Virtual Democracy: A New Way to Govern the Masses

[corra]

You guys are smart and give good replies so i thought i would run this by you folks.

Theoretically communism is the best for of government we have thus far, in praksis however that changes dramatically.

Democracy is the current leader when it comes to ruling the masses...
but is it not time that changed?...

virtual democracy could be the way to go, here is a scenario for you folks.
Politicians do not govern, they will instead enlighten.
politicians do not make decisions for the people, the people make decisions for the politicians.

This is how i see it go down.
Each day at a preset time there would be a news report on a national television channel, this report would mention the events that need to be decided upon. (such as fishing quotes, national investment, international aid etc.

if one of the cases peaked your interest you could log on at the nearest internet connection and type in personal info to verify that it is you.
you would then vote on the subject at hand.
There could be a time limit of a few days or weeks on the vote depending on the urgency of the situation.

Basically the people would rule the land and the politicians would be the debaters for the issues the people can vote upon.im sure you can find problems with this scenario but think about it and you can find the solution as well.
technology makes life easier and voting over the cell phone would give power to the common man.

does not have to be a state either... it could be a city project or a county project.

 

[corra]

Just to clarify, i am not saying this is a perfect governing form but it might be the next step.

today many democratic goverments have problems with things like efficiency, corruption, corporate puppet politicians and more.

In the early day the man with the biggest club ruled.

After that it was the king with his bloodline that ruled.

now it is the people who can confuse you the most that rule, those that can speak for hours about a subject and leave actual information behind that would fit on a piece of paper you could read in 5 minutes.

Is it not time the man in the street ruled?
not the people with the biggest wallets...

 

[Smurf]

Is it not time the man in the street ruled?
not the people with the biggest wallets...

First impression: In the situation you described, only those with computers or cell phones could vote. Not exactly the 'man in the street'

 

[Smurf]

Ok, seriously then? What you just described is direct democracy with a technological component to it. In my opinion the technological component is the biggest mistake political theory has ever made. Every single ideology in the last 100 years has claimed technology as their salvation and bringer, and we know that at least most of them were wrong.

As for the criticisms of direct democracy as a whole? It's mob rule. This was largely the case in Ancient Greece, and to a lesser extent Ancient Rome (at certain times). Most modern democracies experience this in a limited fashion through referenum (also called initiatives and referrals in the USA) and I think it's pretty pointless. Your average citizen can't be bothered to care about every decision that needs to be made, and in many ways that's the strength of representative democracy, people don't care. And that's a good thing. (Read John Ralston Saul for some good theory on this)

but more specifically it's expensive, time consuming, and very very very hard to monitor for fraud if only because of the sheer number of voters. In a parliament there's only a hundred or two people who vote, so you can literally ask each one who they voted for and check that against their ballot, in a country of millions, or even a city of thousands, that becomes impossible.

finally, as a poli sci major, I find that most people don't actually learn anything about the issues, (mostly because they don't care enough to find them out; see above) another reason why professional politicians is a good idea.

And besides, there's no perfect voting system. Even if you de-centralize political voting to the extreme, the very act will still be fundamentally unfair. it's unavoidable.

 

[regent]

Theoretically communism is the best for of government we have thus far, in praksis however that changes dramatically.

Anarchy would theoretically be the finest form of 'government', because the establishment of total anarchy means that all people have moral discipline and ethical virtue so much to the point that a government system would not be necessary.

 

[out of whack]

Direct democracy makes for haphazard decision making. It is based on the whims of the moment, by those who feel like voting on that particular topic and on that particular day. I doubt very much that the best long term decisions can be made through this process. It seems better to elect professional decision makers who specialize in the field under consideration and who can make informed decisions. I wish we could vote separately for the ministers of energy, forestry, education and so on, from among candidates who actually know something about it instead of generic politicians.

 

[Crosson]

Has anyone seen the American coverage of the French national election? After seeing the way the male candidate kept accusing the female candidate 'you lost your cool', and just repeating that ad nauseam while she spoke passionately about issues, and then she sank in the polls, my last hope for democracy died.

 

[Smurf]

you know those candidates have names, right? They're not defined by their genders.

 

[Crosson]

you know those candidates have names, right? They're not defined by their genders.

Oh, but they are defined by their names? Or do mine and your proposed descriptions reference the same thing equally well? Next time leave it to Sarkozy and Royale (the candidates) to be personally offended, and fight your gender battle in a more constructive way.