eDemocracy - Direct democracy through technology

[Acolyte Of Death]

Picture this: a democratic system in which the people have the ultimate rule, the ultimate vote. In essence, the re-creation of Athenian democracy. You see, it's all too clear that old forms of democracy simply can't work anymore - there are simply too many people, in too big a world. Well what, then, is linking people from all around the world?

The answer: the Internet.]

What do we see today? Cellphones, pagers, PDAs, Laptops, Wireless Internet connection, DSL, global satellite networks, fibre optics, email, text-messaging. The list goes on and on. Is it possible, with the advent of modern global communications, to invent a system of direct democracy which could link people from around the globe?

In the earliest stages government could come from randomly-selected individuals who would serve in office for about one year. This council could consist of about 500-1000 people representing their provinces/territories/states, and would draft up propositions for laws. Then they could place the proposal before the national Assembly - an online 'forum' of sorts devoted to governing the nation, where everyone could vote on passing the proposal. It'd then be in the responsibility of the people to carry it out, as the proposal would become national policy.

How could this be carried out? Only through the equal distribution of information technology resources. Thus, an eDemocracy could only arise from a socialistic government, because a socialist government would be able to provide public computer resources and/or personal computers/communications technologies for everyone.

What are your opinions?

[redstar2000]

I think something like this is quite plausible and perhaps inevitable.

First, by the time there are communist revolutions, people are apt to be more "tied in" to the internet than they are now...it will seem "natural" to use it for democratic decision-making.

Second, filling all government-type positions by lottery has a strong appeal all by itself...it would be a major barrier against those who might propose themselves as a "vanguard" elite especially "entitled" to rule over the working class "in the name of the working class".

It might be better, though, to forget about representation on a geographical basis; representation by occupation might give a more accurate picture of what people really need.

:cool:

[Acolyte Of Death]

You mean selecting random individuals from different pools of labour: farmworkers here, doctors there, engineers, scientists, construction workers, educators, industrial workers, etc. ?

[redstar2000]

Yes, exactly. But also from groups that are not traditionally considered "workers"...housewives, sex workers, whatever.

My thought is that geography is becoming irrelevant in global capitalism; but the needs of particular kinds of workers are becoming more similar...and these trends will be continuing over the rest of this century.

An auto worker in Alabama has much more in common with an auto worker in Munich or Jakarta than s/he does with a farmer in his/her own state...or anywhere.

When you stop and think about it, the idea of "geographical citizenship" in the modern era is a relic of class society...something that emerged during the long slow rise of capitalism in western Europe. There's nothing particularly "sacred" or "inevitable" about it; perhaps by getting rid of it we'd also cut the ground out from under a lot of the nationalist crap that still pollutes the political atmosphere. Let every little group that wants a "nation" have one; but real political and economic power would be concentrated directly in the working class without regard to geographic location.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 12:19 pm on May 11, 2003)

[Donut Master]

I agree with all of these ideas, and that it is probably inevitable. It's certinaly a smack in the face to those who believe direct democracy is a logistical nighmare. :biggrin:

[Dhul Fiqar]

The main problems I see are access and abuse. First of all, if not everyone has the economic resources to access these services, then they are disenfranchised. There would need to be an absolute 100% connection rate across the entire population to make this system fair to the working class.

Secondly, there is always the potential for abuse when you have digitized information. Whenever a new way of encryption is found, a new way to circumvent it is found. It is more than conceivable that results could be tampered with in several different ways, both at the source and at the point of collection.

It's a good idea, but has serious problems...

--- G.

[Acolyte Of Death]

Well, to have a true eDemocracy, you'd have to egalitarise computer access - perhaps by building public-access computer centres?

[SwedishCommie]

Its an intressting idea!
But i feel that when you decide things over the net people could to easely hack in and change the information.
But having computers in public access computer centers is a great idea!!

[SwedishCommie]

And the society shouldnt be to dependant on computers when computer viruses or failing electrisity could cause chaos and other bad things!!

[peaccenicked]

I would not be too scared of what might go wrong, be over cautious never changed anything. I dont see why everybody should not have the latest wireless internet connected laptop or at least aim that way. I would sharing one for an hour or two a week.

[redstar2000]

I see your points, Dhul, and not being any kind of a "techie" myself, I can only assume that there are, in principle, solutions to the problems you raise.

One thing that occurs to me is redundancy...the protection of crucial information in a series of semi-independent centers, making the task of "hacking" far more difficult. To alter the outcome of a referendum, for example, the counter-revolutionary would have to hack into hundreds of different computers, each with its own combination of firewalls. Not impossible, perhaps, but really hard.

Basic access to the internet--wireless broadband--should cost in the future about the same as a phone call does now. I can't see that as more than a momentary problem.

:cool:

[Iepilei]

truth be known, internet access would be dirt cheap if it were not run by profiteering gluttons.

good ol hackers manifesto.

anyways, the concept of eDemocracy as well as eEconomy are two things I've often supported. Imagine being able to vote on anything that's on the discussion floor, to be seen by representatives in real time, and to make a profound influence on your politics. To have contact with those who symbolise and represent, to represent ourselves in a way.

Nothing more than a voter registration card, and a access terminal in a traditional or non-traditional locale (like a consumer centre, or plaza).

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

eDemocracy is the last hope, in Britain at least, of becoming more democratic.

In the recent Welsh Assembly election, some constituencies tried out full postal voting which proved successful. I think the average for these constituencies was like 75%. The average for the rest of Wales was around 38% which, remember was raised by those postal constituencies.

The most important thing is to get the voters in. We had 49% not turning up in the last general election. If eDemocracy means we can up that to nearer 75% then bring it on. I know it ashouldnt be the case that the leazy British public can't be arsed getting up off their backsides to vote so we bring it to their home, but thats the way it is.

(Edited by Socialsmo o Muerte at 7:47 pm on May 20, 2003)

[inessa1917]

i think it's a good idea, but the only thing is that we should invent some more comfortable way of internet communication which is easily and fast accessible for everyone. (i have organised many things thru internet and it wasn't always that heavenly stuff, although got ASDL & stuff :-/)

i cannot really imagine how it would look like, but i think anyway that direct democracy should be always done in smaller units than an average country. anyway, the only place in the world where direct democracy exists is Porto Alegre, Brasil. Does anybody have further infos about how does it work and look like?

[suffianr]

Basic access to the internet--wireless broadband--should cost in the future about the same as a phone call does now. I can't see that as more than a momentary problem.

I sincerely hope so. Within the next five to ten years, at least?

The trouble is, this is presently impossible in capitalist-driven economies.

In Kuala Lumpur, Telekom Malaysia's Streamyx - Malaysia's premier broadband service - was implemented and made available for commercial use only within the past financial year. Broadband has been available for, what, at least a few years already, but we got it only recently...Why? Because we didn't have the infrastructure.

We didn't have a proper network distribution, and even when the actual work began, the nodes were set up in upper-class urban areas (districts like Mont Kiara, and Putrajaya, the modern seat of Malaysia's government). The rich got to use it first, before everyone else.

Okay, nowadays more people have broadband, more universities and public institutions...but now Telekom Malaysia can't keep up with the demand. It's like they never beta-tested the network...Streamyx is unreliable, prone to breakdowns and suffers congestion during peak hours. Where is the supposed capitalist-driven efficiency? The customer service?

Sure, we have DSL but what about the T3 lines? Those aren't commercially available yet, and despite the relative advantages of Streamyx, Telekom Malaysia has a monopoly; there aren't any real competitors! What's so capitalistic about that?

Why not bring down the price? Why not implement a phase out of dial-up in favour of DSL in all public institutions? What the hell are they waiting for?

Profit, would be my guess. They are reaping all that we sow. Ah hell, I'm ranting again...

[Kwisatz Haderach]

First of all, to clear up some misunderstandings (Socialsmo o Muerte): eDemocracy doesn't mean that you just vote for your favourite capitalist exploiters from the comfort of your own home. It means that the capitalist exploiters are removed altogether, and the people vote directly on the laws themselves. In essence, every citizen is a member of Parliament.

I think it's a wonderful idea. In fact, I've been supporting direct democracy from even before I became a Communist. I see only one problem with it: What about those decisions that require in-depth knowledge of the issue at hand, like various small-but-important tweaks to the economy? You can't expect every citizen to know every small detail of how the country/community works. That is why I believe some degree of representation will always remain, namely in those areas where an expert eye is needed. However, the people should have the option of voting "no confidence" at any time, instead of having to wait 4 years for it.

[Acolyte Of Death]

That isn't quite neccessary. You see, my idea for an eDemocracy would be to divide up the nation's population into many small communities - districts if you will - like small parts of a city in urban areas, and small towns in rural ones. These small groups of no more than 1000-2000 individuals would meet every now and then to discuss community issues, and when time came that it was needed for the community to decide on an issue in the government, through eDemocracy, it would collectively make a decision and each person would vote a certain way. This would take place after discussion and sharing of ideas and knowledge through the community meeting, which is essential to the good government of any directly-democratic society.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

That's a very good idea, but I see no practical way of going from present-day capitalist society to this kind of "ultimate Communism". People just wouldn't have the time to come together and discuss things, and the whole economy of the Earth would need fundamental changes before such small communities are possible...

In short, they could never survive if they were surrounded by capitalist countries. The whole world would need to be Communist before this sort of thing is possible.

Until then, the best approach is a limited direct democracy, like I said earlier...

[Acolyte Of Death]

No... we cannot 'limit' direct democracy. Once the people seize power, it is neccessary that the people retain power. Though an eDemocracy would work best under the conditions aforementioned, it is absolutely neccessary that we provide stable, secure, public internet access for everyone. Whether this is done by public computer systems, or some other way, does not matter - the core of the idea is that immediately after making the transition to socialism, it behooves us to change the government to eDemocracy so that a dictator cannot seize power.