What Would Change if Politicians Wrote Laws Based on Internet Polls?

[Denny Crane!]

What Would Change if Politicians Wrote Laws Based on Internet Polls?
Robert Sorokanich -

A new American political party, designed by software devs and engineers, is joining the race in California. If elected, PlaceAVote's Congressional candidates vow to decide on every bill based on the majority vote of their constituents—as measured via online polling. Could that sort of direct, digital democracy improve how politics works? Would it make governments more dysfunctional? (Is the latter even possible?)

On the one hand, there's something gratifyingly simple (if perhaps a bit naive) about the idea that an elected official would, I dunno, vote based on the stated desires of his or her constituents. It would provide a much more finely-honed form of representation than the current "they voted for me, which means they trust me to do what I, or the party, want" system.

On the other hand, though, just because something is popular doesn't mean it's smart. (Insert tired, overplayed joke about Justin Bieber here. It's the weekend and I can't think of anything wittier. Sue me.)
And in particular, there's something unsettling about handing the governmental steering wheel over to the nebulous and unsavoury group known as The Internet. This is, after all, the same Internet that gave us Reddit. And 4chan. Would you want to live in a world governed by 4chan?

So what do you think? Would you vote for a candidate whose entire mode of governing boils down to "let the internet decide"? Or would that just bring our already molasses-slow system grinding to a complete halt? Sound off in our comment section—which, by the way, is more of a constitutional monarchy than anything.

Originally posted on Gizmodo.com



So this effectively solves the debate on how to stop money running politics as they won't be able control the politics with this party in charge but is this really a good idea?

[Farnan]

Too open for fraud. What is to stop multiple voting, and voting outside your area?

And it disenfranchises the small population without internet access. It introduces a wealth barrier to voting.

And finally there is the problem of Tyranny of the Majority. See the minaret issue in Switzerland.

[Heathen Hammer]

Too open for fraud. What is to stop multiple voting, and voting outside your area?

Captcha. Foreign IP block.

And it disenfranchises the small population without internet access. It introduces a wealth barrier to voting.

Internet cafe's should provide free internet access during the "elections".

And finally there is the problem of Tyranny of the Majority. See the minaret issue in Switzerland.

Tyranny of the Minority isn't a better solution. Not to mention that what happened in Switzerland was of lesser evil.

[Denny Crane!]

Wealth barrier to voting? Not in the UK, we have public internet access as well as what people have in homes at every library in the UK. So I mean that isn't a major problem to overcome. If anything it is a barrier against age as an awful lot of older people do not know how to use the internet.

Fraud again does not have to be an issue. Look at voting and the xRoad in Estonia, something that many British politicians want to see in the UK as as models go for public/private interaction this is the best one yet.

Tyranny of majority...isn't this the ideal of democracy?

[Farnan]

Wealth barrier to voting? Not in the UK, we have public internet access as well as what people have in homes at every library in the UK. So I mean that isn't a major problem to overcome. If anything it is a barrier against age as an awful lot of older people do not know how to use the internet.

Depends how the word about bills get out. Yes libraries have internet, but only 83% of UK households and 81% of US households have internet. If information about bills came thru the internet than those that rely upon library internet would be highly disadvantaged.

Fraud again does not have to be an issue. Look at voting and the xRoad in Estonia, something that many British politicians want to see in the UK as as models go for public/private interaction this is the best one yet.

That requires the establishment of a mandatory ID card system with a microchip in it, the distribution of card readers for home users, and other infrastructure requirements. The cost would be massive for countries larger than Estonia. And there is also the issue of Spouses forcing voting or voting for your spouse.

And there is the crowd that opposes all mandatory ID cards.

Tyranny of majority...isn't this the ideal of democracy?

You got ideal and danger mixed up. It's why the concept of checks and balances came into place.

[Denny Crane!]

Depends how the word about bills get out. Yes libraries have internet, but only 83% of UK households and 81% of US households have internet. If information about bills came thru the internet than those that rely upon library internet would be highly disadvantaged.

Considering those currently active in government are far less than that then no you can say that they would have the ability to access the information the same as any other group. The x Road only saw a 3% increase in political participation, that might grow in time but so could the amount of public service offered to make sure ease of access was assured. And it isn't like having the internet is a big financial burden. Not having it is more a choice than an issue of resources as prices have tumbled. Where other issues are involved like education or more rarely really the inability to spend £5 a month it is a wonderful opportunity to remedy that with a minimal investment.

As far as I can see this first principal objections offers more opportunities than problems in looking at it. Opportunities to create better services and enhance the lives of the poorest and opportunities to increase political participation and make sure that those who want to know can. Consider this, how else would these people get access to information about upcoming bills? I mean you paint that as a problem with the proposed system, is it any better now? We have in the UK radio 4 and the parliament channel though I wonder how many utilise it.

That requires the establishment of a mandatory ID card system with a microchip in it, the distribution of card readers for home users, and other infrastructure requirements. The cost would be massive for countries larger than Estonia. And there is also the issue of Spouses forcing voting or voting for your spouse.

Actually no it doesn't. We already have in the UK the government secure intranet for accessing and using some services that require secure logins without a national identity card or chip readers. Which makes sense because I can do the most dangerous thing possible online without an ID card and that is to manage my finances, so I think I can work an arguably less information rich and attractive service to criminal elements like issuing my vote or accessing health with the same level of security.

And there is the crowd that opposes all mandatory ID cards.

With good reason but that doesn't mean they are always a bad idea.

You got ideal and danger mixed up. It's why the concept of checks and balances came into place.

Well no I didn't because that is the present ideal that democracy is built upon but it is failing largely for a few reasons.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_le...e_must_reclaim

I can summarise if you haven't seen it and don't want to, but I'll make a bad job of it.

[AqD]

Yes.

No matter how ridiculous it sounds, it's the only way to stop your countries from making very stupid and unpopular moves such as opening border or waging war against some distant country that has nothing to do with anyone at all. It also forces people to study national issues and help them become responsible.

It is the Athenian democracy modernized.

[Ace_General]

Yes.

No matter how ridiculous it sounds, it's the only way to stop your countries from making very stupid and unpopular moves such as opening border or waging war against some distant country that has nothing to do with anyone at all. It also forces people to study national issues and help them become responsible.

It is the Athenian democracy modernized.

You do know that athenian democracy was pretty pants on head retarded, and had an Imperial hubris and knack for sensless invasions that would make Dick Cheney and George W. Bush Proud.

Read some Thuycidadies bro, look up how the Athenians basically goaded the spartans into war, their pretty much retarded invasion of Syracuse, or the just naked outright thuggery of the Athenians in the Melian Dialogues(where the Athenians, 15 years into the Peloponesian war said to a small neutral city "your with us or aganist us" and when the people of Melos decided they wanted to be neutral, the Athenians burned their city, killed all the men, and enslaved all the women and children)

[conon394]

You got ideal and danger mixed up. It's why the concept of checks and balances came into place.

And the OP ideal would not disturb that - at least in the US since it would not impact the courts, President, or independent agencies. In the US you could refine even more because you still leave the Senate as it is. But also the US at least you likely achieve most of that more simply removing the artificial barrier on the size of the house and allowing to grow back closer to the ratio we had 200 years ago (and control gerrymandering better)

[Denny Crane!]

Conon if you can be bothered could you explain that a bit more for someone not so well versed in American politics. The UK structure is somewhat more simple and I am more familiar wit it of course.

[Symphony]

Conon if you can be bothered could you explain that a bit more for someone not so well versed in American politics. The UK structure is somewhat more simple and I am more familiar wit it of course.

Ended up on the wrong page accidentally, but it's not so old that it's a necro yet. Which part of conon's post was unfamiliar (and is it still unfamiliar)?

[Big War Bird]

Who writes the poll questions?

[Col. Tartleton]

I'd change my citizenship. Bada boom.

[Border Patrol]

It's California. We're already a direct democracy run into the ground. Opening the way for more knee-jerk emotional laws couldn't make things worse.

[Gatsby]

More direct democracy and diminishing the influence of the elderly population? Yes please.

[Symphony]

More direct democracy and diminishing the influence of the elderly population? Yes please.

Hell yeah! Disenfranchise people who tend not to agree with us wherever we can!

....yes, i know that's probably not how you meant it, but it's the first thing I thought when I read your post.

[Gatsby]

I was being facetious at the time but on second thought to me it doesn't seem totally unthinkable that if you can be disenfranchised for being too young you can be disenfranchised for being too old. Oftentimes in extreme cases the two show an almost cyclical similarity, like how on the left-right political spectrum the two extreme poles end up being similar.

[Symphony]

Interesting....how do you feel the young are being disenfranchised (assuming you're not talking about those too young legally to vote)?

[Gatsby]

Well I am talking about the very large number of young people who despite evident mental capacity to do so are disqualified from voting due to the arbitrary age limit, meanwhile the many elderly people who suffer from a severe loss of mental function are still entitled to vote, or at least nominate somebody to go vote for them.

I am really just venting against the hypocrisy of it. Of course it would be ethically outrageous to apply a mental threshold to who can vote, but that is in essence the purpose of age limitations, although it is simply an inefficient way of doing so - it is very possible for somebody below the limit to be more informed and capable than those above it.

Really they should just let anybody of any age vote if they want, but of course that is not going to happen, but as I said I don't pretend issues of voter ability can be fixed.

[Symphony]

Well I am talking about the very large number of young people who despite evident mental capacity to do so are disqualified from voting due to the arbitrary age limit, meanwhile the many elderly people who suffer from a severe loss of mental function are still entitled to vote, or at least nominate somebody to go vote for them.

I am really just venting against the hypocrisy of it. Of course it would be ethically outrageous to apply a mental threshold to who can vote, but that is in essence the purpose of age limitations, although it is simply an inefficient way of doing so - it is very possible for somebody below the limit to be more informed and capable than those above it.

Really they should just let anybody of any age vote if they want, but of course that is not going to happen, but as I said I don't pretend issues of voter ability can be fixed.

Ok, fair enough. For what it's worth, I agree there are likely as many 16-year-olds that are mentally and emotionally capable of casting a vote as there are 85-year-olds that aren't. I don't know that the same holds true of 14-year-olds, or 8. It's a sticky question, as you say.

Also for what it's worth, I don't believe the barrier to voting for the elderly is as severe as Denny implies, nor do I feel it would be problematic to force the elderly to learn enough to be able to make use of it. Most elderly anymore can use a simple browser (we're not asking anyone to code or install hardware, after all), and using a browser and clicking radio buttons is certainly no more challenging than learning where and how to register, where and how to take advantage of absentee voting where necessary, educating oneself about the candidates or issues, or any of the other things we expect responsible voters to do. I don't think it's too much to ask to get them to master their fear of the Newfangled Young Folk's Magic Box every couple of years.