree that geographical proximity is an inherently limiting factor -- only those closest to a local project (like a bridge) would have a social interest in it, with outlying localities necessarily having to defer.

I advocate a 'hybrid' model of local-to-global egalitarian mass co-administration over all collectivized production, one that would be self-limiting according to geography and the scope of whatever the project is at hand:


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

http://s6.postimage.org/ccfl07uy5/Multi_Tiered_System_of_Productive_and_Consumptiv.j pg (http://postimage.org/image/ccfl07uy5/)





and, in conjunction with engineers and geologists, determining the best location to construct it.


I think it's important to point out that, in the spirit of communism, it's not good to rely on any approach that smacks of technocracy, or even the least bit of technical specialization. Instead, we should aim to generalize all technical knowledge and expertise among all individuals who are participating in the political process, whatever that may be. All political participants, in *any* context, are necessarily 'self-selected' in the sense that real political involvement requires conscious acts of will in a social setting -- those who don't want to do this kind of thing will thus not be participating.





Delegates wouldn't change that. Delegates vote what the group they delegate for want right? So there must be voted on what that group wants and so you still have the same issue. Representatives would be something different, also with problems of itself of course.










Third, direct decision-making must play an important but restricted role. Due to the very large number of decisions that will have to be made at various levels, only decisions at the lowest (local) level and a small proportion of decisions at higher levels can be made directly by a meeting or referendum of all concerned. The vast majority of decisions at higher levels will have to be made by elected councils of delegates or assemblies of representatives.





4. Ends -- Flat, all-inclusive mode of participation at all levels without delegated representatives




[In] this day and age of fluid digital-based communications, we may want to dispense with formalized representative personages altogether and just conceptualize a productive entity within a supply chain network as having 'external business' or 'external matters' to include in its regular routine of entity-collective co-administration among its participants.




Given that people make *points* on any of a number of *issues*, which may comprise some larger *topics* -- and these fall into some general *themes*, or *categories* -- wouldn't this very discussion-board format of RevLeft be altogether suitable for a massively parallel (ground-level) political participation among all those concerned, particularly workers, for *all scales* of political implementation -- ?

I think there's conventionally been a kind of lingering anxiety over the political "workload" that would confront any regular person who would work *and* wish to have active, impacting participation in real-world policy, along the lines of the examples you've provided for this thread's discussion.

But I'll note that, for any given concrete issue, not everyone would *necessarily* find the material need to individually weigh in with a distinct proposal of their own -- as I think we've seen here from our own regular participation at RevLeft, it's often the case that a simple press of the 'Thanks' button is all that's needed in many cases where a comrade has *already* put forth the words that we would have said ourselves, thereby relieving us from the task of writing that sentiment ourselves.

Would concrete issues at higher, more-generalized levels be so different, so inaccessible to the regular, affected person on the ground? Wouldn't the information gathered within such an appropriate thread of discussion "clue everyone in" as the overall situation at that level -- say, from the participants of several different countries -- ?

I'll ask if delegated representatives *are* really required anymore when our current political vehicle, the Internet-based discussion board, can facilitate massively participatory, though orderly and topic-specific conversations, across all ranges of geography and scales of populations.




tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-concise-communism


Centralization-Abstraction Diagram of Political Forms

http://s6.postimage.org/xxj3liay5/2374201420046342459e_NEwo_V_fs.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/xxj3liay5/)

[helot]

I think it's important to point out that, in the spirit of communism, it's not good to rely on any approach that smacks of technocracy, or even the least bit of technical specialization. Instead, we should aim to generalize all technical knowledge and expertise among all individuals who are participating in the political process, whatever that may be. All political participants, in *any* context, are necessarily 'self-selected' in the sense that real political involvement requires conscious acts of will in a social setting -- those who don't want to do this kind of thing will thus not be participating.



It wasn't my intention to imply anything to do with technocracy or that there shouldn't be means to generalise knowledge as much as possible. My inclusion of geologists and engineers was shorthand for those with the necessary knowledge and skill advising, not governing, the community so as to make sure that the hypothetical bridge's location and construction meet a minimum of standards (whatever these are) so as to render it safe. Of course, the more this knowledge and skill is dispersed among the general population the higher probability of the community reaching the best decision possible but i don't think we should expect everyone to have technical knowledge and expertise from all fields.

[ckaihatsu]

It wasn't my intention to imply anything to do with technocracy or that there shouldn't be means to generalise knowledge as much as possible. My inclusion of geologists and engineers was shorthand for those with the necessary knowledge and skill advising, not governing, the community so as to make sure that the hypothetical bridge's location and construction meet a minimum of standards (whatever these are) so as to render it safe.




Of course, the more this knowledge and skill is dispersed among the general population the higher probability of the community reaching the best decision possible but i don't think we should expect everyone to have technical knowledge and expertise from all fields.


Well, the point of de-specialization is a sidenote to this thread, I guess, but it's an under-represented point, in general.

As revolutionaries we struggle to make revolutionary *politics* as de-mystified and accessible as possible, so as to *de-specialize* political matters away from the ruling elite -- technical matters should be appreciated almost on the same level, so that there can be no factionalism based on *technical* know-how.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Delegates wouldn't change that. Delegates vote what the group they delegate for want right? So there must be voted on what that group wants and so you still have the same issue. Representatives would be something different, also with problems of itself of course.

Communist society must be run according to demarchy, as Paul Cockshott explains. But alone to strive for communist society is utopian at this point. Seeing as the balance of civilization hangs on its brink during this systemic crisis of capitalism, we have to simply fight for one united political movement for a Socialist economy. Once the party struggle and popular agitation for Socialism in our countries reaches a certain degree of resonance in a number of countries and continents, then the leadership of these hegemonic Socialist parties would have to make clear how to go beyond the money economy and onto the building of communist society.

But even if working class power were taken in many countries and whole continents, the working populations of the 'communist countries' will first have to be,
a) educated on fundamental realities of Scientific Socialism,
b) relieved of its long work hours while still materially satisfied
c) encouraged to educate themselves, emboldened to become socially and politically active within the existing socialist system, and generally become intellectually independent persons capable of critical analysis and taking on political administrative tasks.

What matters really is that the Class Enemy is overthrown on a scale wide and strong enough to give the new Socialist States the economic and military upper-hand against the Class States.

That process has to start with the building of mass Communist PArties and reformation of a Workers' International.